Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

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…

"You can't just point at things and tax them"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/myleene-klass-berat...

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

#32

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #24

Right - and "the government" isn't a single entity. Members can defect (ala: Snowden and others).

Members can also corrupt, or even just operate too long without the moderating effects of effective oversight.

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

#33

Post by idlewords » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

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…

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

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

#34

Post by electricblue » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

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.

GitS illustrates the danger of humans integrating with computers too closely ex. Cyberbrain hacking, stand alone complex, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_She...

It's fictional but there's a lot of truth in no matter how important or shielded a target is, it is always vulnerable to attack.

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

#35

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:42 PM UTC

de_Selby wrote: post #27

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 priva…

I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category.

Politicians think encryption is in the first category.

Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection, as the 2nd is much more strongly defended than the 4th or 5th or even the 1st. (This argument obviously doesn't make any sense in the UK, where we should lean on article 1 and 6 ECHR). A country where you can have an AR-15 but not AES-CBC makes no sense, but we have to work with the politics as they are.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044529/decryption-orders-cou...

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

#36

Post by cmdkeen » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

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…

The problem isn't that they aren't changing anything they couldn't do before, namely reading communications, post, telephones etc have always been accessible to the state. The problem is that technology has allowed two things: a) Secure communications channels the government can't read b) The state to monitor mass communication in a way even the Stasi couldn't using humans

The notion that you should be able to communicate in a way that your government can't monitor if necessary is a comparatively new one, and one you will find an awful lot of citizens don't agree with.

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

#37

Post by mc808 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:44 PM UTC

"Michael S. Rogers, the director of the N.S.A., has proposed that technology companies be required to create a digital key that could unlock encrypted communications, but divide and secure the key into pieces so that no one person or government agency could use it alone."

Conveniently, Microsoft has a patent on just that. http://www.google.com/patents/US8891772

Michael S. Rogers should disclose any financial interest he may have in Microsoft. Or does he have something to hide?

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

#38

Post by magicmu » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15

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…

Not just with governments, but people's whims in general. To quote G.K. Chesterton [1]: And then, last but the reverse of least, there plunged in all the people who think they can solve a problem they cannot understand by abolishing everything that has contributed to it. We all know these people. If a barber has cut his customer's throat because the girl has changed her partner for a dance or donkey ride on Hampstead…

That is a spectacular quote, and really embodies the impetus of the American people to not only blame excessively when things go wrong, but to place blame in a manner which absolves all parties of any (perceived) responsibility.

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

#39

Post by leppr » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

de_Selby wrote: post #27

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 priva…

Not only governments do excessive excesses. In some places the government's caring hand might not be very present, in which case criminals being the only dispensers of firearms has some interesting (and predictable) consequences.

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

#40

Post by phkahler » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

de_Selby wrote: post #27

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 priva…

I just wanted to throw that in there for variety and because the existing controls don't actually stop the problem (I don't deny that they may help). Any place that still has guns in some form can still have those kinds of incidents. The guy at Sandy Hooke used someone else's legally obtained gun. Or in other words, the previous attempts to legislate away the problem didn't work in that case. There are other less controversial examples, but they don't come to mind as quickly.