A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists • Hacker News Board

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#181

Post by nitwit005 » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 3:47 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #120

richdougherty wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good analogy, but the padlock has already bolted! Information about the uncrackable padlock is widely available. Bad guys will always be able to get these padlocks from the black market. The question is whether we want the good guys (i.e. us) to have the padlocks too.

This is a fair counter, but I feel like we already have examples of how the government would respond there. We might have to switch analogies, but wouldn't encryption then be like a weapon. The goal would then shift to being about deproliferation. The fact that nuclear weapons or AK47s already exist doesn't prevent the government from preventing regular people from acquiring or using them. Maybe preventing new produc…

"Deproliferation" is impossible. It's not like banning guns. It's like banning the idea of how a gun works from ever being communicated, burning every book that contains the concept, erasing it from all electronic records, and strictly monitoring anyone with chemistry or metallurgy knowledge.

All you need to write an encryption program is an explanation of the concept behind a single algorithm, someone with math smarts, and almost any computer.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#182

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 3:55 AM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #174

nickpsecurity wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great writeup. On top of it, the terror attacks are extremely rare because most people have no interest committing mass-murder and the few that do rarely have motive/opportunity. So, refusing to be terrorized remains the best bet. Far as intelligence agencies, they've not just failed: they've often tried to cover it up, mislead other authorities, or even destroy evidence. The result of incompetent organizations not c…

How do you convince someone to refuse to be terrorized though? If I know someone who feels genuine fear when they hear about these sorts of attacks, what do I say to them? "You're an idiot", "here is some math", and "you're giving them power over you" are not effective approaches. How do I convince someone they should try to not feel fear if they strongly believe their fear is valid and that attempts to invalidate th…

I think "here is some math" is a good way, but you need to be really delicate about it and take it slowly. What you're fighting is an emotional reaction that's hard-wired into our brains. The problem stems from them having an invalid view of the world, i.e. perceiving terror attacks as vastly more probable than they really are. Therefore you need to fix their worldview - or rather, help them fix it themselves. Showing the attacks in perspective is one way to do that, and the one that - over time - helped me stop worrying, even though after 9/11 I was scared the world is ending and that I'll die in a mall attack tomorrow. It takes time, and you can't push it too hard - if you become their conversational enemy, you've not just lost, you'll strenghten their fears.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#183

Post by prawn » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:01 AM UTC

Spearchucker wrote: post #112

jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

You nailed it, I think. If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed. Realizing it's a pipe dream, I'd love to see a world accept that we the west have done so much damage that nothing will stop terrorism. Accepting that means we can throw those wasted resources at things that have a better chance of working - throw the tech that detects copyright infringements at detecting pro-ISIL si…

I liked this comment on Reddit which I think is relevant in a discussion about combatting this form of terrorism:

"The problem is that we have forgotten the power of ideology and the way that you cultivate civilized discourse and expectations. In the Western world, we've spent the last 40 years shitting all over the best weapons we have to address ideology: philosophy, literature, poetry, art, music and religious discourse. We've marginalized the way to talk about the abstract elements of human experience, and now we find that we have nothing to say."

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#184

Post by prawn » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #118

privacy101 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they would be better off trying to stop what causes these terrorists from wanting to attack us...

That's a long term plan. People are clamoring for action 'now' and want this to end preferably next week. To tell them that there is no 7 day solution to this is going to be a very tough sell.

And if the seven day solution perpetually sows the seeds for future terror?

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#185

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #177

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>ou want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's... ambitious. No, the goal should be to improve the living conditions, infrastructure, access to education, etc of impoverished regions where terrorist sentiment typically appears and festers. To give an extreme example, there is a reason the Saudi royalty aren't walking into the middle of a marketplace and blowing themselves up: they alre…

Ah yes, the good old 'if only they could all be treated like Saudi royalty, they wouldn't blow themselves up in the middle of a marketplace' argument! Standard of living is a continuous curve which has absolutely nothing to do with mass murder. There is a binary switch which occurs separately from any experience which is measured in terms of 'standard of living'. Now maybe there are some experiences which can drive a…

> these are a group of people who use terrorism as a tool to wage war

You mean the United States of America, terrorizing Pakistanis for years now?

There's no binary switch. There are tactics effective for given goals and circumstances. Mass shootings and suicide bombings are a perfect strategy if you want to make a country destroy itself. The question is - why would you like to make that country destroy itself? The answer is not:

> It's not because of standard of living, I'm pretty sure it's because they hate everything the West stands for and wants it to burn.

That's not only bullshit but, if it were true, it would be the best argument to just ignore those attacks and treat them as any other murder done by organized crime. Because if they "hate our freedom", then by overreacting and turning ourselves into police states, we're doing their job for them - we're putting our economy and industry into dismantling everything the West stands for.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#186

Post by etherael » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:04 AM UTC

Futurebot wrote: post #173

russnewcomer wrote: post #8

Encryption backdoors are a lightning-rod topic on HN, but instead of repeating all the common-talking points, I'd suggest the following: Think through something like this, outside of your expertise, that you think the powers-that-be should just do. Maybe it's something with your local municipality's approach to road resurfacing, maybe it's the quarterback on your favorite football team, maybe it's your local zoning b…

I'd love to see what a detailed version of security policies and infrastructure look like in a world of backdoor-less strong encryption from Schneier, the EFF, the Hopkins crew, etc. Something that can be used to persuade, or at least influence policymakers by allowing them to see that another way is possible, one that allows security services to do their job in a way that allows them to feel that their work isn't fu…

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, one does not need to formulate an alternate strategy to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Strong encryption cannot be back doored in an effective way, this is just a fact. Ignoring that fact because we wish it were otherwise, or asking the people that point out that fact what we're supposed to do in light of that fact, doesn't change that fact.

The group constantly pushing for backdoored strong encryption fails to realise that they are asking for regulations to ensure that all water is only ever sold in ice form. This does not, and cannot, mean that all water will only be available as ice. This needs to be realised, accepted and moved on from.

Only then we can start actually trying to formulate a coherent asymmetric warfare strategy, cognisant of the actual facts on the ground rather than wishful thinking and ignorance.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#187

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:06 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #156

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was it, why are these terrorists not attacking Armenia? Or Zambia? Or Mexico? Or pretty much anywhere in Central and South America? All those have a higher percentage of Christians in their populations than the US or anywhere in Western Europe, and they don't have the same level of anti-terrorism focus so are presumably easier targets. Could it simply be that those countries haven't been bombing and invading…

Why do you think you know more about why Al Qaeda and ISIS attack the West than Al Qaeda and ISIS? They have explicitly and repeatedly stated other reasons for their attacks on the West than those you claim. Why don't you believe them? To put it more simply: when Danish cartoonists are threatened for offending Islam, is that also because of imperialism?

> They have explicitly and repeatedly stated other reasons for their attacks on the West than those you claim.

And why would you believe them? What they say on TV is also a weapon. People who don't come and negotiate but go straight to killing won't be posting their real goals on their website, they'll rather post something that helps further those goals.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#188

Post by mdpopescu » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:09 AM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #174

nickpsecurity wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great writeup. On top of it, the terror attacks are extremely rare because most people have no interest committing mass-murder and the few that do rarely have motive/opportunity. So, refusing to be terrorized remains the best bet. Far as intelligence agencies, they've not just failed: they've often tried to cover it up, mislead other authorities, or even destroy evidence. The result of incompetent organizations not c…

How do you convince someone to refuse to be terrorized though? If I know someone who feels genuine fear when they hear about these sorts of attacks, what do I say to them? "You're an idiot", "here is some math", and "you're giving them power over you" are not effective approaches. How do I convince someone they should try to not feel fear if they strongly believe their fear is valid and that attempts to invalidate th…

How do you convince someone that flying is the safest mode of transportation? Sometimes you just can't.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#189

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #120

richdougherty wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good analogy, but the padlock has already bolted! Information about the uncrackable padlock is widely available. Bad guys will always be able to get these padlocks from the black market. The question is whether we want the good guys (i.e. us) to have the padlocks too.

This is a fair counter, but I feel like we already have examples of how the government would respond there. We might have to switch analogies, but wouldn't encryption then be like a weapon. The goal would then shift to being about deproliferation. The fact that nuclear weapons or AK47s already exist doesn't prevent the government from preventing regular people from acquiring or using them. Maybe preventing new produc…

I think there would be an ever better angle to this. If the government can listen to any legally encrypted communication via their backdoors, then by definition any communication they can't listen to is illegal and they can focus their intelligence resources people communicating in such way.

But honestly, I think it'll result in bad guys using the same backdoored crypto that everyone else will be using, relying on steganography and disappearing in the noise - so basically, they'll do things in the same way as they always did, since assuming all communications is broken by the government is simply good OPSEC.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#190

Post by prawn » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #155

privacy101 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they would be better off trying to stop what causes these terrorists from wanting to attack us...

You want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's...ambitious. But let's take at face value that that's possible, you'd still have to assume that all terrorists have a) some rational set of demands; and b) even if they did, that we'd be willing to meet those demands. What ISIS believes is incompatible with Western democracy. There is nothing we could do to eliminate their desire to attack…

Either that or you work against whatever gives them irrational demands. And I wouldn't do that by fighting on religious grounds, but building the alternatives - through education being one. It's not exciting or retaliatory, but the status quo in the Middle East is not particularly effective.