5 ms·

Chief of Police encourages businesses to remove all locks from their doors in case police forces need to enter the building in the instance of an emergency such

by aniro 11y ago

Chief of Police encourages businesses to remove all locks from their doors in case police forces need to enter the building in the instance of an emergency such as a break-in. Furthermore, all business owners are encouraged to stop locking their cash and recipes in a safe, as this prevents police from ensuring none of it has been stolen.

rakoo 11y ago
There's a very important difference that we "people-in-the-know" forget every time this topic comes up: - When doors are locked and police want to go inside, they can still break the lock or the door. It will only take some time. - When a safe is locked, it doesn't prevent it from being opened. It will only take some time. What the FBI ultimately wants is not necessarily ban encryption, or give them an additional key; what they really want is breakable encryption so they can decrypt the content. Much like a lock is not unbreakable but is defined in terms of security by how much efforts it takes to break it, and much like a KDF is defined to take a given amount of time, they want to have breakable encryption -- ie, encryption that only takes, let's say 1 M$ to break (the figure is just to have clear ideas). Of course, as we all know, if it takes 1 M$ to break, everybody with 1 M$ can break it (not only the "good guys"). This is further exacerbated by the fact that it's online (contrary to a physical lock, for which you need the appropriate tools and physical access to the lock). So the equivalent is not "Comey wants us to remove all locks", it is "Comey would like us to use locks that can't resist a 1 M$ attack". That is still undesirable (we've grown extremely accustomed to almost-infinity $-resistant crypto), and looks very much like a call back to exports-grade crypto. If the quality of a crypto cipher doesn't decline too fast, I think I'd be happy that LEO could decrypt the messages provided they have all the required legal provisions.
- aniro 11y ago
  I am guessing you missed the snark, either intentionally or not.
  - rakoo 11y ago
    Oh I perfectly understood the snark, but it's not exactly correct. It's like mocking something over a trait that is not correct; a straw man, if you will.
    - aniro 11y ago
      A joke should always be EXACTLY correct.. otherwise it creates opportunity for ill-humored pedantry.

by aniro 11y ago

rakoo 11y ago

There's a very important difference that we "people-in-the-know" forget every time this topic comes up: - When doors are locked and police want to go inside, they can still break the lock or the door. It will only take some time. - When a safe is locked, it doesn't prevent it from being opened. It will only take some time. What the FBI ultimately wants is not necessarily ban encryption, or give them an additional key; what they really want is breakable encryption so they can decrypt the content. Much like a lock is not unbreakable but is defined in terms of security by how much efforts it takes to break it, and much like a KDF is defined to take a given amount of time, they want to have breakable encryption -- ie, encryption that only takes, let's say 1 M$ to break (the figure is just to have clear ideas). Of course, as we all know, if it takes 1 M$ to break, everybody with 1 M$ can break it (not only the "good guys"). This is further exacerbated by the fact that it's online (contrary to a physical lock, for which you need the appropriate tools and physical access to the lock). So the equivalent is not "Comey wants us to remove all locks", it is "Comey would like us to use locks that can't resist a 1 M$ attack". That is still undesirable (we've grown extremely accustomed to almost-infinity $-resistant crypto), and looks very much like a call back to exports-grade crypto. If the quality of a crypto cipher doesn't decline too fast, I think I'd be happy that LEO could decrypt the messages provided they have all the required legal provisions.

aniro 11y ago
I am guessing you missed the snark, either intentionally or not.
- rakoo 11y ago
  Oh I perfectly understood the snark, but it's not exactly correct. It's like mocking something over a trait that is not correct; a straw man, if you will.
  - aniro 11y ago
    A joke should always be EXACTLY correct.. otherwise it creates opportunity for ill-humored pedantry.