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

As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

lauren.vortex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 295 posts

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#211

Post by coldtea »

rafcavallaro wrote: post #142
coldtea wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the Federal government not understand that this (idiotic) mass scale surveillance is bad for business? Emmm, it's the business interests that ask for those kind of things. You think the politicians operate on a vacuum? The idea is to get a stable climate where the business interests (multinationals and such) can do as they please, and citizens are afraid.

That's objectively false - Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Facebook (among others) have all been at pains to distance themselves from NSA data collection precisely because they understand how bad the NSA's behavior is for their business.

>That's objectively false - Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Facebook (among others) have all been at pains to distance themselves from NSA data collection precisely because they understand how bad the NSA's behavior is for their business.

For one, I wasn't speaking of those kind of business interests. Those companies are complicit in doing it, not those that benefit most from it. It's finance, infrastructure, industry, oil, millitary, etc.

Second, it's not like a CEO goes and asks his senator about it. It's an emergent consensus, developing from lobbies, campaign financing, policy meetings with the "giant of industry", think tank meetings, policy advisors etc, about what's best for the continuation of the status quo, keeping the people quiet, squashing dissidents and labour demands, the improvement of the country's diplomatic might (which acts as a multiplier for business interests inside the country), etc.

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#212

Post by cgore »

green7ea wrote: post #77
oleganza wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but want to provide a slight correction about "Free Software": MIT/BSD licensed software while not free in FSF/GPL sense, is still open and widely used and solves the problem we have right now. To avoid confusion with FSF ideals, I'd talk simply about Open Source software.

Sorry to nitpick but MIT/BSD licensed software is free in the FSF/GPL sense. To be free software, you have to respect freedoms 0-3 as defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . This is the case for MIT/BSD licensed software and both those licenses are considered acceptable free software licenses by the FSF. The cheklist for Open Source software can be found here: http://opensource.org/docs/osd . They…

Stallman's definition of 'free software' isn't authoritative, lots of people have other definitions, and Stallman is quite explicit on trying to change definitions to suit him.

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#213

Post by boostar »

fab13n wrote: post #118
downandout wrote: post #98

This kind of thing makes me think the Snowden disclosures actually emboldened the NSA in some ways. Their nightmare scenario occurred, and nothing happened. Nobody even got fired or "resigned". The public's tepid reaction has brought our nightmare scenario to life - we taught secretive government agencies that they can now do anything they want without fear of public backlash. These kinds of requests can now dramatic…

What you say is true, but misses an important consideration: yesterday, only tinfoil hats believed they couldn't trust third-party companies with their privacy. Today, everyone knows that the only way to have privacy is to handle it personally, from their local computer. The whole PRISM scheme worked because people supposed the government respected their privacy. Now that it's been proven false, I expect people to us…

>yesterday, only free thinkers believed they couldn't trust third-party companies with their privacy

fixed that for you

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#214

Post by coldtea »

jlgreco wrote: post #205
coldtea wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming the right tech is developed and deployed, this is going to be far better for everyone in a few years. A, the old "let's use technology to solve a political issue" idea. Sadly, it does not work. For one, the government has all the technology available for it too, including dedicated, full-time paid researchers. Second, they can outlaw any of those things at whim.

These criticisms of technological solutions always miss the obvious: both approaches complement each other. If I send my aunt a letter, I am assured that unless there is a warrant, my letter to her will not be read by my government. She doesn't live in my country though, and her country gives no such assurances. More-so, even if it did, I would have no particular reason to trust her government. On that note, what if…

>These criticisms of technological solutions always miss the obvious: both approaches complement each other.

In a small way, yes, but in the long run, politics trumps technology.

You could achieve privacy from the government if you solved the political issues.

But the reverse is not true: if you had the perfect technological solution, they could make using the solution illegal -- including doing away with plausible deniability, even if the technological scheme provides it.

Or, if the government goes totally south, they could fuck you in other ways, making the technological solution totally irrelevant. E.g they could put you in a concentration camp. Where's your tech now?

>Beating people with wrenches is a far more extreme action, it is easier to trust governments not to do something that is more extreme.

Only if you leave in a western democracy (and are not a dissident, activist, or of any concern to the law).

In any other country , trusting the government not to do the extreme is not really that obvious. Heck, even in Western Europe, there have been 3 active millitary dictatorships during the last 40 years (and this is not even counting Eastern European countries, stasi and such).

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#216

Post by legutierr »

rayiner wrote: post #187
jwoah12 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what would have to happen for you to consider the response substantial. Would citizens need to be forming militias and actively marching in the streets? That's just not how people react anymore. Tens of thousands of people called their congresspeople on a day's notice to express their support for the Amash Amendement. That amendment lost by only 12 votes. A large majority of people polled think that the…

Not even 500 people made it out to support the July 4 protest of the NSA, in a country where tens of thousands of people will turn out to oppose gay marriage. Depending on what polls you read, a majority of Americans think the NSA policy is acceptable: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-suppor... . ("Overall, 56 percent of Americans consider the NSA’s accessing of telephone call records of millions…

Maybe that's because they know how this power can and will be used against them. What's the likelihood of this blackmail power being used against an ordinary citizen? Very low (why bother?). Against a congressman? Well...

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#217

Post by md224 »

ahallock wrote: post #200
md224 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what's your ideal political arrangement? How do you propose we provide for transportation infrastructure, medical services, police, fire departments, etc? I'm not convinced that abolishment of the state is possible or even ideal, but I'm open to discussion.

I don't think abolishing the state is ideal now. Hierarchical structures and violence are far too ingrained in people and passed on to their children. We really need a philosophical awakening to move beyond institutionalized violence. Abolishing the state swiftly would have the opposite effect as there are too many people dependent on it. Too many lives would be lost. This is a process that needs to happen at a local…

I would point out that the conception of the state arose "organically", in the sense that basically all of our structures and hierarchies are socially constructed. With that in mind, would you see it as "wrong" if, upon finally ridding ourselves of ingrained hierarchical structures, we find ourselves rebuilding similar structures all over again? Do you find hierarchical structures of authority to be bad because you don't think they're "organic," or because you think there's a better way and you simply don't know what it is? Or perhaps you think our current structures are stale, and even rebuilding them in new ways would be helpful?

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#218

Post by tallpapab »

jessaustin wrote: post #199
tallpapab wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Balderdash! How many people are in the baby boom generation? And you paint them all with one bush? Do you do the same for people of a particular race? Upon closer inspection you will find that few boomers are responsible for your woes. Your parents maybe, but most of us are as powerless as you. "Industrial mindset"? Poppycock! I look around and I see many young people serving up enormous amounts of their private info…

I expect few complaints will elicit less sympathy than the plight of the poor put-upon baby boom generation.

Thanks. Now stop being distracted.

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#219

Post by ds9 »

jwoah12 wrote: post #165
northernmonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tepid? The response has been cooler than that.

I don't know what would have to happen for you to consider the response substantial. Would citizens need to be forming militias and actively marching in the streets? That's just not how people react anymore. Tens of thousands of people called their congresspeople on a day's notice to express their support for the Amash Amendement. That amendment lost by only 12 votes. A large majority of people polled think that the…

A few tens of k's is remarkable. There's a fallacy of thinking "people aren't doing anything about it, therefore they don't care".

In fact, people don't "do something" because they estimate, rightly or wrongly, that they can't do anything that would make a difference. Millions worldwide protested the current US wars when they were getting started, but they went ahead on schedule. What, exactly, can citizens do to effectively influence their government anymore? If people perceive that rule of law is gone, the rational reaction is to "lie low" and hope to get thru these times unnoticed. Those still contacting congress may be old enough to remember a different USA and naive enough to not realize it is gone.

Re: As Feds Demand the Keys, Preparing for the Death of Public-Key Encryption

#220

Post by rdl »

coldtea wrote: post #214
jlgreco wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These criticisms of technological solutions always miss the obvious: both approaches complement each other. If I send my aunt a letter, I am assured that unless there is a warrant, my letter to her will not be read by my government. She doesn't live in my country though, and her country gives no such assurances. More-so, even if it did, I would have no particular reason to trust her government. On that note, what if…

> These criticisms of technological solutions always miss the obvious: both approaches complement each other. In a small way, yes, but in the long run, politics trumps technology. You could achieve privacy from the government if you solved the political issues. But the reverse is not true: if you had the perfect technological solution, they could make using the solution illegal -- including doing away with plausible…

I agree being in a truly lawless or evil state, even with high quality privacy technology, means you can't live a normal life. I'm pretty sure well before the "get in the trucks to go to the concentration camps" stage, it would be time to demonstrate that cryptographic munitions are not the only kind of munitions. There have been some promising efforts by EFF, etc. to bring the rabid pro-gun crowd into this in various court filings; people who will change states, vote single issue, etc. over being allowed to own a .50bmg rifle (when they could otherwise have a .510dtc anyway) are exactly the kind of people who will go to the mattresses over crypto. I think they also brought in pro-abortion people who vote similarly single-issue.

The US is far from that stage right now. NSA is developing absurdly overpowered capabilities, but is actually using them in a relatively constrained way, at least so far -- they are not being used for even high level criminal cases or really anything except actual terrorism. The problem is exactly the same technology could be used with a change of administration for political repression, domestic criminal enforcement, or whatever.

Since terrorism is maybe 1k people with any connection to the US per year, it's pretty easy to justify deploying privacy enhancing technologies to the remaining 300 million people, and there wouldn't be a politically feasible way to stop it. The battleground would be any extension of CALEA to pure-Internet companies, or worse, to end user technologies. Unless that happens, there's not much to fear in deploying technology overall, although in certain verticals (finance, with various FinCEN/AML requirements), additional regulations apply.

Post reply on HN