7 ms·

Deceptive title, unintentionally. FTA: "Instead, the Post reports, the “administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt th

Deceptive title, unintentionally. FTA: "Instead, the Post reports, the “administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt their customers’ data to create a way for the government to still peer into people’s data when needed for criminal or terrorism investigations.” While eschewing attempts to legislatively mandate that tech companies build backdoors into their services, the president is continuing the status quo – that is, informally pressuring companies to give the government access to unencrypted data." Status quo is that the government doesn't respect the privacy of its citizens.

mtgx 11y ago
HN title should have a "- For Now" at the end.
- jpwagner 11y ago
  I thought you were making a joke, but it literally says: "Obama 'will not —for now— call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.'"
- dang 11y ago
  Policies are always for now.
simonh 11y ago
Agreed, but it's still a massive improvement over mandating that all encryption used by citizens be thoroughly crippled. The status quo should be that the degree to which Government can intrude into citizens privacy is limited by law and subject to open public debate. We're not quite there yet, either in the US or here in the UK, but dropping the idea of crippled encryption is at least a step back from the brink even if it's not enough steps back for my liking. It's at least an implicit acknowledgement that the EFF/privacy hippies aren't completely wrong.
- BackWhackBeaner 11y ago
  Ergo, why projects that provide encryption tools are so important.
- wfo 11y ago
  I think threatening to ban all secure communication in a psychotic unrealistic policy position and having important "serious" people like the director of the FBI push for it isn't really intended to get it codified into law, rather to elicit responses like yours -- it's designed to massively push the Overton window against privacy so that we can feel okay about how bad things currently are -- at least the insane unrealistic threats that were thrown around weren't followed through.
  - simonh 11y ago
    No, unfotrunately I think our 'security' establishment really are so divorced from reality that they think crippling encryption is a good idea. It would be nice to think that they're actualy technically competent and it's all a ploy, but the truth is depressingly mundane. They handed the Chinese government and other authoritarian states cover for demanding back doors in encrypted products on a platter, and sold out our privacy, without any clue how utterly stupid and self defeating an idea it is.
- acaloiar 11y ago
  My thoughts mirror @wfo's, but more simplistically. It is a negotiation tactic. When seller A wants to sell something for $20, it is initially offered for $30. When buyer B's $25 counter offer is accepted, B is pleased with the result because they've purchased the item under asking price, while A is pleased for having sold at a premium.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
On the other hand, as long as backdoors remain out of legislation, those companies are still free to say "no".
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Many won't say no, because the advantage of having a government willing to look out for their bottom line is far too large to ignore for the sake of a few users.
  - unfamiliar 11y ago
    I agree. If companies aren't compelled by law to collaborate with the government, this will incentivise the government to find other ways to persuade them.
  - ajross 11y ago
    Many (most) don't encrypt anything anyway and will just comply with warrants and requests. That's not really the point. The point here is that where we have device and service providers like Apple and Google and whoever-just-bought-LastPass where we do trust them to encrypt our info, the government won't be making rules that compel them to undo that work. If you didn't trust Google and Apple to begin with, the government compulsion would be meaningless anyway.
quaunaut 11y ago
We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.
- drcube 11y ago
  Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants to ruffle through your luggage can get universal keys for all TSA locks. What happens when that same scenario plays out with your bank account, your company emails, or any online store you've made purchases from?
  - quaunaut 11y ago
    I'm not arguing to break encryption. And neither is the white house. They want ways around this stuff- ways that don't break encryption, but if the information is available, then the ability to get to it if necessary. Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.
    - Zombieball 11y ago
      Perhaps I am not versed well enough in the subject, but I have a hard time envisioning any kind of system that allows government officials to get around the encryption and peer into the contents but not hackers. There will always be some sort of secret only the government has access to, and once that secret is leaked it's game over.
      - 11y ago
mkobit 11y ago
The article title doesn't seem as deceptive as this post title: > Partial Victory: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors, But Leaves the Door Open for Informal Deals Compared to: > Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors It also doesn't sound like a full on rejection, as new information might cause him to change his stance: > “will not —for now—call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.”
- sdenton4 11y ago
  It's probably a bad idea to pass policy against passing future policy... That applies both to 'informal deals' and leaving the door open for future legislation. Really the only reason to pass policy against policy in this case is to score political points with the Hacker News interest group, which is a pretty niche constituency...
Laaw 11y ago
I don't understand why respect would be part of this, or loyalty, patriotism, or whatever. Do you really think the best strategy to defend against an adversary is to shame them into behaving? This is about what's cryptographically possible and what isn't. I don't frankly care if anyone respects my privacy, what I want is the ability to shut adversaries out, period, using math. This decision means companies can say 'no'. That's a win, because it lets the math be possible in the first place.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Well, being realistic, we have three avenues out of our totalitarian mess we find ourselves deeply in: 1. Political (use money, shame, votes, and threats, praying that these things still work to effect change) 2. Technological (use encryption, praying technological solutions are implemented evenly and properly and that there are no back doors) 3. Violence 1 and 2 are the workable strategies, and they only work when practiced together. Currently we are seeing the government's #1 try to trample on #2, frequently using #3. If we can whittle a bit more respect for #2 using #1, it'll make the rest of the journey back to liberal democracy easier. Political changes happen through shifted mindsets.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    I don't think shame is an effective tactic, because it has no real "stick" component. People will always do what they can. The only way to stop someone from doing something is to make them unable to do it. That's not solved through shame or appeal to emotion, because the people doing the bad things aren't going to express emotions. Keep trying to shame them, and you'll simply fail. We need to build something they can't break.
SteveLAnderson 11y ago
Umm, I hate to be too nit picky, but the headline isn't deceptive. "Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors" The Obama administration is rejecting mandated backdoors. That's what the headline says and it's completely correct. The rest of your comment is correct; they aren't rejecting backdoors, just rejecting making them mandatory.

mtgx 11y ago

HN title should have a "- For Now" at the end.

jpwagner 11y ago
I thought you were making a joke, but it literally says: "Obama 'will not —for now— call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.'"
dang 11y ago
Policies are always for now.

simonh 11y ago

Agreed, but it's still a massive improvement over mandating that all encryption used by citizens be thoroughly crippled. The status quo should be that the degree to which Government can intrude into citizens privacy is limited by law and subject to open public debate. We're not quite there yet, either in the US or here in the UK, but dropping the idea of crippled encryption is at least a step back from the brink even if it's not enough steps back for my liking. It's at least an implicit acknowledgement that the EFF/privacy hippies aren't completely wrong.

BackWhackBeaner 11y ago
Ergo, why projects that provide encryption tools are so important.
wfo 11y ago
I think threatening to ban all secure communication in a psychotic unrealistic policy position and having important "serious" people like the director of the FBI push for it isn't really intended to get it codified into law, rather to elicit responses like yours -- it's designed to massively push the Overton window against privacy so that we can feel okay about how bad things currently are -- at least the insane unrealistic threats that were thrown around weren't followed through.
- simonh 11y ago
  No, unfotrunately I think our 'security' establishment really are so divorced from reality that they think crippling encryption is a good idea. It would be nice to think that they're actualy technically competent and it's all a ploy, but the truth is depressingly mundane. They handed the Chinese government and other authoritarian states cover for demanding back doors in encrypted products on a platter, and sold out our privacy, without any clue how utterly stupid and self defeating an idea it is.
acaloiar 11y ago
My thoughts mirror @wfo's, but more simplistically. It is a negotiation tactic. When seller A wants to sell something for $20, it is initially offered for $30. When buyer B's $25 counter offer is accepted, B is pleased with the result because they've purchased the item under asking price, while A is pleased for having sold at a premium.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

On the other hand, as long as backdoors remain out of legislation, those companies are still free to say "no".

cryoshon 11y ago
Many won't say no, because the advantage of having a government willing to look out for their bottom line is far too large to ignore for the sake of a few users.
- unfamiliar 11y ago
  I agree. If companies aren't compelled by law to collaborate with the government, this will incentivise the government to find other ways to persuade them.
- ajross 11y ago
  Many (most) don't encrypt anything anyway and will just comply with warrants and requests. That's not really the point. The point here is that where we have device and service providers like Apple and Google and whoever-just-bought-LastPass where we do trust them to encrypt our info, the government won't be making rules that compel them to undo that work. If you didn't trust Google and Apple to begin with, the government compulsion would be meaningless anyway.

quaunaut 11y ago

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

drcube 11y ago
Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants to ruffle through your luggage can get universal keys for all TSA locks. What happens when that same scenario plays out with your bank account, your company emails, or any online store you've made purchases from?
- quaunaut 11y ago
  I'm not arguing to break encryption. And neither is the white house. They want ways around this stuff- ways that don't break encryption, but if the information is available, then the ability to get to it if necessary. Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.
  - Zombieball 11y ago
    Perhaps I am not versed well enough in the subject, but I have a hard time envisioning any kind of system that allows government officials to get around the encryption and peer into the contents but not hackers. There will always be some sort of secret only the government has access to, and once that secret is leaked it's game over.
    - 11y ago

mkobit 11y ago

The article title doesn't seem as deceptive as this post title: > Partial Victory: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors, But Leaves the Door Open for Informal Deals Compared to: > Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors It also doesn't sound like a full on rejection, as new information might cause him to change his stance: > “will not —for now—call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.”

sdenton4 11y ago
It's probably a bad idea to pass policy against passing future policy... That applies both to 'informal deals' and leaving the door open for future legislation. Really the only reason to pass policy against policy in this case is to score political points with the Hacker News interest group, which is a pretty niche constituency...

Laaw 11y ago

I don't understand why respect would be part of this, or loyalty, patriotism, or whatever. Do you really think the best strategy to defend against an adversary is to shame them into behaving? This is about what's cryptographically possible and what isn't. I don't frankly care if anyone respects my privacy, what I want is the ability to shut adversaries out, period, using math. This decision means companies can say 'no'. That's a win, because it lets the math be possible in the first place.

cryoshon 11y ago
Well, being realistic, we have three avenues out of our totalitarian mess we find ourselves deeply in: 1. Political (use money, shame, votes, and threats, praying that these things still work to effect change) 2. Technological (use encryption, praying technological solutions are implemented evenly and properly and that there are no back doors) 3. Violence 1 and 2 are the workable strategies, and they only work when practiced together. Currently we are seeing the government's #1 try to trample on #2, frequently using #3. If we can whittle a bit more respect for #2 using #1, it'll make the rest of the journey back to liberal democracy easier. Political changes happen through shifted mindsets.
- Laaw 11y ago
  I don't think shame is an effective tactic, because it has no real "stick" component. People will always do what they can. The only way to stop someone from doing something is to make them unable to do it. That's not solved through shame or appeal to emotion, because the people doing the bad things aren't going to express emotions. Keep trying to shame them, and you'll simply fail. We need to build something they can't break.

SteveLAnderson 11y ago

Umm, I hate to be too nit picky, but the headline isn't deceptive. "Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors" The Obama administration is rejecting mandated backdoors. That's what the headline says and it's completely correct. The rest of your comment is correct; they aren't rejecting backdoors, just rejecting making them mandatory.