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

Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#61

Post by checktheorder »

octosphere wrote: post #27

Yeah but what's to stop a bad actor simply switching to a provably secure cryptographic system or app? Don't forget there's an arms race going on, where bad actors consistently try to outpace law enforcement by switching to provably secure and private systems. Take for example when 3DES[0] was discovered as insecure and all the criminals switched to AES[1]. And don't forget the old adage: If you outlaw encryption, th…

The bureaucrats and politicians who espouse the same opinions as Barr all live in a very old-school world. They believe that encryption is a product solely "built" by companies with Wall Street headquarters open 9-4 M-F. They think that stopping these companies from "building" their encryption is a matter of talking about it with a director of the company in question over 18 holes, or failing that, sending a strongly-worded letter to the legal department of the company in question. Barr&co. do not live in the real world.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#62

Post by jvagner »

tehjoker wrote: post #22

We don't need to make arguments like "I trust the state, but what about criminals?". All US administrations have exhibited strong evidence of criminality and work to suppress dissent and oppress minorities. The current administration makes AG Barr's machinations exceptionally clear as they employ an ever more viscous kidnapping force and (incompetently) attempt to start wars around the world. If you want to be able t…

Agreed.

The government already has so many resources & advantages against individuals, groups and companies.

They don't get this one, too.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#63

Post by victorNicollet »

loeg wrote: post #54
iamnotacrook wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say that about criminalizing TOR. If you knew that by using TOR you were going to get swatted at 3am you'd probably stop using it. Same goes for encryption. The second any law is passed google/apple are going to pull apps; whatsapp etc are going to remove e2e (or alter it so the UI is the same but it can be snooped on) and criminals are going to have to figure out how to use PGP or whatever.

In this scenario, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft will immediately fold as they can no longer securely sell products to customers. If e2e crypto is banned, the entire ecommerce market is fucked.

This isn't a ban on end-to-end crypto. A company would still be able to use end-to-end crypto, as long as they control one end, which is already the case in ecommerce.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#64

Post by t0mbstone »

cr0sh wrote: post #25
heisenbit wrote: post #14

Mr. Barr is working for a President who's son in law was discussing to establish an encrypted and covert back-channel through the Russian embassy. He himself is accused of suppression and obfuscation of critical information that should have gone to Congress ages ago. He has less than zero standing in this area.

[flagged]

But the Mueller report didn't find conclude that Trump colluded with the Russians. And their reasoning? Because they aren't allowed to indict a sitting president.

If that's not the most bass-ackwards thing and proof of corruption I've ever heard of.

"We held a giant investigation, but didn't conclude the party in question was guilty because we literally aren't allowed to"

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#65

Post by tomphoolery »

> The existence of encryption means "converting the Internet and communications into a law-free zone" that criminals will happily take advantage of to do more crimes, Barr added, likening it to a neighborhood that local cops have abandoned.

This is such an asinine comparison. It's not like the cops have access to every locked door of every house in their jurisdiction. You don't need to build a special "cop door" into your house so they can come in whenever they want to, and you don't need to make an extra copy to give to the precinct. Why should my "internet house" be any different?

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#66

Post by jessaustin »

cmurf wrote: post #19

Clearly the antitrust investigation is really about strong arming big tech into putting in backdoors. Republican administrations for decades have been weak on competition law, they have little problem with mergers and conglomeration, and have no concerns for consumer protection, or a belief in a broad privacy right. And that's because they believe those things are adequately addressed by consumers making informed cho…

Speaking of China, maybe Huawei could get out of the doghouse by giving DoJ some backdoor?

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#67

Post by naturlich »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #12
sokoloff wrote: post #8

> The FBI ended up in possession of the shooter's iPhone during the investigation but was unable to unlock the device, as the attacker had been killed and therefore could not be compelled to share his PIN. Is it not the case that he couldn't be legally compelled to share his PIN even if he were alive?

No one can force your to share information. Let's say your PIN code is 1324, and you suffer from stress induced transposia (just made that up). Every time you are asked to say or share your PIN code, you get stresses & use 1234, even though you meant to use 1324. There's no way make you say the correct PIN code. In a more realistic example, what are you going to do to someone who simply forgot their PIN code?

They cannot compel you to divulge a password, but they can mandate a thumb unlock, just as while they cannot compel you to divulge a safe combination, they can mandate you give them a key.

Information versus material.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#68

Post by elbrian »

coolspot wrote: post #51
jakelazaroff wrote: post #32

> The cost of encryption, he said, is measured in "victims" who might have been saved from crime if law enforcement had been able to lawfully intercept communications earlier. The cost of backdoors is measured in hospitals paralyzed by ransomware, personal information stolen by hackers, government secrets obtained by hostile nations. Not to mention the threat of pervasive surveillance by our own government, which has…

Look, same applies for example to 2nd amendment. But people find it plausible and vote for more gun control.

Not even close to the same thing.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#69

Post by snuxoll »

bdamm wrote: post #53
octosphere wrote: post #27

Yeah but what's to stop a bad actor simply switching to a provably secure cryptographic system or app? Don't forget there's an arms race going on, where bad actors consistently try to outpace law enforcement by switching to provably secure and private systems. Take for example when 3DES[0] was discovered as insecure and all the criminals switched to AES[1]. And don't forget the old adage: If you outlaw encryption, th…

> then only outlaws will use encryption Which makes them easy to find in a dragnet unless they're also using stenography.

Steganography, not stenography.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#70

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

Even if the gov required backdoors. It's not going to stop the highly invested terrorists. If someone was to go through all the trouble of plotting another 911, I think they'd have more then enough money to create a secure messaging site of their own. All it takes is one little web site with a really strong encryption algorithm. It's pretty trivial to create your own messaging platform and not too hard to add a large enough encryption to it.
Post reply on HN