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

261–270 of 282 posts

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

#261

Post by iamsohungry »

russnewcomer wrote: post #61
marcosdumay wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea. Also no idea why the GP isn't being downvoted. Just because some politician claimed that it's tech's people responsibility to fix their flaws, it does not make it true. It's repetitive, but the police did have all the information they needed to go after such people even before the murdering. What does the GP want? A machine that queries the news from the day after tomorrow? (Because tomorrow won't do - the p…

Clearly I didn't get my point across. If the Paris police had all the information they needed to go after such people, but didn't, that's the technical problem that really needs solved, not an encryption backdoor.

I agree that you've identified a problem. I don't agree that it's a technical problem. It seems to me that technology simply doesn't offer any solutions to this kind of problem. Perhaps that's a failure of imagination on my part, though: what are some areas of research you think might cause law enforcement to start responding to credible threats?

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

#262

Post by rasz_pl »

privacy101 wrote: post #115
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…

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

You want NSA to undermine CIA/state department?

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

#263

Post by coldtea »

kobayashi wrote: post #203
nickpsecurity wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about actively at one time if not in general? I think if you think through it you can figure it out. Just start with all the terrorists and crooks they already had red flags on but did nothing. Then, look at what excuse they make about connecting the dots in so much data. Then look at the two obvious solutions: (a) Magic, AI, pixie dust tech that spots the evil, relationships, and all key information in nearly un…

When does an investigation start and end? What about when you're close to filling your limit but a few new great leads come in. Now the agents have to go close a ongoing investigation to follow up on a new one. Sounds like a lot of overhead. Not only that, but the fact of modern intel work is that investigations don't operate in a clear, linear progression. I think that anyone that's had to deal with arbitrary limits…

>When does an investigation start and end? What about when you're close to filling your limit but a few new great leads come in.

What about that? They could have a limit in the tens of thousands or so. As long as they don't waste it on BS, they could follow all the promising cases they want.

The idea is not to let them follow everybody, just for the fun of it.

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

#264

Post by junto »

Canada wrote: post #206
pakled_engineer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They found one of the terrorists phones dumped in a garbage can outside the theatre they attacked, and got the address of their hideout from the messages, so used just regular police work. All these guys were already on watch lists for fighting in Syria and returning just nobody seems to ever watch the watch list.

If that phone was properly secured then those messages wouldn't have been accessible.

You'd still have a telephone number. From that telephone number you could go to a judge and request a warrant for the telephone records. From there you could look at all the numbers dialed and received. Now you get a warrant for the addresses of the subscribers.

No bulk surveillance required, just honest police work within the confines of a valid and acceptable legal framework.

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

#265

Post by dang »

fabulist wrote: post #222
dang wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10590512 and marked it off-topic. You're not allowed to accuse other users of astroturfing or shilling without evidence. Having an opposing view doesn't count as evidence. If you have sincere suspicion that someone is astroturfing, you're asked to email hn@ycombinator.com. We take such emails seriously, look at the data, and if we find evidence, we…

Out of curiosity, has anyone been banned specifically because it was believed they were compensated for their comments?

No, but we've banned people who were acting like it. HN accounts don't come with payroll stubs, so we work with the data we have. :)

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

#266

Post by russnewcomer »

iamsohungry wrote: post #261
russnewcomer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly I didn't get my point across. If the Paris police had all the information they needed to go after such people, but didn't, that's the technical problem that really needs solved, not an encryption backdoor.

I agree that you've identified a problem. I don't agree that it's a technical problem. It seems to me that technology simply doesn't offer any solutions to this kind of problem. Perhaps that's a failure of imagination on my part, though: what are some areas of research you think might cause law enforcement to start responding to credible threats?

Metadata analysis and pattern recognition of publicly available data is one.

Better data organization tools are another (a family member is studying forensic science and has done internships with large-ish police departments that still largely use printed and hand-written documents to manage cases)

But that's my point. I haven't done much thinking on this either, so I can't see around the corners of time to see what it could be. But just more yelling back and forth about encryption isn't accomplishing much.

Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.

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

#267

Post by russnewcomer »

marcosdumay wrote: post #250
russnewcomer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly I didn't get my point across. If the Paris police had all the information they needed to go after such people, but didn't, that's the technical problem that really needs solved, not an encryption backdoor.

Well, that's not a technical problem.

Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.

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

#268

Post by nickpsecurity »

coldtea wrote: post #263
kobayashi wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When does an investigation start and end? What about when you're close to filling your limit but a few new great leads come in. Now the agents have to go close a ongoing investigation to follow up on a new one. Sounds like a lot of overhead. Not only that, but the fact of modern intel work is that investigations don't operate in a clear, linear progression. I think that anyone that's had to deal with arbitrary limits…

> When does an investigation start and end? What about when you're close to filling your limit but a few new great leads come in. What about that? They could have a limit in the tens of thousands or so. As long as they don't waste it on BS, they could follow all the promising cases they want. The idea is not to let them follow everybody, just for the fun of it.

Exactly. You got the message easy enough. Makes me lean more toward sophistry for the other person.

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

#269

Post by nickpsecurity »

iamsohungry wrote: post #256
Retra wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either.…

> Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. But with money, you can arm those dictators and mass-murders so that they can become actual vicious kings. > Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. That's true, which is why it's so puzzling that we so frequently turn a blind eye to our abused neighbors…

"I'm definitely not proposing isolationism. I'm proposing we spend aid money actually helping the populations of nations instead of funding whatever militant promises to protect US interests."

Bingo!

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

#270

Post by nickpsecurity »

rayiner wrote: post #247
jacquesm wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about people who think it's simply unjust when innocent people are killed in the name of some religious/political end? I don't think that you'll find many exceptions to that. > E.g. I know that there is almost no chance that I'll be the victim of gang violence. But that doesn't mean I have to just accept the existence of gang violence in my community. So, as a member of that community you then have the option…

I don't disagree that it's hard to eradicate. But I don't see anyone saying we should just refuse to be scared by gang violence and not try to do anything about it.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the topic or just doesn't fit it well. What would you do about gang violence if they all looked like innocent people with nothing discerning them and the attacks were so rare that your neighborhood got hit only once every 100-1,000 years? Would it even be worth worrying about vs all the things that have been killing people in your area regularly? Or would you just refuse to worry about it in general while dealing with it if it ever happens? (aka refuse to be terrorized)

Note: The 100-1,000 years is to represent the fact that virtually nobody dies from terrorist attacks. It's so rare that bathtubs and bee stings kill more people each year in the U.S.. I'd imagine it's not a leading cause of death in France either despite the recent attack. So, for your gang thing with 100-200 people in a neighborhood, they'd go through many generations before one person died from gang violence. Sounds like the high risk that should keep them up at night, eh? ;)

Post reply on HN