How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#61

Post by roughcoat » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #55

roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

> Encryption and guns are both tools Fireworks are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous. Sulfuric acid is a tool, but need to be regulated because is dangerous. Plutonium is a tool, but needs to be regulated because is dangerous. Opioids are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous. Cars are tools, but it's use needs to be regulated because are dangerous. I find it amazing that I need to…

If your idea of reasoned discussion is responding to my comments with logical fallacies, there's no point in wasting any more time on you. Good day.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#62

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:35 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #20

The story title mentions Australia but this is relevant to all the 5eye nations, as they're obviously pre-briefing the media on what the agenda will be and this is the first time that we're getting detail on what they'll be proposing (the UK proposals were vague) What they seem to be talking around is implementing an app-level CALEA-like capability. What I think how they think it would work: companies would be made t…

I think that you're spot on. My only surprise would be that it hasn't happened already.

Many of the major telecom-ish apps that were not subject to interception added the capability later via regulation or circumstance. Nextel Direct Connect, Skype and the mysterious purchase by eBay, and FaceTime after the patent suit come to mind.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#63

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:36 PM UTC

kakarot wrote: post #57

badminton1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat. Having weapons at home can barely counter law enforcement, let alone a professional military force. This time there's more technology supporting each area of warfare: logistics, reconnaissance, equipment, vehicles... A militia, however organized, has everything to lose against an regular army in…

You are absolutely correct and it's a horrible state of affairs. There's still no need to starve the beast and remove one of the few weapons we have against the slaughtering of our rights and freedoms. Just being able to purchase guns of reasonable firepower without scrutiny is extremely important to the freedom of our posterity and their ability to organize. I know this almost makes me sound like some sort of radica…

[deleted]

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#64

Post by andy_ppp » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

cynicalbastard wrote: post #37

freedom-loving internet users will soon know how gun owners feel. every single bogus argument for gun control or "assault weapons" bans can, and will be, used against internet speech freedom and information privacy, now that the western political establishment has taken it upon themselves to strip you of your free speech rights after seeing how trivial it was stripping you of your guns, and how much enthusiasm their…

This is a brilliant comment except for the fact these weapons you presumably own will never, ever be able to overthrow the US government; a few hackers employed by Russia already did that anyway.

Secondly, if what you say is true I assume, given the refusal to follow large parts of the rest of the constitution, you are planning to overthrow them as we speak?

Finally, I’m concerned that your dream of overthrowing a bad/illegal government, while utterly hopeless, is causing tens of thousands of deaths and about 100000 people being shot per yer. But hey, that imaginary overthrowing the government thing is worth it...

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#65

Post by Thiez » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:42 PM UTC

roughcoat wrote: post #54

roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

Further to this, the reality is politicians who want to undermine information security don't give a damn about protecting their citizens/subjects. That's just the excuse to make the poison pill more palatable. What this is about, and what gun control is about, is right there in the name: control . It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. At the…

> It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage.

Having an entity with a monopoly on violence is like half the point of a government. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#66

Post by barrkel » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:47 PM UTC

roughcoat wrote: post #49

diego_moita wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You didn't even make an argument He did. He said the children in Newtown's kindergarden and Columbine School were not killed with encryption. It is a pretty big difference. For a non-American this is a pretty good argument, IMO.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

The only purpose of a gun - a handgun in particular - is to wound and kill people, something civilians have no business doing. That's not the case with encryption.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#67

Post by wayn3 » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #66

roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

The only purpose of a gun - a handgun in particular - is to wound and kill people, something civilians have no business doing. That's not the case with encryption.

the primary purpose of a gun is to deter possible aggressors from starting trouble with you.

the ultima ratio is to actually use the gun. for 99% of threats, showing it off is good enough.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#68

Post by roughcoat » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #65

roughcoat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further to this, the reality is politicians who want to undermine information security don't give a damn about protecting their citizens/subjects. That's just the excuse to make the poison pill more palatable. What this is about, and what gun control is about, is right there in the name: control . It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. At the…

> It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. Having an entity with a monopoly on violence is like half the point of a government. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Uh huh. Have you studied the genocides of the 20th century? How does a disarmed and helpless populace look in those circumstances?

And since you think the government should be trusted to mete out all force, I'm certain you'll have no trouble handing the government all your passwords and keys, right? Maybe mail them a copy of your car keys and house keys too, since they're so trustworthy?

You trust them to protect your physical safety, to protect your life, if you're willing to hand over your right to self protection. Surely you then trust them with your data and property?

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#69

Post by roughcoat » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #66

roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

The only purpose of a gun - a handgun in particular - is to wound and kill people, something civilians have no business doing. That's not the case with encryption.

I've used a handgun to signal for help, to find lost people in the woods in Alaska, to hunt, to scare away bears, and for fun. And on a few occasions, I've been very glad to have a handgun with me stateside, because I came quite close to needing to use it to protect myself. Fortunately I was able to negotiate those situations without using force.

Are you a pacifist, incidentally? Can you really think of no valid reason why a citizen might need to wound or kill someone?

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#70

Post by babyrainbow » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

roughcoat wrote: post #54

roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them. Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow hel…

Further to this, the reality is politicians who want to undermine information security don't give a damn about protecting their citizens/subjects. That's just the excuse to make the poison pill more palatable. What this is about, and what gun control is about, is right there in the name: control . It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. At the…

>I find it shocking how many people who clamor for electronic freedom and an uninterfered-with internet are perfectly happy to cede their rights and independence in other areas to the government without so much as a grumble...

This is absolutely the most shocking thing I have come to notice recently, which just shows that these people have reasons spoon fed to them from somewhere, (knowingly or unknowingly) and have not really thought it through..

What I feel is that the while modern society feels not susceptible to the evils,oppressions and exploitations that were prevalent 100 years ago, while most people were poorly educated, this seems to be just a fallacy. And educated people can be manipulated just as easily by feeding them some kind of "reason" and selective "statistics" from certain "reputable" sources or authority.