Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Encryption Is Not a Crime

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 222 posts

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#181

Post by 9rx »

like_any_other wrote: post #177
9rx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy? Is the appeal to emotion really necessary? Surely we can discuss the facts without devolving into some kind of "But I want that!!!" toddler behaviour?

There was no emotion, only an accurate description of the consequences of the proposed policy.

I said appeal to emotion. There is no logical foundation for the question. It can only be asked in the context of how one arbitrarily feels about the subject, serving no purpose, and derailing was taking place for no good reason. How you one feels about the subject has no impact on what we are talking about and trying to draw a link between them is completely nonsensical.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#182

Post by kube-system »

9rx wrote: post #160
like_any_other wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So will a hardware backdoor planted by your maid, or a telescopic lens pointed at your screen, or laser microphone on your window, get them into your e2e encrypted chats.

Huh? The encrypted data is at rest and the only person who knew the key is dead. Your plan makes no sense.

Generally the set of people who are relevant in the debate of the balance of privacy rights and criminal prosecution, are living.

Dead people are distinctly immune to prosecution, and generally granted fewer rights.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#183

Post by OhMeadhbh »

kashunstva wrote: post #127
HDThoreaun wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what its worth the anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists in the UK. My company provides data storage for their dragnet and handles various requests and Ive seen first hand 4 different instances where the UK gov watching everyones internet activity led to terrorists being caught.

> anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists This is undoubtedly so; but much turns on the trust in government. In this U.S., the president, himself a documented profligate liar, just invited an equally untrustworthy unelected person into the halls of government to vacuum up whatever data he pleased. Maybe trust in the UK government is higher.

There was LITERALLY intelligence in the president's daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm

Collecting data is often not the problem. The problem is how to evaluate it and use it to direct the use of finite law enforcement or counterintelligence resources.

But to your point, let's not forget congressional republicans rushing a SKIF on capitol hill with their mobile devices out in clear violation of policy (and common sense.) I am relieved by the fact that Trump and Musk do not seem to understand what they can use sensitive information for (other than perhaps to sell or give away to foreign governments and businesses.)

I think my point is good intelligence comes from stitching together numerous data points and often traffic analysis is as good (or better) than content analysis. And maybe that the overwhelming majority of elected officials have no conception of how intelligence is collected and evaluated.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#184

Post by OhMeadhbh »

markhahn wrote: post #118
loftsy wrote: post #15

Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere. You should engage with the arguments the other side makes.

The problem is LEOs (and associated industry) claiming that enforcement is impossible without the ability to obtain cleartext. This is a lie: obtaining cleartext just makes enforcement vastly easier and more scalable. If crims have encrypted mobile phones, you can still point a microphone at them. Scalability is the big issue.

Honestly, I had always assumed LEO wanted access to decrypted message content so they could sell it to advertisers. I mean sure, you could catch a criminal or two, but with all that non-criminal data, just imagine how much off-the-books revenue you could accrue by selling it to the AdWords guys.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#185

Post by hilbert42 »

giantg2 wrote: post #134
hilbert42 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms" Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.

I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right…

No doubt 'perception formed by media biases' has played a significant part and it's been exacerbated by modern communications and social media etc. but I'd contend there's more to it than just that.

What I didn't mention was that I've been to the US many times and I've relatives there, and I've even worked there and these factors have also influenced my perception.

Let me put it this way, if the Greatest Generation, aka the G.I. Generation were to come back today and saw what has happened they'd not only be dismayed but horrified. Right, much of that reaction is to be expected with intergenerational change, etc. but again I'd suggest it's more than that.

It's not possible for me to even begin to justify what I've said as even a précis would take me many pages. Instead, I'd refer you to journalist Tom Brokaw's 1998 book The Greatest Generation wherein he describes the values and beliefs of the people of this generation as well as the ethos of the era in which they lived. Far be it for me to tell American society what it ought to be doing but I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if all Americans read this book—after all, it's actually Brokaw who's making the suggestion that his countrymen read the book or he wouldn't have written it.

In short, Brokaw wrote this book because he sensed the same change in US society as I had done and no doubt much more acutely so. I'll now extrapolate: it's now over quarter century since he wrote it and I'd contend the contrast to which he referred is now even more extreme.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(boo...

BTW, just don't take my word, I'd suggest you search out some of the book's reviews.

Incidentally, when I was working in NY some decades ago I shared my office with a GI of that generation and he became a great friend. I had many discussions with him about his past experiences. I consider it great privilege to have known him (his name would be familiar to some of you).

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#186

Post by diffeomorphism »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #149
ziddoap wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where weaker encryption would have saved hundreds and hundreds of lives. Can you do the same thing, but in the other direction? How many people would have been harmed if weaker/no encryption was the standard?

Let's go with the USPS. They have been sending daily communications where unencrypted info is the standard since 1775.

And no service offering encryption has existed since 1755? Because that is required for your argument. Otherwise you simply send unimportant stuff via USPS and sensitive/secret/important stuff via non-USPS.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#187

Post by kube-system »

gruez wrote: post #152
kube-system wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying every layer of the onion is individually encrypted. But there are plenty of layers that are. There is plenty of encryption used when you send any sort of message from an iPhone, even SMS. You can’t even turn the dang thing on and unlock it without encryption. Then when you send it, it’ll be encrypted by the radio before transmission. Then in transit it may or may not be encrypted at various points. And…

>There is plenty of encryption used when you send any sort of message from an iPhone, even SMS. You can’t even turn the dang thing on and unlock it without encryption. Then when you send it, it’ll be encrypted by the radio before transmission. Then in transit it may or may not be encrypted at various points. If your argument for encryption is "we need encryption because if it's banned overnight all our phones will tu…

Colloquially, there is a perception among some that encryption is a thing that only the military, criminals, etc use.

Many people are unaware that they use it in everyday life.

If you listen to discussions on this topic outside of technical forums, this perception is not uncommon. It’s important to be clear to laypeople about the ubiquity of encryption, because they are the majority of voters.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#188

Post by 9rx »

15155 wrote: post #180
9rx wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up No need to reply within the first second. Take your time. In fact, consider taking a lot more time as you still haven't named the specific vault, or set of vaults, that is causing such a big problem for the government. If we don't know what vault it is, even if your description is vague, how would anyone come to think of it as a problem? Laws are not created by…

> as you still haven't named the specific vault Vaults and safes are boutique products. Glass relockers have been sold for decades - can you not extrapolate that heat and impact might destroy something inside of a highly thermally-conductive container? HSMs and similar tech have had tamper detection systems for decades with internal battery backups.. these aren't illegal yet. My server cases from 20 years ago had tam…

> Glass relockers have been sold for decades

And...?

Let me ask again: Which vault(s) are currently, or at least in recent enough memory for anyone to recall, causing great strife for the government? Even a rough location would be sufficient. We can offer that in the case of encryption. There are countless news articles about police not being able to decrypt data they deem important.

Without that, it doesn't matter. Laws are not created based on imagined situations that you can dream up. They only are created after something has become a problem. You can use a perfectly impenetrable vault all day long and as long as the government doesn't want in, it is never going to care.

Of course, the greater subject is really about houses, not vaults. The government has good reason to want to get into your house. For example, you might perish in it, and it needs to get in to deal with your mess. This is a relatively frequent task placed upon government to carry out. If you've made your house impenetrable, government isn't going to remain amused for long. If the government starts encountering that problem often, absolutely it would become illegal.

It is not illegal today because it has never posed a real problem.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#189

Post by kube-system »

123pie123 wrote: post #176
kube-system wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly the pedantry that muddies the water and confuses people on this issue. Colloquially, it is a distinction without a difference. The internet as normal people know it does not work without encryption.

I do agree, it depends on the context, eg talking to my family vs this forum This site is not full of "normal people" and it shouldn't confuse people/ muddy the water if being dicussed here

I agree, but I am saying this here because the OP is written for a nontechnical audience.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#190

Post by 1970-01-01 »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #186
1970-01-01 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go with the USPS. They have been sending daily communications where unencrypted info is the standard since 1775.

And no service offering encryption has existed since 1755? Because that is required for your argument. Otherwise you simply send unimportant stuff via USPS and sensitive/secret/important stuff via non-USPS.

My vote, my taxes, my REAL-ID driver license, passport, credit cards, phone SIM, checks, 401k statements, etc. have very recently been sent via USPS. Do you consider this unimportant stuff?
Post reply on HN