25 votes

Topic deleted by author

15 comments

  1. [2]
    unknown user
    Link
    Yeah, no. Encryption seems to be the technology that would spread whether you like it or not: it's all-benefit, no-downside on the user-end, and that's what a good technology needs to spread....

    Yeah, no.

    Encryption seems to be the technology that would spread whether you like it or not: it's all-benefit, no-downside on the user-end, and that's what a good technology needs to spread. (That, and having benefit. And probably some marketing if it ain't obvious.)

    The way I see it, law enforcement should find ways to work around it. Not break it, but let people report potential criminal activity or dangerous content with the tools they have. Put pressure on Google and Apple to put "report crime" button into their default apps or something. Make it easy for the user to do: as little friction and as little opportunity to do wrong as possible.

    30 votes
    1. [2]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        A liar, that’s who

        Who's to say the backdoor won't be leaked?

        A liar, that’s who

        6 votes
  2. unknown user
    Link
    I apologise for quoting Rick And Morty, but this just sounds like Summer crying: Why don't you stop trying to make our technology worse and instead work on making your people better at preventing...

    I apologise for quoting Rick And Morty, but this just sounds like Summer crying:

    I didn’t know freedom meant people doing stuff that sucks!

    Why don't you stop trying to make our technology worse and instead work on making your people better at preventing crime and catching actual predators? Patrols, border control, working with communities. You know, the police stuff.

    25 votes
  3. [4]
    tlalexander
    Link
    They’re literally saying “think of the children” to condemn the same technology that weakens authoritarian governments. Cool.

    They’re literally saying “think of the children” to condemn the same technology that weakens authoritarian governments. Cool.

    18 votes
    1. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. anahata
        Link Parent
        And that's entirely the point. They know they have an unassailable position so that's why they invoke it.

        And that's entirely the point. They know they have an unassailable position so that's why they invoke it.

        2 votes
      2. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        It makes it harder to out creeps. Anonymity and privacy are critical elements of whistleblower protection.

        It makes it harder to out creeps. Anonymity and privacy are critical elements of whistleblower protection.

        2 votes
    2. NaraVara
      Link Parent
      The culture of law enforcement is monomaniacally obsessed with catching and punishing law breakers. Not public order Not public safety. Not even catching “bad guys” since bad is an ethical...

      The culture of law enforcement is monomaniacally obsessed with catching and punishing law breakers.

      Not public order

      Not public safety.

      Not even catching “bad guys” since bad is an ethical statement of values. But they’re specifically out to catch law breakers whether the law is good or bad.

      3 votes
  4. Soptik
    Link
    If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will be using encryption. There is no point in banning encryption or mandating by law to install backdoors, as the only ones who are going to be affected are...

    If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will be using encryption.

    There is no point in banning encryption or mandating by law to install backdoors, as the only ones who are going to be affected are people that have nothing to hide (eh, I hate this expression).

    All the terrorists and criminals are just going to download apps they - or people from countries where encryption isn't banned - create. And there you go, you just moved all the people you wanted to surveill to platform where you can't get even the metadata.

    13 votes
  5. [6]
    dblohm7
    Link
    We sorely need people in law enforcement who understand the basics of a packet-switched, layered network architecture, as well as the basics of applied cryptography. You don't need to be an expert...

    We sorely need people in law enforcement who understand the basics of a packet-switched, layered network architecture, as well as the basics of applied cryptography.

    You don't need to be an expert in crypto math to understand the security consequences of this stuff.

    9 votes
    1. [5]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      Could you give us a quick layman-targeted breakdown of how and why this is important?

      Could you give us a quick layman-targeted breakdown of how and why this is important?

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        Litmus2336
        Link Parent
        Encryption runs everything. If it was broken, almost everyone would see everything you do on the internet at all times. Bank logins, pictures of your family, your company's sensitive data would...

        Encryption runs everything. If it was broken, almost everyone would see everything you do on the internet at all times. Bank logins, pictures of your family, your company's sensitive data would all be incredibly easy to steal were they ever transmitted on the internet.

        11 votes
        1. vord
          Link Parent
          I'll also add that without good encryption, it also becomes easier to steal things from any internet-connected device, even if the sensitive information isn't directly transmitted.

          I'll also add that without good encryption, it also becomes easier to steal things from any internet-connected device, even if the sensitive information isn't directly transmitted.

          4 votes
      2. [2]
        dblohm7
        Link Parent
        Gladly. Most computer networks (the internet included) are packet switched. When one computer sends a message to another computer, that message is split up into chunks called packets. Each packet...

        Could you give us a quick layman-targeted breakdown of how and why this is important?

        Gladly.

        Most computer networks (the internet included) are packet switched. When one computer sends a message to another computer, that message is split up into chunks called packets. Each packet contains some bytes at the beginning that constitutes a "header" that contains required information for the packet to get from A to B. The remaining bytes of the packet are for a payload.

        This structure is very interesting for many reasons, but among those reasons is that you can layer protocols on top of one another.

        For example, suppose an ethernet LAN. All packets sent over the wire contain an ethernet header so that the ethernet hardware knows where each packet came from and where its destination is. Once the recipient machine receives that ethernet packet, it strips off that ethernet header information and passes the payload on to some higher-level code for processing.

        Here's the magic: What if that payload is itself a packet belonging to another protocol? That "higher-level" code doing the processing can be a driver for another protocol!

        • If that ethernet packet's payload is an Internet Protocol packet, then that packet can be routed to other IP networks, even ones that don't use ethernet!
        • If that IP packet's payload is a packet for TCP, then the TCP packet will be retransmitted until the destination acknowledges that it has been received -- now you have connection reliability!
        • If that TCP packet's payload is a packet for HTTP, then the payload will be understood by web servers!
        • The web server receives that payload, and passes it to the application.
        • But we're not done yet! The application itself could have its own protocols!

        How does this relate to encryption?

        There's always a higher layer protocol, even if that top layer is human and not machine!

        Let's say the government bans end-to-end encryption from all instant messaging apps. What would that hypothetical IM apps packets look like over the internet?

        Here's one possibility:

        [IP header][TCP header][HTTP header][IM application header][message text encrypted with breakable encryption as mandated by the government]
        

        Seems pretty bad for bad guys (TM) who want to send end-to-end encrypted messages, right?

        Here's the catch: There's nothing in that scheme that stops the user from encrypting their message before they type it into the IM application! If that user and their recipient agreed ahead of time to use something like a one-time pad (which is information-theoretic secure and, when done correctly, is thus unbreakable), then they will still be able to communicate securely!

        So even if governments had a magic wand that could magically ban all end-to-end encryption software from the face of the earth, users can still circumvent that ban!

        That seems like a pretty high sacrifice for the majority of the population!

        The worst part about this is that politicians don't understand these arguments. Their answer is always that, to paraphrase, "you nerds just have to try harder. We're going to twist your arm some more." like a schoolyard bully. They don't understand that what they're asking for is like ordering scientists to eliminate gravity -- it's just not possible!

        2 votes
        1. unknown user
          Link Parent
          I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment 'cause that's the only argument I have in mind right now. I'm gonna try and see the other side through the eyes of its opponent. Here goes: But the...

          I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment 'cause that's the only argument I have in mind right now. I'm gonna try and see the other side through the eyes of its opponent. Here goes:

          But the only reason someone would go to such lengths to hide the content of their message is someone whose activity requires such secrecy – and, thus, someone who has something to hide. We can then just detain them and search through their stuff to find what was it they were so secretive about.

  6. Arshan
    Link
    If I said that we should outlaw private conversations and all in-person conversations should be recorded and accessible to law enforcement, I would be stunned if any person would agree with me....

    If I said that we should outlaw private conversations and all in-person conversations should be recorded and accessible to law enforcement, I would be stunned if any person would agree with me. And come on, think of all the children that would be protected if the police could monitor all IRL conversations. In-person privacy is considered sacrosanct because it is easy to understand by anyone. Digital privacy is attacked because it is not immediately apparent to a layman the issues caused by policies proposed by the article. An encryption scheme with a backdoor for police will eventually be a scheme with a backdoor for anyone. Do you really want technically savvy pedophiles being able to read your children's messages? Public safety must be balanced with human rights.

    9 votes