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

A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 282 posts

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

#21

Post by jacobolus »

mangeletti wrote: post #14
pera wrote: post #4

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, any debate is just a waste of time, money, and maybe even lives. What are they thinking??

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

> If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys.

This comment is amazing self parody.

So what, we should we let people cook up nerve gas and anthrax and build surface-to-air missile launchers in their garages, to make sure they have competitive parity with the bad guys?

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

#22

Post by geekamongus »

mangeletti wrote: post #14
pera wrote: post #4

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, any debate is just a waste of time, money, and maybe even lives. What are they thinking??

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

That's not was said, though. Pera said that there's nothing you can do to force terrorists to use encryption containing a back door.

You are saying that you can't tell people not to use something.

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

#23

Post by ck2 »

swiley wrote: post #12
ck2 wrote: post #3

There's no evidence the plotters of the Paris terrorist attacks used encrypted communications First sentence is already wrong. They recovered smartphones that had encrypted messaging apps. Still no excuse for government backdoors which will be stolen by all kinds of entities within months of their creation and allow the wrong people to spy on law enforcement itself. Government had a 10 year headstart before all this,…

My phone has at least two encrypted messaging apps on it that I've been meaning to learn how to use. Everyone I know uses Kik though and has 0 desire to switch. So we really don't know that they where actually using them if that's all they really found.

Well unless they factory reset the phones, which they obviously did not, android keeps usage stats on app so it would be obvious if the apps were used or not.

But you are right, it could just be someone overstating something where apps have the ability to be encrypted, not that they were used that way.

Still all these people were already known to their secret services. Some even had phone taps already. It was yet another intelligence failure like we saw on 9/11

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

#24

Post by kabdib »

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…

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe.

That's the public face. The underlying motives are much more closely aligned to the power structure and the flow of money and votes than keeping folks in suburbs "safe".

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

#25

Post by helicon »

The IRA were known to recruit top stem students from universities in Ireland during their campaign to make bombs. Surely an entity as large and as well financed and ISIS would have little trouble finding bright young engineers & technologists sympathetic to their cause to simply build their own encrypted services? And then so much for the spooks 'backdoors'

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

#26

Post by oppositelock »

Back doors are very useful to tracking down tax evaders, political opponents or dissenters, or any other number of things which increase government revenue or power. Terrorism is just one excuse used to justify the rest of it. Crypto backdoors will be mandatory one day, it's inevitable.

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

#27

Post by iamsohungry »

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…

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead.

I don't think this is a technical problem, and I don't think it's our responsibility to solve it.

If the US wants to stop terrorism they need to stop creating terrorists. The US created terrorists by starting economic wars, supporting violent dictators, creating economic that harm the common people and not the national leaders they purport to, providing conditional and earmarked aid that is sometimes actually harmful, and a wide variety of other internationally sociopathic behaviors. If we want to stop being attacked by people from other countries, we need to stop harming other countries.

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

#28

Post by ck2 »

coldtea wrote: post #15

How about this: we assume terrorists can fucking talk covertly whenever they like (since there are myriads of channels and codes that they can use) and that mass surveillance is not the way to catch them plotting their next act. And from then on, ONLY use surveillance on specific targets under investigation. And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose t…

They already knew about most of these people and had wiretaps on a couple of them.

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

#29

Post by 15charlimit »

jacobolus wrote: post #21
mangeletti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

> If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. This comment is amazing self parody. So what, we should we let people cook up nerve gas and anthrax and build surface-to-air missile launchers in their garages, to make sure they have competitive parity with the bad guys?

Most individuals who would even begin to consider trying to "cook up" substances like nerve gas or anthrax "in a garage" would undoubtedly die in the process, in which case problem solved.

And yes, people should be able to build "surface to air missile launchers" in their garages. It's called amateur rocketry, and last I checked it was quite a popular (and legal) hobby.

The vast majority of encryption is used in a lawful way to protect important things (information). The vast majority of firearms (in the USA at least) are used in a lawful way to protect, deter, as a hobby/for fun, and for sport/hunting.

They are very similar arguments, for a number of reasons, including the utter stupidity of attempting to make law-abiding citizens jump through even MORE hoops whilst accomplishing absolutely nothing in "preventing the bad guys from making use of" said technologies.

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

#30

Post by wlesieutre »

jacobolus wrote: post #21
mangeletti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

> If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. This comment is amazing self parody. So what, we should we let people cook up nerve gas and anthrax and build surface-to-air missile launchers in their garages, to make sure they have competitive parity with the bad guys?

Do people have a need to shoot down airplanes? How about nerve gas? I don't see the comparison.

The difference is that regular people do have a need for secure communication channels. Even things other than what you typically think of as "communicating" like bill payments and shopping. Encryption is a defensive tool. It keeps people from stealing all your money.

Trying to ban strong encryption because terrorists use it is not like trying to ban nerve gases because terrorists use them. It's more like trying to ban pickup trucks because terrorists use them.

Post reply on HN