5 ms·

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing

by pera 11y ago

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, any debate is just a waste of time, money, and maybe even lives. What are they thinking??

stcredzero 11y ago
> there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, I suppose they could deceive the public and put something in without telling us. That would be a real improvement! Oh wait,...Snowden... The more I hear about what Diane Feinstein proposes in areas outside her expertise, the more I wish someone would defeat her in an election. She keep proposing stupid stuff that sounds good to uninformed rubes.
- pera 11y ago
  The NIST curve (for instance) was not exposed by Snowden, he just confirmed what everybody already knew. I can't believe the CIA is this stupid, it's not possible, they want something else from all this anti-cryptography talking.
- uptown 11y ago
  Watch this clip around 1:48. According to Diane Feinstein, she seems to imply that she sensed 9/11 was coming: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/is-isis-video-about-an-attack-on-washington-a-real-threat-or-propaganda--567962691641 http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/is-isis-video-abou...
mangeletti 11y ago
Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  > If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. This comment is amazing self parody. So what, we should we let people cook up nerve gas and anthrax and build surface-to-air missile launchers in their garages, to make sure they have competitive parity with the bad guys?
  - 15charlimit 11y ago
    Most individuals who would even begin to consider trying to "cook up" substances like nerve gas or anthrax "in a garage" would undoubtedly die in the process, in which case problem solved. And yes, people should be able to build "surface to air missile launchers" in their garages. It's called amateur rocketry, and last I checked it was quite a popular (and legal) hobby. The vast majority of encryption is used in a lawful way to protect important things (information). The vast majority of firearms (in the USA at least) are used in a lawful way to protect, deter, as a hobby/for fun, and for sport/hunting. They are very similar arguments, for a number of reasons, including the utter stupidity of attempting to make law-abiding citizens jump through even MORE hoops whilst accomplishing absolutely nothing in "preventing the bad guys from making use of" said technologies.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    Do people have a need to shoot down airplanes? How about nerve gas? I don't see the comparison. The difference is that regular people do have a need for secure communication channels. Even things other than what you typically think of as "communicating" like bill payments and shopping. Encryption is a defensive tool. It keeps people from stealing all your money. Trying to ban strong encryption because terrorists use it is not like trying to ban nerve gases because terrorists use them. It's more like trying to ban pickup trucks because terrorists use them.
petra 11y ago
Once everybody only uses backdoored encryption, it becomes possible to detect those who use illegal encryption. And that's very valuable. Of course there's the issue of steganography ,but i think it's technically and theoretically much harder than encryption - so maybe the balance of power there benefits intelligence agencies more than encryption.
jdoliner 11y ago
This is the thing I don't get at all about this debate, non backdoored open source encryption tools already exist and have for a while... you can't backdoor them because it'd be obvious from looking at the source that something fishy is going on. Are we just hoping that terrorists won't find out about these technologies?

by pera 11y ago

stcredzero 11y ago

> there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, I suppose they could deceive the public and put something in without telling us. That would be a real improvement! Oh wait,...Snowden... The more I hear about what Diane Feinstein proposes in areas outside her expertise, the more I wish someone would defeat her in an election. She keep proposing stupid stuff that sounds good to uninformed rubes.

pera 11y ago
The NIST curve (for instance) was not exposed by Snowden, he just confirmed what everybody already knew. I can't believe the CIA is this stupid, it's not possible, they want something else from all this anti-cryptography talking.
uptown 11y ago
Watch this clip around 1:48. According to Diane Feinstein, she seems to imply that she sensed 9/11 was coming: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/is-isis-video-about-an-attack-on-washington-a-real-threat-or-propaganda--567962691641 http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/is-isis-video-abou...

mangeletti 11y ago

Exactly. This is the same as gun control. If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. To argue otherwise is absolute ignorance.

jacobolus 11y ago
> If a technology exists, you cannot tell people to not use it; otherwise, all you've done is put law-abiding citizens at a competitive disadvantage while arming the bad guys. This comment is amazing self parody. So what, we should we let people cook up nerve gas and anthrax and build surface-to-air missile launchers in their garages, to make sure they have competitive parity with the bad guys?
- 15charlimit 11y ago
  Most individuals who would even begin to consider trying to "cook up" substances like nerve gas or anthrax "in a garage" would undoubtedly die in the process, in which case problem solved. And yes, people should be able to build "surface to air missile launchers" in their garages. It's called amateur rocketry, and last I checked it was quite a popular (and legal) hobby. The vast majority of encryption is used in a lawful way to protect important things (information). The vast majority of firearms (in the USA at least) are used in a lawful way to protect, deter, as a hobby/for fun, and for sport/hunting. They are very similar arguments, for a number of reasons, including the utter stupidity of attempting to make law-abiding citizens jump through even MORE hoops whilst accomplishing absolutely nothing in "preventing the bad guys from making use of" said technologies.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Do people have a need to shoot down airplanes? How about nerve gas? I don't see the comparison. The difference is that regular people do have a need for secure communication channels. Even things other than what you typically think of as "communicating" like bill payments and shopping. Encryption is a defensive tool. It keeps people from stealing all your money. Trying to ban strong encryption because terrorists use it is not like trying to ban nerve gases because terrorists use them. It's more like trying to ban pickup trucks because terrorists use them.

petra 11y ago

Once everybody only uses backdoored encryption, it becomes possible to detect those who use illegal encryption. And that's very valuable. Of course there's the issue of steganography ,but i think it's technically and theoretically much harder than encryption - so maybe the balance of power there benefits intelligence agencies more than encryption.

jdoliner 11y ago

This is the thing I don't get at all about this debate, non backdoored open source encryption tools already exist and have for a while... you can't backdoor them because it'd be obvious from looking at the source that something fishy is going on. Are we just hoping that terrorists won't find out about these technologies?