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

61–70 of 282 posts

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

#61

Post by russnewcomer »

marcosdumay wrote: post #55
iamsohungry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why I'm being downvoted?

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.

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

#62

Post by hackuser »

iamsohungry wrote: post #44
iamsohungry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. I don't think this is a technical problem, and I don't think it's our responsibility to solve it. If the US wants to stop terrorism…

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why I'm being downvoted?

It didn't address the parent's point, other than by saying you don't care about it. Your point may be valid but it belongs in a separate thread.

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

#63

Post by A_Beer_Clinked »

lholden wrote: post #17
russnewcomer wrote: post #8

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…

The best backdoor to encryption has always been social. Talk the right way to the right people... and it doesn't matter what type of security you have. Isn't that the entire purpose of agencies like the CIA? It just bothers me when privacy is treated as a negative thing, for the greater good or not. Encryption is a tool to create privacy. The ability to create privacy should be a point of pride as not everyone has th…

>The ability to create privacy should be a point of pride as not everyone has that luxury. It should be a human right.

I agree; so does the UN in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

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

#64

Post by aninhumer »

marcosdumay wrote: post #58
aninhumer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we depend on the enforcement of that illegality, which is usually assumed when people discuss banning something. (EDIT: Previously said "making something illegal", which I realised was ambiguous.)

What, do you plan to make talking about crypto illegal too?

I was replying to the general sentiment, not the specific.

Obviously banning encryption is ridiculous, but the "Only criminals will have X" argument is just silly rhetoric.

EDIT: I just noticed the ambiguity you're more likely responding to in my original post. I'll reword it.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

15charlimit wrote: post #29
jacobolus wrote: post #21

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?

Most individuals who would even begin to consider trying to "cook up" substances like nerve gas or anthrax "in a garage" would undoubtedly die in the process, in which case problem solved. And yes, people should be able to build "surface to air missile launchers" in their garages. It's called amateur rocketry, and last I checked it was quite a popular (and legal) hobby. The vast majority of encryption is used in a la…

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by mike_hearn »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #38
danieltillett wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> 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…

There is certainly such evidence, you don't even need it really as it's literally in the mission statement of some of these intelligence agencies: they do anything that is "in the national interest". Yes, keeping people safe is clearly in the national interest, but many other things are too, hence the fact that GCHQ has spied on climate change talks, trade deals, attempted to influence online discussions, the NSA has hacked oil companies, etc. They are in no way limited to a mission of 'keeping people safe'.

This is one reason I tend to think intelligence agencies should be disbanded and their best people merged into police forces. The police have a clear and (relatively) focused mission: fight crime. Most of those criminal investigations are about keeping people safe in one form or another. Police forces aren't tasked with economic wellbeing or "cyber defence" or any of the other crap that the intelligence community has tried to take on for itslf.

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

#67

Post by Karunamon »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #38
danieltillett wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> 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…

A logical inference.

Given:

Things like mass phone surveillance, passively breaking legitimate encryption used by non criminals, introducing vulnerabilities, and other plainly illegal behavior is being deployed against citizens

..with no recourse..

..which are answered with outright lies when challenged (c.f. Snowden, Clapper's lies before Congress)..

..and the methods are of dubious actual effectiveness when it comes to "keeping people safe"

..and they in fact reduce safety when it comes to introducing vulnerabilities which can be misused by criminals

Therefore:

The aims of said behavior is plainly not to "keep people safe", but some other alterior motive. Simple statistics show that garden variety cybercriminals are a more real threat to the average person than terrorists - so do no statisticians work for the feds, or is there a different plan we're not seeing?

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

#68

Post by fweespeech »

api wrote: post #43
ck2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already knew about most of these people and had wiretaps on a couple of them.

Mohammed Atta was also a person of interest. This has always been the case and was the case all the way back to 9/11, and it illustrates why mass surveillance won't stop terror. How do you tell the difference between someone who will actually act and someone who holds beliefs that overlap with terrorist ideologies or who simply talks trash on the Internet and is never going to do anything? Any dragnet will simply dro…

> lots of people saw Atta being a POI as a sign of a "let it happen" conspiracy, but the much more likely explanation is that he was on a very long list of watched persons.

Yep. Its a prime example of why these surveillance powers simply don't function the way their proponents claim in public.

A large part of the reason there are these conspiracy theories is because their failures seem to be spun so well they might as well have been planned for all intents and purposes. They immediately blame other people and clamor for money and power to further their interests ... and people actually take them seriously which to me is the scary part.

France has the most extensive mass surveillance capability of any first world Democracy and the ability to act without the permission of the courts or legislature ... yet it wasn't enough.

I don't see how "more power" is the answer. It seems to be me that suicidal people are going to be successful at taking other people with them no matter what we do. So we take reasonable precautions that don't infringe on everyone's liberty. Then we make sure people who ignore actionable intelligence have career ending consequences to make them accountable.

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

#69

Post by russnewcomer »

danieltillett wrote: post #20
russnewcomer wrote: post #8

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".

I am not saying that it is 'only' or that they are entirely guided by that motive. But if you look at that as one of their primary guidances, and assume a lack of technical knowledge in many areas by the lead principals, their actions make sense. Maybe their are ways to help them achieve their goals that have not been conventionally explored?

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

#70

Post by mike_hearn »

wlesieutre wrote: post #30
jacobolus wrote: post #21

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…

Gah. Look, I'm a big fan of end to end encryption and I'd like to see more of it out there, but this kind of post just shows we're collectively missing the point these politician/FBI types are making.

There is a huge difference between https://gmail.com type encryption and true end to end encryption. Pretending there isn't will get us nowhere. The first type is sufficient to keep out ordinary criminals, competitors, even some governments. It is not sufficient to keep out the local government itself, which can still go serve an interception order on the service provider without the target being aware of it.

The upgrade in security between true end to end crypto and user-to-service-provider crypto is essentially, that governments can no longer do that. This is a positive for avoiding 1984 style dystopias, but obviously it's rare or governments to worry about that risk (as they "know" they aren't dystopian ... and don't care to think about the future). When western governments talk about banning encryption, the only type they are really talking about is the type where they can't go to some big corporation and get the data when they want it. And that type is still pretty rare. Actually almost nobody uses it.

Post reply on HN