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

81–90 of 222 posts

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

#81

Post by WildUtah »

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?

There's no high tech terror for the NSA to fight. So-called intelligence about what Angela Merkel is thinking is of no diplomatic or economic use.

The NSA has almost no purpose in practical government.

But the NSA does do a lot and has a mission. It's the same mission US law enforcement always invents for itself. The NSA provides lots of leads to cops to arrest innocent drug dealers. Aside from parallel construction, the NSA does the same thing most FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol dollars go to: small time non-violent drug offender persecution.

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

#82

Post by cloakandswagger »

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.

He brought it up because it's the perfect analogy. Guns are prolific in the United States and they are protected by their Constitution. Encryption is prolific everywhere and is also (arguably) protected.

Politicians want to ban/control both of them for their own misguided, naive reasons, and in both cases doing so is impossible.

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

#83

Post by MichaelGG »

gonzo41 wrote: post #16
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5

Being HN I'm sure many of us have dreams about future computers that are seamless extensions of our bodies, doing more than we could ever imagine with a phone or a watch. Do we also have nightmares about a hacker stealing a government's back door key and giving us a heart attack in our sleep?

Have you seen Ghost in the Shell? I'm don't more integrated computers are the answer. But on the encryption front, the more the better. If everyone adds complexity then 'they' have to discriminate more. Which is good for everyone.

If you're going to weigh GITS as fictional evidence, you should at least weigh all other fictional evidence. Though you don't end up with much, except what knowing what people think about these topics.

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

#84

Post by vezzy-fnord »

bhauer wrote: post #65
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…

> They think they can legislate anything they want For Americans at least, that mentality has evolved over time as we further distance ourselves from the Constitution and its Amendments; trying our best to ignore their very clear limits on the capabilities of each branch of government. In today's American society, a diverse (and often mutually disagreeing) set of groups see the limits set in the Constitution as quain…

Sorry, but I think you're being historically obtuse.

This isn't anything new at all. The entire core debate of federalism versus anti-federalism (or to put it in perspective of historical figures, the Alexander Hamilton way against the Thomas Jefferson way) has been something going on since before the country was even conceived, and it goes on to this date.

Your portrayal of constitutional originalism being some gold standard from the "good ol' days" that we have since fallen out of grace from, is thus, completely ahistorical.

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

#85

Post by ryanmarsh »

microcolonel wrote: post #58
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…

First of all, assault rifles are not on the open market in the U.S. and haven't been for quite some time. U.S. armed violence has a lot more to it than the availability of weapons; statistics are easy to misinterpret as well, since they're really just the proportion of violent crimes that are committed with one particular tool. Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost…

I once read that the largest standing army on the planet is in the U.S. on the opening day of deer season. Not sure if that's factually accurate but it does sound formidable.

Consequently the best firearm a guerrilla fighter can own is a high powered hunting rifle with a good scope. Also, the average hunting rifle sold in the U.S. is better than the sniper rifles we recovered in Iraq. Nothing is more demoralizing to an invading force than snipers, except perhaps anti-personnel mines.

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

#86

Post by jakeogh »

wl wrote: post #76
jakeogh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Maybe that's technically true, honestly I doubt it, once you give information to the gov, it keeps it. Legal or not. Evil-doers care not about whatever law anyway, it's just a burden and an obvious infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

What's next? Background checks for 3D printers? Maybe some DRM to keep us safe?

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

#88

Post by ryanmarsh »

dmix wrote: post #45
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…

The problem is that you people like to extrapolate from one small scenario where the law will work without considering the greater practicality or long-term effectiveness of the law. The scenarios ignore basic facts about humans and technology. The simple fact is humans are resourceful and criminals have proven to be very dedicated. Consider two things, a) Regarding: > in particular, it would take a lot to convince m…

> The same was true for decades with anyone with metal machining skills.

This. Also consider there are people with machine shops all over the country that make AR-15's from scratch. These are so-called "custom" firearms. Would we have to go around shutting down all machine shops if we outlawed "black" (named for the blueing) guns?

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

#89

Post by freehunter »

pjc50 wrote: post #57
Crito wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun ban would not work in America, which is why he brought it up. The American public is already armed, really likes being armed, for the most part is not registered as being armed, actually truly believes that being disarmed is a prelude to genocide, and openly admit that they would use their arms against anyone who tried to take them. Remember what happened when the Federal government tried to get some farmer to…

People [from] several states away showed up with rifles What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police? Or were they white people? (In other countries, you can't just show up to political protests with weapons!)

Other countries don't have that right enshrined in their Constitution. America does, so of course they wouldn't be hit with terrorism charges, Race doesn't matter here. You can show up to the airport with a gun, and as long as you don't threaten anyone or try to get through the security checkpoint, you won't be arrested. If you are arrested, the arrest will be thrown out of the court. Americans have the explicit right to carry guns in a not-overtly-threatening manner in a great many places that might surprise you.

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

#90

Post by ryanmarsh »

LordKano wrote: post #30
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 want law enforcement to be a difficult, time consuming job. Idle law enforcement is a terrible thing. When law enforcement has spare time, they will find ways to occupy it. Sometimes it will be by overzealous enforcement of low level laws and other times their idleness will be used an a pretext for politicians to pass even more micro-managing laws. It's this kind of thing that led to women being arrested for wearin…

The state has all the power, therefore the burden of proof should be solely on it. This is where the doctrine of presumed innocence comes from.
Post reply on HN