Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#61

> almost impossible for even a super computer "Almost" impossible is a stretch. It's regarded as impractical regardless of computational power or other available resources with current computational technology. We might as well not even try. > Decrypting a single 256-bit encrypted message would take hundreds of years, Yadav said. That's an interesting way to phrase it.

On a "normal" computer, it's impossible with the available resources. I think Bruce Schneier illustrates it very well on his blog: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_...

If you were in possession of an ideal computer, that floats in space and uses only the minimum energy required by physics to distinguish two states, and you were able to convert all the mass in our solar system directly into energy (which you probably wouldn't want to do, for obvious reasons) and feed that energy into the ideal computer, then you would be able to count (no decryption attempts here, just counting) all the way up to 2^231.

Trying to brute-force 256-bit keys is a very unrewarding activity indeed. If Yadav thinks he would be able to do it in "hundreds of years" rather than "long after all the stars have died" he must have a computer hidden somewhere that would run Crysis very smoothly even with all the settings on maximum.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#62
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking an entire app store is so consumer-unfriendly--is there a chance of that happening in a reasonable country?

Not happening in India. To be realistic, even such a thing as a Whatsapp "ban" isn't going to happen/work. It will be at most similar to how porn is "banned". My ISP returns DNS not resolved for most porn websites if you use their resolver, but they pushed an update to the router changing the DNS to 8.8.8.8. The final result is most people haven't even realized that porn websites are banned.

Porn is effectively not banned because even the NIC DNS servers (the one's one whose infrastructure the government runs on) resolve them really fine for me.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#63
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you are saying that because you are "OK with that machine parsing through [your] data", you think that should authorize the government to parse through my data? Why should your set of values for privacy and lack of care for its preservation affect my right to privacy?

All I am saying is I am Ok if it saves the lives of innocent people. And I am definitely against people looking at my data ,a human should only get control through a warrant or tight scrutiny but that provision should be there in the system.

OK, now imagine the machine detects something. What now? A human isn't allowed to look at it, if I understand you correctly? Or only with a warrant? What would be the basis for the warrant? The fact that the machine detected something? Also, who gets to decide about the code the machine is running? Could someone just decide to have it flag everything, thus giving the basis for a warrant for everything, thus allowing humans to look at everything? Could you elaborate?

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could still obtain it, but the government could still mandate that local ISPs and telcos block connectivity to it. This is like what they do when they ban websites.

They do ISP-level DNS banning, like what happened with Twitter. Sometimes we can't engineer ourselves out of a problem and need to do it democratically. Looks like this government is a little rotten if you ask me.

The petition was brought forth by an RTI (Right to Information) "Activist" and Web Dev who works on security for private companies. It has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#65
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW the domain is in a smaller font with lower contrast than the title. I would guess that a lot of people automatically skip over the domain when they read hacker news headlines, because it's less legible than the title and feels distinct.

All true, but we also need to get out of the habit of consuming only the most easily scannable information. As Kahneman explains in "Thinking Fast and Slow", System 2 (the reflective system, the one we want to be working a little on HN) is lazy and prefers to rely on System 1 (the reflexive one that deals in subsecond responses). I think the protests of HN readers when a title isn't trivially digestible or doesn't qu…

This also reads nicely edited to Alec Baldwin Glengarry monologue voice and style, with the addition of 'System 3 is you're fired'.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#66

Every time you hear about something like this or read an article about something like this you have to slow down for a moment and realize that we brought this on ourselves. The original intent of the internet was peer to peer , not global centralized services that we all connect to. There is no technical reason why something like whatsapp can't be peer-to-peer. Choosing for a centralized service is implicitly choosin…

The issue is that people want to use things backed by a slick marketing campaign. This is why we have Slack instead of IRC, Facebook instead of talking to your friends the old fashioned way, etc.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#67
post #55

Many comments here say that it is an intrusion of privacy but a random machine sitting some corner of the world, parsing boatload of data(including yours) and detecting that there is an act of terrorism and in effect saving people. I am OK with that machine parsing through my data. I feel that when you write your email or uploading photos on FB/Instagram or send a tweet ,A machine is already doing that and many peopl…

But all the evidence we have so far says that kind of surveillance just isn't working. It only has negative side effects instead.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#68

Every time you hear about something like this or read an article about something like this you have to slow down for a moment and realize that we brought this on ourselves. The original intent of the internet was peer to peer , not global centralized services that we all connect to. There is no technical reason why something like whatsapp can't be peer-to-peer. Choosing for a centralized service is implicitly choosin…

> The original intent of [...] Not that I disagree with you but can we all stop using this as an argument.

I don't think the "original intent" of the internet is being used as an argument here. He's just pointing it out to back up his actual argument which is "we brought this on ourselves."

Also what's the matter with using intent in arguments?

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#69
post #55

Many comments here say that it is an intrusion of privacy but a random machine sitting some corner of the world, parsing boatload of data(including yours) and detecting that there is an act of terrorism and in effect saving people. I am OK with that machine parsing through my data. I feel that when you write your email or uploading photos on FB/Instagram or send a tweet ,A machine is already doing that and many peopl…

Please send me an archive of all your data. I promise I will only look for stuff related to terrorism.

Re: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking ban on WhatsApp

#70
I wonder how someone like this can call themself an activist, when it is obvious that they have not even thought about it once. If you are truely a terrorist, it takes you a few hours to implement a one-time-pad solution that will be unbreakable (and you cannot prevent that, there is not much knowledge needed for that). Only thing needed is a source of randomness but since we are talking about messaging, we do not even need more than a megabyte of it.

But well, I am from europe, looking forward to you kicking out your security industry and outsourcing it to us. Thanks for that.

Post reply on HN