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

Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 592 posts

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#501

Post by smolder »

ncallaway wrote: post #122
whoisjuan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re talking about national security. They want to read your messages so they can see if you’re a potential terrorist. They are not talking about users security. They don’t give a fuck about that as evidenced by the equifax debacle.

> They want to read your messages so they can see if you’re a potential terrorist. That is their stated reason. If given access they will also read your messages to determine if you are a drug dealer, or a drug user, or have committed financial crimes, or if you're organizing disfavored political activity, or...

Even the capability of mass surveillance means that the public can be abused by the powers that be without much worry of backlash. It takes fear of the public out of the policy making equation, along with having a chilling effect. I don't think a representative democracy is really representative or a democracy anymore with a power imbalance that steep. Nevermind Citizens United.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#504

Post by sjy »

kyboren wrote: post #217
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

Some crimes can also be aided by whispered in-person conversation. Should we require all in-person conversation to be shouted near a government office? The societal default used to be that substantially all conversations were inaccessible to the government except through testimony. Encryption does nothing to change the availability of information through testimony. Previously, remote conspirators could collaborate th…

> End-to-end encryption does little to change the availability of information in a targeted investigation

A secure E2EE system must resist even targeted, legally authorised attacks. Are you suggesting that secure, practical E2EE systems do not currently exist? Would a world in which law enforcement must install physical listening devices and exploit unpublished software vulnerabilities to surveil suspects be more private than our current world, where E2EE is available but often disabled by default, and trusted intermediaries like Facebook and Google can be legally compelled to disclose non-E2EE messages?

> Forbidding end-to-end encryption, in combination with our mass surveillance apparatus, changes the societal default to be that substantially all conversations are trivially and automatically accessible

That is not (publicly acknowledged to be) the case today, even though non-E2EE platforms like Facebook are widely used. While Facebook could currently comply with laws authorising mass surveillance, and implementing secure E2EE would prevent them from doing so, the warrants under which they currently hand over non-E2EE messages are at least somewhat targeted. This controversy is not about a proposal to relax the need for warrants, it's about asking Facebook to preserve their ability to comply with them.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#505

Post by Japhy_Ryder »

saagarjha wrote: post #5

> We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety. Oh, so you’re asking for more end-to-end encryption? > While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content t…

But think of the children! It is stunning how shallow this letter is. It's so easy to see through it.

1984 rings more true with each passing day.

"It was meant to be a warning, not a manual."

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#506

Post by sjy »

vast wrote: post #393
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

Basic human rights prevent people being jailed on sight. Some of them are criminals. Some of those rights are constantly challenged, yet no one questions their general value. Privacy, thus end to end encryption is a basic human right. There shouldn't be any reason to require proof of this. What we have here is simply the fear of the loss of an extremely powerful tool.

Privacy is a basic right; it is even constitutionally protected in the United States by the Fourth Amendment. However, it has always been accepted that gross invasions of privacy can be authorised in appropriate cases – for example, warrants to search houses, or warrantless searches of immigrants and prisoners. Why must the right to use end-to-end encryption, unlike the right to privacy in your home or at the border, be accepted without proof as inviolable?

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#507

Post by skybrian »

gtyras2mrs wrote: post #480
CJefferson wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your metaphor is that at the moment, without warning, the government can enter my house with a warrant. I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting for "privacy" reasons we should forbid police, with a warrant, from entering private property? If you tried to set up a "super protection" around your house, which (for example) electrocuted people who entered by breaking the door down, and this hurt a…

>So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to. Physical access is easier to control as getting access has a cost. Digital access is effectively free. The problem with this is that physical access has a cost and limiting it behind approvals and procedures - can deter improper access. (Not always - if a cop really wanted into your house - they wil…

There is no reason in principle why the big tech companies can't require a court order. They say they do that whenever possible.

The problem is when the law is against them with things like national security orders, along with the question of how we can ensure that they are regulating access properly. But in theory, these things could be fixed.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#508

Post by sjy »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #286
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

There are ways for them to investigate via warrants. That covers all use cases for FBI/CIA/cops. They don't need any other techniques. It's the only logical interpretation of the US constitution to modern electronic communications. Otherwise you become what China is currently.

The controversy is about Facebook's proposal to implement E2EE on Messenger, thus ending Facebook's ability to comply with warrants ordering them to disclose Facebook messages. Due to the lack of E2EE, Facebook can currently detect and report a lot of crime to law enforcement; some of this crime may go unpunished if E2EE is implemented.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#509

Post by MadWombat »

Animats wrote: post #336
MadWombat wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The societal default used to be that substantially all conversations were inaccessible to the government except through testimony" Sure. Before the telegraph was invented. And even before that people used security measures, such as wax seals on letters to prevent tampering or at least have an ability to detect whether or not the message has been tampered with. You seem to think of messaging systems as if they were s…

During WW2, American federal government established Office of Censorship whose sole purpose was to review and censor all communications coming into and out of the country. Now imagine them finding that someone is mailing letters written in an unbreakable code. How long do you think it would take for the FBI to break down that person's door? It wasn't done that way. Envelopes were opened, and stamped "Opened by Censor…

I never said they were secretive about it. I said they opened, read and edited people's letters and the public was completely OK with it.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#510

Post by sjy »

tikiman163 wrote: post #378
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

Implementing end to end encryption in these messaging apps won't make any of these issues worse. The criminals this will supposedly help already have easy and convenient ways to do the same thing. The government has not caught anyone of any importance this way, so encryption of Facebook messages won't hinder any real investigation methods. This won't increase the number of people affected or reduce the number caught.…

> The government has not caught anyone of importance this way

The letter specifically describes an offender who was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment, detected when Facebook read his non-E2EE communications with a child victim. Are you suggesting this was an unimportant or unrepresentative case?

Post reply on HN