6 ms·

Shame..that they wrote it in the first place.

by interdrift 11y ago

estefan 11y ago
Care to elaborate?
- make3 11y ago
  Encryption existing is an important part of not being in a police state. It's the freedom to not have the gouvernment judge your every word, be it with an algorithm or by being able to look up your every word without a warrant in an investigation, without civil transparancy.
- okamiueru 11y ago
  At the risk of putting words into other someone else's mouth, it's a shame that the level of education/awareness regarding the fundamentals of how society works is so lacking. Without encryption, internet doesn't work. Without internet, banking and e-commerce doesn't work. Really, not a single user-identifying service can function without encryption. Also, encryption is based on math and logic. You can't really prohibit people from using it, or having it in any sensible way. Meaning that if we live in a fantasy land where this became outlawed, you'd still have any two nodes using encryption should they wish to. I doubt terrorist have the necessary incentive to follow international laws. In fact, a mathematically unbreakable encryption is simply generating random data (aka. a one-time pad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad), and having a copy of this data at each end of the communication. Want to transfer sensitive data across the border? Just xor your data with the random data, and take the random data with you across the border. If the microSD card didn't leave your butt-crack at any point, you can merrily download the xor-ed data through NSA's mainframe, and they can't do jack about it, even with quantum computing, or any imaginable alien technology.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    To play devil's advocate, saying "but you can never ban encryption anyway" sets up a false dichotomy. You're right, there are open source projects that will survive no matter what you do. But you can certainly force or convince companies like Apple and Google to prevent those apps from being available in their stores, and you can force large companies like Facebook to give you a backdoor. Sure, someone tech savvy can get around that, but not everyone. Just look at how many criminal cases end up finding emails explicitly talking about plans and crimes. So there are people nowadays not even using encryption when committing crimes. If you make encryption-by-default impossible, the amount of unencrypted messages will increase, and you'll have gained those. Now whether that's good or bad is a separate discussion; I tend to think it's bad, but that's a more nuanced argument than "you can't ban it, so don't do anything about it".
    - nindalf 11y ago
      > someone tech savvy can get around that Or someone who has a strong incentive to keep their communication hidden - like a terrorist or a drug enforcer. This leads to a situation where law abiding citizens are punished when their right to privacy is denied, while criminals aren't hindered. "When you outlaw X, X will only be used by outlaws"
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        My claim is that "criminals aren't hindered" is false. Sure, there are people that will get around it, but as I mentioned, there are plenty of criminals that don't use encryption and have been caught with incriminating emails, so that makes me think that if encryption was made more difficult, some criminals who use encryption now would stop. Criminals aren't perfect.
        nindalf 11y ago
        You are right, there would be many petty criminals who would be caught because they'd talk about their crimes in plaintext. There would be a reduction in petty crime, while leaving major crime pretty much untouched. That sounds like a good thing... except it might not be in society's interest to eliminate petty crime, as Snowden explains here [1]. [1] - http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana
- interdrift 11y ago
  Encryption is a basic human right. The freedom to speak without being judged.
  - gkwelding 11y ago
    So is life, what do you do when 2 basic rights clash? It's definitely a tricky question, and I certainly don't have the answer.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      But do they clash in this case?
    - geggam 11y ago
      Encryption or the use thereof doesn't threaten your life. Screwdrivers or the use thereof don't either, however if someone misuses the screwdriver and stabs you in the temple you will die. Does this mean we should outlaw the use of screwdrivers ?
  - programmernews3 11y ago
    I agree and it is ironic as journalism depends upon free speech.

Shame..that they wrote it in the first place.

estefan 11y ago

Care to elaborate?

make3 11y ago
Encryption existing is an important part of not being in a police state. It's the freedom to not have the gouvernment judge your every word, be it with an algorithm or by being able to look up your every word without a warrant in an investigation, without civil transparancy.
okamiueru 11y ago
At the risk of putting words into other someone else's mouth, it's a shame that the level of education/awareness regarding the fundamentals of how society works is so lacking. Without encryption, internet doesn't work. Without internet, banking and e-commerce doesn't work. Really, not a single user-identifying service can function without encryption. Also, encryption is based on math and logic. You can't really prohibit people from using it, or having it in any sensible way. Meaning that if we live in a fantasy land where this became outlawed, you'd still have any two nodes using encryption should they wish to. I doubt terrorist have the necessary incentive to follow international laws. In fact, a mathematically unbreakable encryption is simply generating random data (aka. a one-time pad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad), and having a copy of this data at each end of the communication. Want to transfer sensitive data across the border? Just xor your data with the random data, and take the random data with you across the border. If the microSD card didn't leave your butt-crack at any point, you can merrily download the xor-ed data through NSA's mainframe, and they can't do jack about it, even with quantum computing, or any imaginable alien technology.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  To play devil's advocate, saying "but you can never ban encryption anyway" sets up a false dichotomy. You're right, there are open source projects that will survive no matter what you do. But you can certainly force or convince companies like Apple and Google to prevent those apps from being available in their stores, and you can force large companies like Facebook to give you a backdoor. Sure, someone tech savvy can get around that, but not everyone. Just look at how many criminal cases end up finding emails explicitly talking about plans and crimes. So there are people nowadays not even using encryption when committing crimes. If you make encryption-by-default impossible, the amount of unencrypted messages will increase, and you'll have gained those. Now whether that's good or bad is a separate discussion; I tend to think it's bad, but that's a more nuanced argument than "you can't ban it, so don't do anything about it".
  - nindalf 11y ago
    > someone tech savvy can get around that Or someone who has a strong incentive to keep their communication hidden - like a terrorist or a drug enforcer. This leads to a situation where law abiding citizens are punished when their right to privacy is denied, while criminals aren't hindered. "When you outlaw X, X will only be used by outlaws"
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      My claim is that "criminals aren't hindered" is false. Sure, there are people that will get around it, but as I mentioned, there are plenty of criminals that don't use encryption and have been caught with incriminating emails, so that makes me think that if encryption was made more difficult, some criminals who use encryption now would stop. Criminals aren't perfect.
      - nindalf 11y ago
        You are right, there would be many petty criminals who would be caught because they'd talk about their crimes in plaintext. There would be a reduction in petty crime, while leaving major crime pretty much untouched. That sounds like a good thing... except it might not be in society's interest to eliminate petty crime, as Snowden explains here [1]. [1] - http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana
interdrift 11y ago
Encryption is a basic human right. The freedom to speak without being judged.
- gkwelding 11y ago
  So is life, what do you do when 2 basic rights clash? It's definitely a tricky question, and I certainly don't have the answer.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    But do they clash in this case?
  - geggam 11y ago
    Encryption or the use thereof doesn't threaten your life. Screwdrivers or the use thereof don't either, however if someone misuses the screwdriver and stabs you in the temple you will die. Does this mean we should outlaw the use of screwdrivers ?
- programmernews3 11y ago
  I agree and it is ironic as journalism depends upon free speech.