5 ms·

Yeah, it's pretty believable that it's a myth, but do you ever get the feeling that people in the tech community want it to be a myth a little bit too much? Jus

by ufmace 11y ago

Yeah, it's pretty believable that it's a myth, but do you ever get the feeling that people in the tech community want it to be a myth a little bit too much? Just like people on the other side really want it to exist. The idea of it certainly poses an interesting dilemma, especially if you are invested in being for strong encryption and against Government surveillance. How well will those idea hold up if it ever turns out that evil terrorist armies really are using strong encryption to carry out mass murder and acts of War in the West?

0xdada 11y ago
I don't see the link between terrorist armies using strong encryption and government surveillance. Is there one, besides the fact that people like to use terrorism as an argument? "Encryption" to "math" should be the next popular browser extension.
- ufmace 11y ago
  Terrorists need to communicate with each other to plan attacks. Governments need to gain intelligence on terrorist activity to thwart attacks. Much of that intelligence reportedly comes from electronic surveillance of communication. If terrorist groups were to start using strong encryption well, it would presumably make it significantly harder to gain information on their activities and thwart their attacks. A lot of this necessarily happens in the dark, so we may not know for sure exactly what's happening until decades after the fact. You don't exactly want to advertise to the enemy that you can or cannot intercept their communications - that would tell them how to be more effective in attacking you. Many national governments do indeed use strong encryption to protect their communications, and the outcome of many battles, and arguably of some entire wars, has hinged on the ability to crack that encryption, or lack thereof, and the ability to keep the fact that you have done so secret from the enemy.
  - chrismcb 11y ago
    The government can barely thwart attacks that are communicated in plain text. So I don't see how using encryption will actually change anything.
  - leohutson 11y ago
    It's convenient that they can justify the risk to democracy with information we aren't allowed to see. I guess we'll just have to take it on faith
pdkl95 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIP2RN0NlI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIP2RN0NlI8 I suggest listening to Jacob Appelbaum's explanation of this point (and related topics).
cyphar 11y ago
> Yeah, it's pretty believable that it's a myth, but do you ever get the feeling that people in the tech community want it to be a myth a little bit too much? Just like people on the other side really want it to exist. > The idea of it certainly poses an interesting dilemma, especially if you are invested in being for strong encryption and against Government surveillance. How well will those idea hold up if it ever turns out that evil terrorist armies really are using strong encryption to carry out mass murder and acts of War in the West? I would definitely still support encryption. People who are willing to break the law have many more possible avenues for private communication than people who are just trying to stay secure and protect themselves. Encryption is just one method of secure communication, it's just the only viable one that most people can use. And we know that some terrorists didn't use encryption (see: Paris and the terrorists communicating using the PS4 network), and the government still didn't (with all of their bullshit about needing even more surveillance) stop the attacks from happening. Not to mention that, in the past, governments didn't have such impunity to collect all information. Why are such abilities necessary now? Basically, anti-encryption is complete FUD. It only hurts people who are just trying to protect themselves.

by ufmace 11y ago

0xdada 11y ago

I don't see the link between terrorist armies using strong encryption and government surveillance. Is there one, besides the fact that people like to use terrorism as an argument? "Encryption" to "math" should be the next popular browser extension.

ufmace 11y ago
Terrorists need to communicate with each other to plan attacks. Governments need to gain intelligence on terrorist activity to thwart attacks. Much of that intelligence reportedly comes from electronic surveillance of communication. If terrorist groups were to start using strong encryption well, it would presumably make it significantly harder to gain information on their activities and thwart their attacks. A lot of this necessarily happens in the dark, so we may not know for sure exactly what's happening until decades after the fact. You don't exactly want to advertise to the enemy that you can or cannot intercept their communications - that would tell them how to be more effective in attacking you. Many national governments do indeed use strong encryption to protect their communications, and the outcome of many battles, and arguably of some entire wars, has hinged on the ability to crack that encryption, or lack thereof, and the ability to keep the fact that you have done so secret from the enemy.
- chrismcb 11y ago
  The government can barely thwart attacks that are communicated in plain text. So I don't see how using encryption will actually change anything.
- leohutson 11y ago
  It's convenient that they can justify the risk to democracy with information we aren't allowed to see. I guess we'll just have to take it on faith

pdkl95 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIP2RN0NlI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIP2RN0NlI8 I suggest listening to Jacob Appelbaum's explanation of this point (and related topics).

cyphar 11y ago

> Yeah, it's pretty believable that it's a myth, but do you ever get the feeling that people in the tech community want it to be a myth a little bit too much? Just like people on the other side really want it to exist. > The idea of it certainly poses an interesting dilemma, especially if you are invested in being for strong encryption and against Government surveillance. How well will those idea hold up if it ever turns out that evil terrorist armies really are using strong encryption to carry out mass murder and acts of War in the West? I would definitely still support encryption. People who are willing to break the law have many more possible avenues for private communication than people who are just trying to stay secure and protect themselves. Encryption is just one method of secure communication, it's just the only viable one that most people can use. And we know that some terrorists didn't use encryption (see: Paris and the terrorists communicating using the PS4 network), and the government still didn't (with all of their bullshit about needing even more surveillance) stop the attacks from happening. Not to mention that, in the past, governments didn't have such impunity to collect all information. Why are such abilities necessary now? Basically, anti-encryption is complete FUD. It only hurts people who are just trying to protect themselves.