5 ms·

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. I don't think this is a technical problem, and I don't think it's our responsibility to solve it. If the US wants to stop terrorism they need to stop creating terrorists. The US created terrorists by starting economic wars, supporting violent dictators, creating economic that harm the common people and not the national leaders they purport to, providing conditional and earmarked aid that is sometimes actually harmful, and a wide variety of other internationally sociopathic behaviors. If we want to stop being attacked by people from other countries, we need to stop harming other countries.

iamsohungry 11y ago
Anyone care to enlighten me as to why I'm being downvoted?
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  No idea. Also no idea why the GP isn't being downvoted. Just because some politician claimed that it's tech's people responsibility to fix their flaws, it does not make it true. It's repetitive, but the police did have all the information they needed to go after such people even before the murdering. What does the GP want? A machine that queries the news from the day after tomorrow? (Because tomorrow won't do - the police had warning that it would happen at the previous day.)
  - russnewcomer 11y ago
    Clearly I didn't get my point across. If the Paris police had all the information they needed to go after such people, but didn't, that's the technical problem that really needs solved, not an encryption backdoor.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Well, that's not a technical problem.
      - russnewcomer 11y ago
        Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.
    - iamsohungry 11y ago
      I agree that you've identified a problem. I don't agree that it's a technical problem. It seems to me that technology simply doesn't offer any solutions to this kind of problem. Perhaps that's a failure of imagination on my part, though: what are some areas of research you think might cause law enforcement to start responding to credible threats?
      - russnewcomer 11y ago
        Metadata analysis and pattern recognition of publicly available data is one. Better data organization tools are another (a family member is studying forensic science and has done internships with large-ish police departments that still largely use printed and hand-written documents to manage cases) But that's my point. I haven't done much thinking on this either, so I can't see around the corners of time to see what it could be. But just more yelling back and forth about encryption isn't accomplishing much. Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.
        iamsohungry 11y ago
        Ah, I agree on that front. That does make sense. But I still don't think this should distract from a conversation about encryption. Encryption has very importat implications for free press and privacy far outside of preventing terrorism, and it's important that it stay legal and accessible to normal people. Experts need to make their voices heard so that legal decision isn't made by people unconcerned with these important issues.
- hackuser 11y ago
  It didn't address the parent's point, other than by saying you don't care about it. Your point may be valid but it belongs in a separate thread.
- mc32 11y ago
  No idea, it's an opinion, however, many nations have suppressed many other nations and it's historically atypical for the aggrieved to lash out to others of indirect involvement. Have Congolese (after the conflict ended) gone and bombed Belgium, or why not Albania, who had no relation to Belgium's involvement?
  - woah 11y ago
    It's not about some abstract historical notion of right and wrong. The US has created an environment that fosters terrorism. Whether this is wronger or righter than any historical colonialism by other countries is completely irrelevant. We've created "the YC for terrorists" in the countries we have smashed in the Middle East, and now there is a lot of terrorism.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Ok, so what makes the ME react differently to meddling compared to SE Asia?
      - tareqak 11y ago
        My first attempt at an answer would be the breadth and depth of the meddling involved. That being said, could you provide examples as to how the Middle East has reacted to meddling as opposed to South East Asia?
        mc32 11y ago
        Look at Thailand, a land with many masters over the millennia, India, china, British, Japan. Yet there is only a certain faction involved in terrorism there, their society at large doesn't feel the need to engage in antiwestern terrorism.
      - fineman 11y ago
        Death cult?
  - deleted 11y ago
- caskance 11y ago
  It's not a productive line of argument. We want to keep doing those things. Might as well say that the solution to traffic accidents is for everyone to stop driving.
  - iamsohungry 11y ago
    > We want to keep doing those things. Speak for yourself. I'm an American citizen and I don't want to start economic wars, support violent dictators, create economic sanctions that harm the common people and not the national leaders they purport to, provide conditional and earmarked aid that is sometimes actually harmful, and a wide variety of other internationally sociopathic behaviors. I think most people would agree if they actually understood that that's what's happening. But most people think we're spreading peace and freedom and protecting human rights.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Besides not being directly relevant, it's also a facile and simplistic view of the situation. Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of al-Qaeda's ideology, was famously "radicalized" by going to a sock hop in Colorado in the 1950s. No economic wars, violent dictator support, et cetera was required.
  - iamsohungry 11y ago
    There will always be crazies, but crazies like Qutb would likely not have as many supporters if they didn't have a wide base of people with real reasons to dislike the US to draw from.
Retra 11y ago
The US doesn't have to be harming countries to be the target of terrorists, it only has to be thought to. So unless your alternative is for the US to go out there and forcibly quell all dissenting speech... People are good at having enemies, whether they deserve them or not. There are people who would kill me right now having done nothing particularly wrong. There are even places where it is legal and encouraged to do so.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. jacquesm's comment is spot on. Additionally, notice that what jacquesm said is never brought up in these debates much like what U.S. did in Operation Ajax or sanctions that followed wasn't factored into recent Iran debates. Much easier to pretend all this stuff happens in a vacuum that requires a surveillance or police state. Which doesn't work anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591617 https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
  - Retra 11y ago
    >Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. You might reduce anti-US terrorism by ignoring the rest of the world, but a lot of people will die, and you're still going to have enemies. It's a factor, not a solution. Though I suppose if the US were poor as dirt, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. Just civil war and invasion.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so on and so forth. Vast majority of terrorism against the U.S. is by actors whose activities or capabilities are directly tied to U.S.'s own imperialism abroad. Not our money, democracy, religion, anything. Just doing evil dangerous stuff over there and funding/equipping those that do the same often to rip off resources. Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. That means... that eliminating that while working to improve the situation over time might eliminate most terrorism against us? Well, let's do that then!

iamsohungry 11y ago

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why I'm being downvoted?

marcosdumay 11y ago
No idea. Also no idea why the GP isn't being downvoted. Just because some politician claimed that it's tech's people responsibility to fix their flaws, it does not make it true. It's repetitive, but the police did have all the information they needed to go after such people even before the murdering. What does the GP want? A machine that queries the news from the day after tomorrow? (Because tomorrow won't do - the police had warning that it would happen at the previous day.)
- russnewcomer 11y ago
  Clearly I didn't get my point across. If the Paris police had all the information they needed to go after such people, but didn't, that's the technical problem that really needs solved, not an encryption backdoor.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, that's not a technical problem.
    - russnewcomer 11y ago
      Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.
  - iamsohungry 11y ago
    I agree that you've identified a problem. I don't agree that it's a technical problem. It seems to me that technology simply doesn't offer any solutions to this kind of problem. Perhaps that's a failure of imagination on my part, though: what are some areas of research you think might cause law enforcement to start responding to credible threats?
    - russnewcomer 11y ago
      Metadata analysis and pattern recognition of publicly available data is one. Better data organization tools are another (a family member is studying forensic science and has done internships with large-ish police departments that still largely use printed and hand-written documents to manage cases) But that's my point. I haven't done much thinking on this either, so I can't see around the corners of time to see what it could be. But just more yelling back and forth about encryption isn't accomplishing much. Maybe it's not a bits and bytes technical problem, but it's technical according to the definition of the adjective, "of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques." If the Paris police had the information, but were unable to properly analyze it, that's completely a technical problem.
      - iamsohungry 11y ago
        Ah, I agree on that front. That does make sense. But I still don't think this should distract from a conversation about encryption. Encryption has very importat implications for free press and privacy far outside of preventing terrorism, and it's important that it stay legal and accessible to normal people. Experts need to make their voices heard so that legal decision isn't made by people unconcerned with these important issues.
hackuser 11y ago
It didn't address the parent's point, other than by saying you don't care about it. Your point may be valid but it belongs in a separate thread.
mc32 11y ago
No idea, it's an opinion, however, many nations have suppressed many other nations and it's historically atypical for the aggrieved to lash out to others of indirect involvement. Have Congolese (after the conflict ended) gone and bombed Belgium, or why not Albania, who had no relation to Belgium's involvement?
- woah 11y ago
  It's not about some abstract historical notion of right and wrong. The US has created an environment that fosters terrorism. Whether this is wronger or righter than any historical colonialism by other countries is completely irrelevant. We've created "the YC for terrorists" in the countries we have smashed in the Middle East, and now there is a lot of terrorism.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Ok, so what makes the ME react differently to meddling compared to SE Asia?
    - tareqak 11y ago
      My first attempt at an answer would be the breadth and depth of the meddling involved. That being said, could you provide examples as to how the Middle East has reacted to meddling as opposed to South East Asia?
      - mc32 11y ago
        Look at Thailand, a land with many masters over the millennia, India, china, British, Japan. Yet there is only a certain faction involved in terrorism there, their society at large doesn't feel the need to engage in antiwestern terrorism.
    - fineman 11y ago
      Death cult?
- deleted 11y ago
caskance 11y ago
It's not a productive line of argument. We want to keep doing those things. Might as well say that the solution to traffic accidents is for everyone to stop driving.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > We want to keep doing those things. Speak for yourself. I'm an American citizen and I don't want to start economic wars, support violent dictators, create economic sanctions that harm the common people and not the national leaders they purport to, provide conditional and earmarked aid that is sometimes actually harmful, and a wide variety of other internationally sociopathic behaviors. I think most people would agree if they actually understood that that's what's happening. But most people think we're spreading peace and freedom and protecting human rights.
13thLetter 11y ago
Besides not being directly relevant, it's also a facile and simplistic view of the situation. Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of al-Qaeda's ideology, was famously "radicalized" by going to a sock hop in Colorado in the 1950s. No economic wars, violent dictator support, et cetera was required.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  There will always be crazies, but crazies like Qutb would likely not have as many supporters if they didn't have a wide base of people with real reasons to dislike the US to draw from.

Retra 11y ago

The US doesn't have to be harming countries to be the target of terrorists, it only has to be thought to. So unless your alternative is for the US to go out there and forcibly quell all dissenting speech... People are good at having enemies, whether they deserve them or not. There are people who would kill me right now having done nothing particularly wrong. There are even places where it is legal and encouraged to do so.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. jacquesm's comment is spot on. Additionally, notice that what jacquesm said is never brought up in these debates much like what U.S. did in Operation Ajax or sanctions that followed wasn't factored into recent Iran debates. Much easier to pretend all this stuff happens in a vacuum that requires a surveillance or police state. Which doesn't work anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591617 https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
- Retra 11y ago
  >Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. You might reduce anti-US terrorism by ignoring the rest of the world, but a lot of people will die, and you're still going to have enemies. It's a factor, not a solution. Though I suppose if the US were poor as dirt, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. Just civil war and invasion.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so on and so forth. Vast majority of terrorism against the U.S. is by actors whose activities or capabilities are directly tied to U.S.'s own imperialism abroad. Not our money, democracy, religion, anything. Just doing evil dangerous stuff over there and funding/equipping those that do the same often to rip off resources. Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. That means... that eliminating that while working to improve the situation over time might eliminate most terrorism against us? Well, let's do that then!