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

Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#21

Post by mattrad »

jebblue wrote: post #11
gnu8 wrote: post #2

The headline belies the utter ridiculousness of the idea. Why would the United States and United Kingdom be singled out to have backdoor access to all communications? To hang onto the tattered remnants of their empires while keeping their own people in line despite their declining political legitimacy.

The united States isn't an empire, that's what it was formed to get away from. It's a collection of people, living in different communities called states that strive to stay united to form a more perfect union. It isn't a perfect experiment because people are not perfect but it's the best effort history has seen so far.

I suggest you read Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation". It skewers the idea that America is not an empire, and demonstrates that America has always been aggressively expansionist.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Nation-Americas-Earliest-T...

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#22

Post by a3n »

> The costs to the developed countries’ soft power and to our moral authority would also be considerable.”

That moral authority undermined in part from the risk of secure government data being exposed, and government operations then being exposed.

Breakable encryption is definitely a double-edged sword.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#23

Post by stephengillie »

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

Lawmakers (smart ones, anyway) don't break laws; they make what they want to do legal, and then just do it. Give a person a hammer, and everything's a nail; give a person a lawmaking ability and suddenly everything's illegal. Even when inaction is the wisest course, it looks too much like indecisiveness to be politically feasible.

One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to govern humans. Do you think we'll ever develop the fabled Sci-Fi computer overlord to govern us? Will it end in the traditional "disaster of ignorance", where the members of society return to a child-like state, and are unable to maintain the great machine we've built?

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#25

Post by kabdib »

tremon wrote: post #14
beedogs wrote: post #9

The way I see it, law enforcement has had it far too easy for far too long. The Snowden revalations finally turned over all the rocks and people saw that they have been grossly overstepping both ethical and legal boundaries, and encryption is finally getting the mindshare it desperately needs. So to their petulant cries of being unable to read our communications anymore, I say: fuck 'em. Time to earn your keep now, b…

I have a lot of trouble viewing anything involving the NSA as "law enforcement". Like the CIA, aren't they specifically created to subvert the law in other countries and not operate in their own jurisdiction?

Collusion, then things like "parallel reconstruction" and inter-agency agreements to keep things dark.

Power always corrupts. The big lie is "No, our motives are to keep you safe, and [list of the usual bad things] can't possibly happen this time."

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#26

Post by logfromblammo »

ionised wrote: post #6
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5

Being HN I'm sure many of us have dreams about future computers that are seamless extensions of our bodies, doing more than we could ever imagine with a phone or a watch. Do we also have nightmares about a hacker stealing a government's back door key and giving us a heart attack in our sleep?

At this point I'd be more worried about the government giving me a heart attack in my sleep. They can't and shouldn't be trusted with this kind of power.

Let's be realistic here. The government isn't going to give you a heart attack in your sleep.

The government is going to give millions of people heart attacks, all at the same time, at 5 pm Eastern time on a weekday.

I cite the recent bonehead maneuver, wherein someone--likely backed by a foreign government--managed to access the data for every last person cleared to handle U.S. government secrets, which necessarily includes any embarrassing datum which could be used by foreign governments to apply leverage.

This is Murphy's Law in action. If a catastrophe is possible, it will eventually happen. Combine with Acton's Law. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The result suggests that, for the sake of sane risk management, government should be structured such that no person working in it (or hijacking its infrastructure) can single-handedly do more than one nuclear bomb's worth of damage.

This means the fundamental principles that have to be engineered in are robustness, trustworthiness, and voluntary cooperation. Built-in backdoors are completely antithetical to all three.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#27

Post by de_Selby »

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

> School shooting - new gun laws.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news.

I have read some arguments about private protection against excessive government excesses, but I don't really buy it.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#28

Post by logfromblammo »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #19
gonzo41 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen Ghost in the Shell? I'm don't more integrated computers are the answer. But on the encryption front, the more the better. If everyone adds complexity then 'they' have to discriminate more. Which is good for everyone.

I have seen Ghost in the Shell, although I'm not clear at what you're getting at.

One thing that stands out in my mind is the ability for someone to make himself invisible or unidentifiable to you by hacking your eyes. If someone can take control of your sensory inputs, they can put you into the "dark dream" to test, model, and eventually control your behavior.

When your eyes are hackable, you cannot take the VR headset off. Even closing your eyelids won't help.

Would you want anyone besides yourself having authorized access to your sensory bus? Would it make you feel any better if the person doing it had a valid court order?

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#29

Post by vinceguidry »

Someone1234 wrote: post #17
jebblue wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The united States isn't an empire, that's what it was formed to get away from. It's a collection of people, living in different communities called states that strive to stay united to form a more perfect union. It isn't a perfect experiment because people are not perfect but it's the best effort history has seen so far.

Tell that to the countries the US keeps invading. At the very least Grenada, Iraq (2003), and Panama. But the list is far longer and more complicated (and stretches back fifty years or more). Nobody would call the US an "empire" if all it did was keep in its own territory and stay out of other country's internal affairs. Nobody calls Canada an empire for example. But the US keeps deciding to outright attack other cou…

> The US deserves to be accused of having empirical intent, even if just based on their interest in other country's oil.

The word you're looking for is "imperial." "Empirical" means something else entirely.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#30

Post by LordKano »

beedogs wrote: post #9

The way I see it, law enforcement has had it far too easy for far too long. The Snowden revalations finally turned over all the rocks and people saw that they have been grossly overstepping both ethical and legal boundaries, and encryption is finally getting the mindshare it desperately needs. So to their petulant cries of being unable to read our communications anymore, I say: fuck 'em. Time to earn your keep now, b…

I want law enforcement to be a difficult, time consuming job.

Idle law enforcement is a terrible thing. When law enforcement has spare time, they will find ways to occupy it. Sometimes it will be by overzealous enforcement of low level laws and other times their idleness will be used an a pretext for politicians to pass even more micro-managing laws.

It's this kind of thing that led to women being arrested for wearing bathing suits that exposed their calves. It's this kind of thing that resulted in young men being arrested for the bad fashion decision of sagging jeans.

When they complain that something will make their job more difficult, I say good. I want law enforcement to be difficult and time consuming so that it loses its luster for the people who want to join up for all of the wrong reasons.

Post reply on HN