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

81–90 of 282 posts

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

#81

Post by caskance »

Karunamon wrote: post #67
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 come…

Never heard of Hanlon's razor?

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

#82

Post by Quinner »

mangeletti wrote: post #14
pera wrote: post #4

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, any debate is just a waste of time, money, and maybe even lives. What are they thinking??

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. 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. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

It's worse, because a gun is a discrete physical item. Encryption code is virtual and infinitely replicable, regulation is extremely ineffective at restricting it from those that want it.

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

#83

Post by slg »

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…

Except encryption provides a level of privacy that has never before been possible. Could you imagine a physical padlock that was unable to be cracked, cut, or circumvented in any way? It is easy to see how that would scare law enforcement. Imagine your job is to keep people safe. Now envision a kid strapped to a bomb inside a shack and the only thing preventing you from breaking in and saving that kid's life is that magical and unbreakable padlock. That is how many laypeople view encryption. It is hard to tell that person that you won't consider introducing any weakness into that lock.

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

#84

Post by refurb »

A_Beer_Clinked wrote: post #63
lholden wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

Who exactly enforces the UN's Declaration of Human Rights?

Without power to back it up it means nothing.

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

#85

Post by Torgo »

A_Beer_Clinked wrote: post #63
lholden wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

The universal declaration of human rights doesn't grant you an unqualified right to privacy. Article 29, part 2:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

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

#86

Post by ATsch »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #77
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…

I generally agree with your tack... I just want to grow out there that I'm a little concerned about our use of the word shrill. It means high pitched and piercing, and is typically used for women's voices for obvious reasons. There's nothing actually bad about being shrill... That just means you are a woman (high pitched) whose message is getting through (piercing). There's no similar word for men who are being heard…

I've never heard shrill used to describe a voice, I for one mostly associate it with mechanical noise ("The machine errupted to life with a shrill screch").

In any case, in the above comment it is used to refer to the way the pitch of male and female voices rises when frightened or exited and is far from being a gender-specific slur.

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

#87

Post by chrisfosterelli »

jacobolus wrote: post #21
mangeletti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. 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. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

> 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?

It's true that bad actors will use those things regardless of if it is legal or not. I agree it's a bad comparison because the difference here is that nerve gas and guns have potential to kill other people even if given to "good guys".

Secure communication does not kill other people, it protects yourself. We should allow everyone to have that because by taking it away the only thing we will do is harm law abiding people.

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

#88

Post by Quinner »

aero142 wrote: post #13
conwaytwitty wrote: post #5

When X is illegal, only the criminals will have X. Replace X with basically anything.

"When nuclear bombs are illegal, only the criminals will have nuclear bombs." I think your grand unifying theory needs more nuance.

I think your nit-picking needs more thought, nuclear bombs are illegal for an individual to possess, and if someone had managed to obtain a bomb from say the former USSR, they would most definitely be considered a criminal.

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

#89

Post by wlesieutre »

mike_hearn wrote: post #70
wlesieutre wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

My biggest concern isn't so much that the government could get a warrant with probable cause and intercept a few emails or monitor my web browsing, it's that for all I know (seems pretty likely?) a significant chunk of everything I do online is intercepted and stored forever, encrypted or no.

If we allow a ban on secure end-to-end encryption, are we setting ourselves up for a future government to go back and demand access to everything we've ever done? Do I want to have somebody in 2060 datamining my entire life? It's worrying to me.

Short of putting better end-to-end encryption everywhere, I'm not sure how we prevent that. As you say, that sort of encryption is pretty uncommon, so maybe this is what we're headed toward either way. I think it's worrying.

But I'm not an expert on cryptography. Are there are other solutions?

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

#90

Post by yourepowerless »

Amazing, a government apologist is top comment, I'm sure there's no astro turfing going on here!

Ask people who work in policy, the reason things are a certain way is rarely technical, its usually political, which is a qaint way of saying decisions are made by corrupt power brokers.

Post reply on HN