DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
cyberlaw.stanford.edu
DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
1–10 of 347 posts
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#2You first DOJ. These folks want back doors so they can read everyone's traffic, but once you put a back door in an encryption standard, it affects everyone.
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#3> the “techlash” by Congress and the public “in the wake of myriad privacy scandals” and the 2016 election
This just makes my head explode. Because tech companies tend to be poor at privacy, let's use that logic to make it so the government can invade your privacy anytime they want?
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#4Interesting to read in context of the fact that public sentiment surveys suggest there is no “techlash” at all.
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#5We tried to respond thoughtfully to each of the strange arguments made by the DoJ regarding the need for encryption backdoors to protect children:
https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryp...
It's difficult at this point to think that the DoJ is arguing in good faith.
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#6Isn’t the tech lash for the complete opposite reasons? The fact that too many people have too much of our data? Why would people (outside of effective propaganda, which would be true even without the tech lash) support something that makes their problems worse?
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#7We tried to respond thoughtfully to each of the strange arguments made by the DoJ regarding the need for encryption backdoors to protect children: https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryp... It's difficult at this point to think that the DoJ is arguing in good faith.
> It's difficult at this point to think that the DoJ is arguing in good faith.
I think people in the tech industry, and especially people working on security or privacy, have known this for over a decade. Unfortunately, the public doesn't pay enough attention to the issue. And why would they? They have enough things to worry about, why pay attention to one of the things that is currently working?
It's unfortunate that we're not that good at PR.
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#8> the “techlash” by Congress and the public “in the wake of myriad privacy scandals” and the 2016 election This just makes my head explode. Because tech companies tend to be poor at privacy, let's use that logic to make it so the government can invade your privacy anytime they want?
It’s basic enemy-of my-enemy logic. It’s not always correct, but often enough to remain a powerful heuristic. It would be interesting to know if anybody has thought deeper about it, and if there are specific strategies of persuasion that work better in such situations? I’d intuitively think it might be beneficial to acknowledge the cognitive dissonance people might be experiencing when arguing this matter.
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#9A small anecdote.
A few years ago in an undergrad business class, we were having some discussion and the topic of encryption came up during one of my presentations. A student asked a question related to the ethics of encryption (I don't recall exactly what), and I was clearly confused by the question.
To clear up confusion, the professor asked those who thought encryption was "bad" to raise their hand, and at least 60% of the class raised their hands.
It was pretty jarring to me, and makes me pessimistic about the outcome of a DOJ campaign to demonize and regulate encryption
Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot
#10I’ve posted plenty of times on HN about the danger of the government being overly involved in tech and the last thing you should want if you value your liberty is more government involvement.
I’ve also warned that giving government more power to “protect” people from big tech would come back to bite the very people who for some strange reason trust government.
Every time I’ve been downvoted to oblivion.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.....