The main difference between this proposal and the previous ones is the bricking step, which is supposed to make it transparent when the key has been revealed. But once the key has been revealed, what prevents an attacker from replacing the main board of the phone (keeping the phone's exterior and its SIM card), and copying all the data to the new board? A non-technical user (and even most technical users) wouldn't know the difference.
A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#32I’m not sure the benefit to Apple or other phone manufacturers. This looks like a substantial cost with zero benefit to those others than law enforcement. And substantial new risk for misuse or abuse. What’s Ozzie’s true motivation? Is he looking to start a company running Clear and raking in patent revenue? I get why the governments want this, but not why a citizen would propose this. If it weren’t Ray Ozzie, I woul…
> I’m not sure the benefit to Apple or other phone manufacturers. This looks like a substantial cost with zero benefit to those others than law enforcement.
The benefit is that law enforcement has access to relevant information. Society has a vested interest in this provided it doesn't infringe any other rights. It's why warrants exist. If you have the ability to respect a warrant without hurting your customers, it should be illegal not to do so.
Obviously there are significant technical issues, which is why this is contentious; those are outside the scope of this comment.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#33I cant think of anything worse than my plastic metal and glass friend being forced to snitch against me. Its like my best friend betrayed me. Beyond creepy, key escrow proposals are the very definition of totalitarianism.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#34Personally I believe real world actions should be the focus of surveillance. The empires are simply trying to cheap out by focusing on surveillance of computer activity. This is the most profound part of Matthew Green's piece in my opinion: "While this mainly concludes my notes about on Ozzie’s proposal, I want to conclude this post with a side note, a response to something I routinely hear from folks in the law enfo…
> * cyber crimes ([...], child porn, ...)
I find that a disturbing classification.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#35Personally I believe real world actions should be the focus of surveillance. The empires are simply trying to cheap out by focusing on surveillance of computer activity. This is the most profound part of Matthew Green's piece in my opinion: "While this mainly concludes my notes about on Ozzie’s proposal, I want to conclude this post with a side note, a response to something I routinely hear from folks in the law enfo…
> * cyber crimes ([...], child porn, ...) I find that a disturbing classification.
Perhaps a miscommunication?
Suppose we talk about vehicles, and I could classify them by color (red, green, ...), or by type (cars, planes, ...)
What is a good or bad classification?
What is disturbing you? the mere topic?
We can't improve prevention of a problem without talking about the problem.
EDIT:
Note, I have added making child porn to meat space crime (even though that is obvious) specifically for you
Would you consider the "Napalm Girl" [0] to be child porn? Or evidence of the atrocities of the use of napalm in the Vietnam war? Did it eventually contribute to the end of public support for the war?
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#36He talks about “massive amounts of extremely valuable key material“ needed to be stored for billions of devices. It’s not like this would be Fort Knox. All that data could be stored on a couple of USB sticks which, really, makes it even scarier. Someone could hold the entire contents in the palm of their hand walk away with everything.
The article makes exactly that point:
> If ever a single attacker gains access to that vault and is able to extract, at most, a few gigabytes of data (around the size of an iTunes movie), then the attackers will gain unencrypted access to every device in the world. Even better: if the attackers can do this surreptitiously, you’ll never know they did it.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#37I don't see anything new in the alleged proposal, this is the same old crypto war. This is "just" key escrow. One might as well propose to have the manufacturers build in the governments public key (and autobrick phone usage) such that the phone can detect if it is really the government reading the phone. Another note: "Ozzie’s proposal relies fundamentally on the ability of manufacturers to secure massive amounts of…
I do prefer the idea of storing it on paper... at least it's a little easier to lock up. Even a big camera will only take a few thousand pictures before it fills up, and physical access is a lot easier to enforce.
If we make 2 billion phones a year (Apple itself is just over 200M) and you have a line printer running full blast (66 lines = 1page per sec) you could do Apple with one printer... and the world in 10. It would be a lot of boxes of paper though... about a box an hour.
edit: to be clear I was assuming that almost every dot in the matrix was a valid bit and there were 66 keys per page... 80 or even 132 columns at 7x5 wouldn't be enough for 4096 bits otherwise.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * cyber crimes ([...], child porn, ...) I find that a disturbing classification.
Perhaps a miscommunication? Suppose we talk about vehicles, and I could classify them by color (red, green, ...), or by type (cars, planes, ...) What is a good or bad classification? What is disturbing you? the mere topic? We can't improve prevention of a problem without talking about the problem. EDIT: Note, I have added making child porn to meat space crime (even though that is obvious) specifically for you Would y…
EDIT:
Would you consider the "Napalm Girl" [0] to be child porn? Or evidence of the atrocities of the use of napalm in the Vietnam war? Did it eventually contribute to the end of public support for the war?
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * cyber crimes ([...], child porn, ...) I find that a disturbing classification.
Perhaps a miscommunication? Suppose we talk about vehicles, and I could classify them by color (red, green, ...), or by type (cars, planes, ...) What is a good or bad classification? What is disturbing you? the mere topic? We can't improve prevention of a problem without talking about the problem. EDIT: Note, I have added making child porn to meat space crime (even though that is obvious) specifically for you Would y…
> What is disturbing you? the mere topic?
The fact that you seem to consider the act of looking at the resulting pictures to be the primary crime even though that is more or less victim-less, rather than the sexual abuse that children are subjected to in order to produce the pictures, which very obviously is not a "cyber" anything, while you at the same time put murder into the category of "meatspace crime", if, following the same logic, it would also belong into the "cyber crime" category, because there can also exist pictures of the act of killing a person that people could look at.
This seems to be an expression of the focus on the vilification of a sexual orientation that people have no control over, namely pedophilia, while almost ignoring the thing that actually hurts other people, namely the actual sexual abuse of children.
Re: A Few Thoughts on Ray Ozzie’s “Clear” Proposal
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a miscommunication? Suppose we talk about vehicles, and I could classify them by color (red, green, ...), or by type (cars, planes, ...) What is a good or bad classification? What is disturbing you? the mere topic? We can't improve prevention of a problem without talking about the problem. EDIT: Note, I have added making child porn to meat space crime (even though that is obvious) specifically for you Would y…
> What is disturbing you? the mere topic? The fact that you seem to consider the act of looking at the resulting pictures to be the primary crime even though that is more or less victim-less, rather than the sexual abuse that children are subjected to in order to produce the pictures, which very obviously is not a "cyber" anything, while you at the same time put murder into the category of "meatspace crime", if, foll…
Yes I see what you mean, but that was never the intended message, note the ellipsis!
So just to be clear, I think it is obvious you, me and nearly everybody regards the making of childporn as a crime, without making any statement on how we regard the crimeness of watching child porn.