The Clean Network
state.gov
The Clean Network
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: The Clean Network
#2Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24110992
Re: The Clean Network
#3Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24110992
Yeah. I thought it could be fun to revisit this legacy of the trump administration in light of recent events.
Re: The Clean Network
#4This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room.
Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems.
Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.
Re: The Clean Network
#5This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems. Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.
Admitting cryptography works means 2 things:
* people will use it and it will be harder for the US to spy on its own citizens and its "allies"
* people might buy superior Chinese products instead of inferior Americans ones. 5G is a perfect example of this.
Pages like these also allow the current administration to act tough without actually making any tough decisions or doing much...
Re: The Clean Network
#6This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems. Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.
Poorly thought out by a bunch of cold warriors that thought they could use America's centralized technological superiority to do damage to their perceived enemy, China. By labeling Chinese technology, network and apps as "unclean".
Of course the problem in that is that what if it is no longer you who decides what is clean and what is unclean? Wouldn't you then regret supporting a system that was hierarchy where an app store at the top could turn things on and off, rather than a network where no single authority is in control?
Of course these guys lacked the imagination to imagine that. And they certainly didn't think it would happen just 6 months later ...
Re: The Clean Network
#7This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems. Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.
You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors. For this, we rely on trust.
It is then only a matter of choosing who to trust with the backdoors into your system. You might have good reasons to prefer to trust a foreign government with the backdoors into your system, but that isn't true for the federal government.
Re: The Clean Network
#8This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems. Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.
You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors. For this, we rely on trust. It is then only a matter of choosing who to trust with the backdoors into your system. You might have good reasons to prefer to trust a foreign government with the backdoors into your system, but that isn't true for the federal government.
> You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors
Yes you can, there are many methods including but not limited to SGX among other things.
Re: The Clean Network
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors. For this, we rely on trust. It is then only a matter of choosing who to trust with the backdoors into your system. You might have good reasons to prefer to trust a foreign government with the backdoors into your system, but that isn't true for the federal government.
> You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors Yes you can, there are many methods including but not limited to SGX among other things.
SGX has critical flaws that may or may not have been put there intentionally. How do you "cryptographically verify" that such vulnerabilities do not exist?
Re: The Clean Network
#10The terminology is unfortunate at best, deliberately racist at worst. Authoritarian nationalists' obsession with them being "clean" and others being "unclean" has a very sordid history. Even if they're misnomers, "secure" or "safe" would have been better, or any number of completely value-neutral names.