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

The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 215 posts

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#81

Post by krapp »

danieltillett wrote: post #80
krapp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17

Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#82

Post by Estragon »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10
jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the government realizes they're playing musical chairs and…

Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

The whole world is flooded with fiction about using guns to stop bad people with guns. The narrative around crypto is tiny by comparison.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#83

Post by danieltillett »

krapp wrote: post #81
danieltillett wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17

Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.

Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#84

Post by krapp »

danieltillett wrote: post #83
krapp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.

Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.

Admittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#85

Post by koenigdavidmj »

Estragon wrote: post #82
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

The whole world is flooded with fiction about using guns to stop bad people with guns. The narrative around crypto is tiny by comparison.

Fiction? This exact thing happened in my very liberal city in the last day:

http://komonews.com/news/local/hatchet-wielding-man-killed-b...

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#86

Post by themartorana »

ibejoeb wrote: post #32
axihack wrote: post #21

Can anyone point me to where WhatsApp app is actually confirming they are implementing E2E encryption and how? I couldn't find anything on the oficial web/blog, the single mention on security is this FAQ[1] which is about server/device encryption. A friend also told me E2E is only available for US users but unfortunatelly I can't confirm this because of the lack of communication from WhatsApp. [1] https://www.whatsap…

I've never seen any official confirmation, but Wired reported that it had been enabled between Android devices: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ . The implementations is reportedly based on TextSecure/Signal. Moxie says WhatsApp "is implementing" which is certainly distinct from "has implemented."

If the FBI wasn't locked in a stand-off with WhatsApp because of the encryption, I would have reason to doubt it exists. However...

In any case, my family uses WhatsApp pretty heavily, and I love reading about their engineering, so I'm happy to hear that this encryption exists and is flustering a far-overreaching government. Now let's hope Apple et al prevail, because I like my non-backdoored encrypted messaging.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#87

Post by LastZactionHero »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10
jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the government realizes they're playing musical chairs and…

Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

The recent issues over encryption has actually changed my thinking on guns. I'm not 'pro gun', don't own guns, and want nothing to do with them personally.

But as I think about my stance on the legality of encryption it sounds pretty similar to the argument for guns. Still don't want one, but it's harder for me to be dismissive of a point when I turn around and use the same point for another issue.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#88

Post by csandreasen »

schoen wrote: post #44
steve19 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perception is wrong. The gun lobby is crazyily grassroots. The NRA is demonized, but their spending in lobbying is low (their income is relatively low and they have a lot of other elements such as training and certification) and less than the gun control lobby since Bloomberg (and some silicon Valley VCs) began to lobby. There is only one reason the NRA has influence: members and sympathizers will vote on thier…

> Lobby groups like the eff need more members and crucially need members to vote for who they recommend EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization and is forbidden to endorse or oppose political candidates. That is different from NRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Org...

That's interesting. They've come pretty close to that line in the past...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/tea-party-taxes-and-wh...

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#89

Post by colejohnson66 »

barney54 wrote: post #70
chongli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Obama Administration simply will not throw their own (the FBI) under the bus. Fortunately for us the Democrats do not control congress so Obama is unlikely to get his wish here.

The Republicans aren't necessarily better, but they are anti-Obama which helps on this issue.

Anti-Obama and (for I'd assume a good number) anti-encryption (in the form of pro-FBI)

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#90

Post by themartorana »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #3
throwaway0209 wrote: post #2

Here the local drug dealers encourage use of a app called Wickr. Does anyone know how the encryption compares to WhatsApp?

https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/249#issuecommen... https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/32hexp/a_secret_... Don't use Wickr. Proprietary crypto + an interesting target for NSA because of its popularity among ISIS = probably snake oil and at the very least makes you a target "Career criminals recommend it" isn't a good indicator of security. Two things to consider: 1. Confidential informants exist…

The hi-tech application, known as Wickr, is the latest in the long list of tools the death cult is using to lure Australian jihadis to join their bloody campaign.

Sure doesn't help when this is how the media describes a text messaging app.

Post reply on HN