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

Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 222 posts

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#71

Post by cesarb »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #60
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amen…

> Politicians think encryption is in the first category. This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. That puts it firmly into the second category for many people. (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)

> This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption.

For some time, only online banking was allowed to use strong encryption on the web. There was a special kind of certificate, which could be issued only to financial organizations, which told browsers they were allowed to use strong cipher suites.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#72

Post by jessaustin »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #60
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amen…

> Politicians think encryption is in the first category. This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. That puts it firmly into the second category for many people. (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)

(It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)

For one thing, most people have at least some money, while the desire to photograph one's genitals (and especially, after having done so, to keep the results private) is relatively rare.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#73

Post by saosebastiao »

idlewords wrote: post #33
phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

I don't know...if I were Swiss I could probably conclude that mandatory gun ownership is the way to fewer school shootings. But reality is always more complex than that, isn't it?

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#74

Post by _delirium »

istvan__ wrote: post #51
idlewords wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

Any proof? There are several countries in Europe with relaxed gun laws and we don't have too many shootings. While in Germany ("Gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world") we have seen some school shootings... Could you back your statement with any data? THe only thing I got proves otherwise: http://41.media.tumblr.com/4b2648afd425728c741b77cef3ed793e/...

I wonder what that would look like if you looked specifically at handgun ownership rather than overall gun ownership. In the Nordic countries (which overall have quite a lot of guns) the general assumption behind regulation has been that handguns are a problem but rifles are less of one, especially rifles in rural areas. It's a bit puzzling to me that the American debate has focused on "assault rifles", which statistically seem much less of a problem than handguns.

As an example of large differences in ratio, Finland has a fairly high gun ownership rate of around 55 guns per 100 people, but only 5 handguns per 100 people. And while it's common to have a rifle in your truck in rural areas, you can't legally carry around a handgun in the middle of Helsinki.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#75

Post by beedogs »

tremon wrote: post #14
beedogs wrote: post #9

The way I see it, law enforcement has had it far too easy for far too long. The Snowden revalations finally turned over all the rocks and people saw that they have been grossly overstepping both ethical and legal boundaries, and encryption is finally getting the mindshare it desperately needs. So to their petulant cries of being unable to read our communications anymore, I say: fuck 'em. Time to earn your keep now, b…

I have a lot of trouble viewing anything involving the NSA as "law enforcement". Like the CIA, aren't they specifically created to subvert the law in other countries and not operate in their own jurisdiction?

I used the term loosely, but the FBI director was the one agitating for crypto legislation recently.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#76

Post by wl »

jakeogh wrote: post #68
wl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass…

"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.

Just because all of the proposals from legislators to make background checks mandatory for all purchases involve de facto registries doesn't mean that it's impossible to implement it without registries.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#77

Post by cloakandswagger »

de_Selby wrote: post #27
phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#78

Post by Zigurd »

Someone1234 wrote: post #17
jebblue wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The united States isn't an empire, that's what it was formed to get away from. It's a collection of people, living in different communities called states that strive to stay united to form a more perfect union. It isn't a perfect experiment because people are not perfect but it's the best effort history has seen so far.

Tell that to the countries the US keeps invading. At the very least Grenada, Iraq (2003), and Panama. But the list is far longer and more complicated (and stretches back fifty years or more). Nobody would call the US an "empire" if all it did was keep in its own territory and stay out of other country's internal affairs. Nobody calls Canada an empire for example. But the US keeps deciding to outright attack other cou…

Heck, tell that to France, who can't manage to root out the US influence in their telcos or their intelligence services, and who are powerless offer asylum to Assange and/or Snowden.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#79

Post by cloakandswagger »

leppr wrote: post #39
de_Selby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

Not only governments do excessive excesses. In some places the government's caring hand might not be very present, in which case criminals being the only dispensers of firearms has some interesting (and predictable) consequences.

I find that most of the people calling for the control (and ultimate abolition) of gun ownership have had the luxury of never living in a place where there is a real threat of danger, either from animals or other people.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#80

Post by ryandrake »

adventured wrote: post #56
mattrad wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you read Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation". It skewers the idea that America is not an empire, and demonstrates that America has always been aggressively expansionist. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Nation-Americas-Earliest-T...

The US clearly hasn't always been aggressively expansionist. It isn't today. America has had the most powerful military on earth for 70 years, along with a large population. List all of the vast amounts of territory it has annexed using that extraordinary military power. There are endless opportunities to do so, and the US is the sole military with global projection. Some people point to military bases. Which doesn't…

You don't necessarily have to annex territory to control it, either politically or economically.
Post reply on HN