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

91–100 of 282 posts

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

#91

Post by jacquesm »

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…

> It should be a human right.

It actually is a human right.

The right to privacy is one of the most fundamental ones that we have.

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

#92

Post by jacquesm »

refurb wrote: post #84
A_Beer_Clinked wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Technically, each and every one of the UN member states should back these up.

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

#93

Post by jacquesm »

yourepowerless wrote: post #90

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.

> a government apologist

That's entirely uncalled for. Just because you disagree does not make someone a government apologist.

I guess you'll call me a government apologist next.

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

#94

Post by lholden »

slg wrote: post #83
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…

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…

But those are not the same thing. Encryption in this case would be like the location of the kid and bomb being kept secret.

The bad guy may have told someone in person where the location is... or sent an encrypted email. But unless you were involved in either conversation, you are still in the dark.

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

#95

Post by helicon »

mike_hearn wrote: post #74
helicon wrote: post #25

The IRA were known to recruit top stem students from universities in Ireland during their campaign to make bombs. Surely an entity as large and as well financed and ISIS would have little trouble finding bright young engineers & technologists sympathetic to their cause to simply build their own encrypted services? And then so much for the spooks 'backdoors'

Because PGP has been so successful? The tactic you're suggesting has been tried before (the software was called Asrar, I think). It doesn't work well for them, for a couple of reasons: 1) Custom terrorist software is no easier to use than something more mainstream like PGP, but is a lot more incriminating if you're found to be using it. 2) Is it really made by fellow jihadis? Or is it a backdoored plant by western in…

Ah... But let's say you and I have already met up in a training camp in Afghanistan or Syria and installed an apk on our smartphones!

But those are interesting points.

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

#96

Post by yourepowerless »

jacquesm wrote: post #93
yourepowerless wrote: post #90

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.

> a government apologist That's entirely uncalled for. Just because you disagree does not make someone a government apologist. I guess you'll call me a government apologist next.

He is defending a corrupt institution which has repeatedly lied, tortured and murdered.

Also,what he wrote is wrong, chances are not better than even that some random issue is a certain way because of some complex technical reason, most decisions in DC are made through the lens of politics, ask anyone who works in policy and they will say the same.

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

#97

Post by woah »

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 problem with what you are saying is that even if a backdoor could work technically, and it was actually used effectively by the authorities (the Paris attackers communicated over unencrypted media), it STILL would not do anything to "keep people safe".

130 people were killed in those attacks. 361 people died in automobile accidents in Minnesota in 2014, to find a random statistic. Terrorism is simply not a real threat, and eliminating it will not make anyone any safer.

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

#98

Post by kobayashi »

coldtea wrote: post #15

How about this: we assume terrorists can fucking talk covertly whenever they like (since there are myriads of channels and codes that they can use) and that mass surveillance is not the way to catch them plotting their next act. And from then on, ONLY use surveillance on specific targets under investigation. And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose t…

>And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose them wisely.

This is an insanely bad idea. I understand where you're coming from, but think about how that would play out in real life. I was going to write it out, but I really think that you can probably figure it out if you do think it through. From the perspective of the intel/policing agency, and from a political side, there are too many good reasons why we should not limit the number of targets an agency can investigate.

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

#99

Post by kobayashi »

coldtea wrote: post #15

How about this: we assume terrorists can fucking talk covertly whenever they like (since there are myriads of channels and codes that they can use) and that mass surveillance is not the way to catch them plotting their next act. And from then on, ONLY use surveillance on specific targets under investigation. And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose t…

>And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose them wisely.

This is an insanely bad idea. I understand where you're coming from, but think about how that would play out in real life. I was going to write it out, but I really think that you can probably figure it out if you do think it through. From the perspective of the intel/policing agency, and from a political side, there are too many good reasons why we should not limit the number of targets an agency can investigate.

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

#100

Post by alkonaut »

fweespeech wrote: post #71
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…

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. Its not a tech problem or a solvable problem in the way you imply. It sounds reasonable but it is like solving lightning strikes. Yo…

I don't think it's entirely irrational to throw money at counterterrorism that could have saved more lives elsewhere. However I do think that the money is better spent on prevention (integration, aid, ...) than on war.

People aren't scared of dying in traffic or by a preventable medical error. Maybe they should, but they aren't. Those risks are real, but they don't affect how people go about their lives. Terrorism is a tiny risk of death but an enormous cost in terms of percieved safety.

Its a cliché to say "defend our way of life", but throwing money at creating the illusion of safety so I dare go to the football stadium is just that. I wish we didn't have to spend millions securing a football match, but one can't dismiss it as a waste without assigning a zero value to the idea of going to watch the match. Times many thousand spectators.

Post reply on HN