31–40 of 282 posts
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.
> Almost all the attackers were known to the authorities, and if they had been watched, their use of encryption programs would have itself invited closer scrutiny.
This is precisely the scenario that Phil Zimmermann (creator of PGP) and others have been warning about (and working against) for decades. As Zimmermann said in a 1999 essay linked here not long ago, "What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail?" (https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html) The scary part to me is not just that it's our present reality, but that it's so readily accepted. Crypto advocates need better PR. (And to be fair, better UI.)
The line at the end that really hit me was this: > Almost all the attackers were known to the authorities, and if they had been watched, their use of encryption programs would have itself invited closer scrutiny. This is precisely the scenario that Phil Zimmermann (creator of PGP) and others have been warning about (and working against) for decades. As Zimmermann said in a 1999 essay linked here not long ago, "What i…
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?
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'
You wouldn't even need the brightest engineers. In fact so many encryption algorithms have been opened sourced and / or in library form for so long that it's easy for practically any developer to do.
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…
Why are they knowingly allowing people who fought for ISIS to return to Europe?
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…
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…
You are making a rather large logic leap in assuming what politicians and intelligence services want. It is extremely unlikely to be only "keeping people safe".
Why do you say this? It seems you are accusing parent of making a big leap in logic and then doing the same type of leap yourself.
Do you have any evidence that they want to do more than keeping people safe?
I've worked with and talked to many who work in the DoD space and while there were some who didn't seem to understand how technology worked I never met one who didn't seem genuine in wanting to keep people safe. Sure plenty of contractors just want the money and don't give two shits either way and sure this is only anecdotal but do you have anything better?
Seems the easiest, least complex reasoning is people who are not well enough versed in the technology but have good intensions are trying to do what they think is most correct when it may not be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
We restrict people’s use of technology in all sorts of ways to protect the basic order of society. For instance we restrict people from driving 150mph rocket cars or armored tanks with cannons on residential streets, we disallow radio jammers, we carefully regulate access to radioactive material, we don’t let unlicensed doctors implant untested medical devices, and so on.
More generally, gun control is almost entirely irrelevant to encryption. It’s an emotionally charged non sequitur which derails the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When nuclear bombs are illegal, only the criminals will have nuclear bombs." I think your grand unifying theory needs more nuance.
I hope we don't depend on the unavailability of nuclear bombs to the bad guys on them being "illegal".
(EDIT: Previously said "making something illegal", which I realised was ambiguous.)