4 ms·

Better wording of a back door is donwgraded security. For an institution whose sole purpose is to engender security, they do the opposite. It's like saying they

by xrorre 11y ago

Better wording of a back door is donwgraded security. For an institution whose sole purpose is to engender security, they do the opposite. It's like saying they have better, more expensive guns than the rest of us. Which collectively if you think about it, and round up all the PCs in each home, and all the security that goes into them, it's (collectively) the most militarized group of computers there is, and they obviously don't feel outgunned.

diskcat 11y ago
>For an institution whose sole purpose is to engender security, they do the opposite. Well the security they engender is mostly physical security i.e. not getting blown up by terrorists while the security they want to breach is information security. I could see why some people would not mind trading privacy for reducing the chance of getting blown up, all else being unconsidered.
- pjc50 11y ago
  The problem is that some privacy is essential for democracy to function: you can't have the secret police going around bugging political parties and feeding information to their preferred candidates. Breaching encryption is like Watergate but without all the tedious need to physically break into a hotel.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    Not only that, privacy is integral to physical security. If you have no privacy then attackers know exactly when and where you're vulnerable to physical attack.
  - pif 11y ago
    > Breaching encryption is like Watergate but without all the tedious need to physically break into a hotel. I don't agree. When I'm in a hotel room, I'm supposed to enjoy some privacy. If this bill passes, you will know a priori that electronic communication is under judiciary control. As I said before, it will be the same as it has always been with telephone. Really, absolutely-private remote communication didn't even exist before the advent of computers. And now it looks like it's a fundamental human right and no discussion is possible. I don't think that such a bill should be forced on UK (or any other) people, but fighting criminality is at least as important, and I'm not shocked that compromises are being proposed and discussed.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Remote communication other than by courier didn't exist at all prior to the 19th century and the telegraph. That's why it was left out of the construction of the 4th Amendment. You can make an argument for crimefighting, but then you have to stay within the judicial boundaries: limited access, requiring a warrant, limited use, requirement for basis for suspicion. The crimefighting process is there to produce evidence which is then presented to a court in public. The problem with the IPbill is that it comes from the military intelligence point of view instead. The process produces intelligence which is then classified and is illegal for the public to see. There are warrants to be issued under the IP bill: it is a criminal offence for the people on whom the warrant is served to "to disclose to any person, without reasonable excuse, the existence or contents of the warrant." This provision does not come with a time limit. You can be ordered to hack activists or opposition parties or human rights lawyers and not allowed to whistleblow, ever. There are some extraordinary little subclauses like 154.(9): "Any conduct which is carried out in accordance with a bulk equipment interference warrant is lawful for all purposes"
      - pif 11y ago
        You make a sensible point against this particular bill. I just can't understand why any resemblance of a limitation of the privacy over electronic communication is greeted with such outrage. I do understand that encryption can be either controllable XOR secure. But my point is that secure encryption has never been a right: actually, the discussion has just started, due to the recent spread of its usage. Again, telephone and (thanks for reminding) courier have always been controllable, thus not secure. Deciding whether a non-controllable medium of remote communication should exist, and who may use it, is a social and political question (like, for example, cloning: it is technically possible, but drastically controlled by laws). I understand it's quite natural for us HN-ers to stand on one side, but the world is bigger that HN.
        pjc50 11y ago
        the discussion has just started I'm afraid it's been going on for decades: https://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/ https://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/ And that's partly why the mistrust exists. Law enforcement agencies are not given the benefit of the doubt on this because of previous abuses. There's a history here which is too long to #include every time the subject comes up. Deciding whether a non-controllable medium of remote communication should exist, and who may use it, is a social and political question "Controllable" is a word shift from "secret", and that's what the US 1st Amendment guarantees: the existence of non-controllable means of remote communication. After all, one of the founding heroes of the US was a ""terrorist"" who brought messages to the other members of his anti-government cell. The UK situation is much worse, and a full discussion would have to involve the abuses of the last generation of antiterrorist police and military action in Northern Ireland.
- xrorre 11y ago
  > Well the security they engender is mostly physical security i.e. not getting blown up by terrorists while the security they want to breach is information security. This is exactly my point. They use the terrorist strawman to frame their agenda; which is to hack all the internets without anyone batting an eyelid. Information technology is but one facet of reality, and a reflection. It is not the whole thing. It's for this reason it is more suitable to get to the core of why anyone would want to commit an act such as blowing oneself up in the first place. It's like going all guns blazing on the symptoms of flu. Unless a cure is invented it will haunt us and we only have symptomatic relief. I can understand the motivations for going after anyone doing something technically interesting with a computer (actually a rare thing unless you are supremely skilled and have chosen a life of learning systems and divulging technical manuals). Also see: homebrew crypto

by xrorre 11y ago

diskcat 11y ago

>For an institution whose sole purpose is to engender security, they do the opposite. Well the security they engender is mostly physical security i.e. not getting blown up by terrorists while the security they want to breach is information security. I could see why some people would not mind trading privacy for reducing the chance of getting blown up, all else being unconsidered.

pjc50 11y ago
The problem is that some privacy is essential for democracy to function: you can't have the secret police going around bugging political parties and feeding information to their preferred candidates. Breaching encryption is like Watergate but without all the tedious need to physically break into a hotel.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Not only that, privacy is integral to physical security. If you have no privacy then attackers know exactly when and where you're vulnerable to physical attack.
- pif 11y ago
  > Breaching encryption is like Watergate but without all the tedious need to physically break into a hotel. I don't agree. When I'm in a hotel room, I'm supposed to enjoy some privacy. If this bill passes, you will know a priori that electronic communication is under judiciary control. As I said before, it will be the same as it has always been with telephone. Really, absolutely-private remote communication didn't even exist before the advent of computers. And now it looks like it's a fundamental human right and no discussion is possible. I don't think that such a bill should be forced on UK (or any other) people, but fighting criminality is at least as important, and I'm not shocked that compromises are being proposed and discussed.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Remote communication other than by courier didn't exist at all prior to the 19th century and the telegraph. That's why it was left out of the construction of the 4th Amendment. You can make an argument for crimefighting, but then you have to stay within the judicial boundaries: limited access, requiring a warrant, limited use, requirement for basis for suspicion. The crimefighting process is there to produce evidence which is then presented to a court in public. The problem with the IPbill is that it comes from the military intelligence point of view instead. The process produces intelligence which is then classified and is illegal for the public to see. There are warrants to be issued under the IP bill: it is a criminal offence for the people on whom the warrant is served to "to disclose to any person, without reasonable excuse, the existence or contents of the warrant." This provision does not come with a time limit. You can be ordered to hack activists or opposition parties or human rights lawyers and not allowed to whistleblow, ever. There are some extraordinary little subclauses like 154.(9): "Any conduct which is carried out in accordance with a bulk equipment interference warrant is lawful for all purposes"
    - pif 11y ago
      You make a sensible point against this particular bill. I just can't understand why any resemblance of a limitation of the privacy over electronic communication is greeted with such outrage. I do understand that encryption can be either controllable XOR secure. But my point is that secure encryption has never been a right: actually, the discussion has just started, due to the recent spread of its usage. Again, telephone and (thanks for reminding) courier have always been controllable, thus not secure. Deciding whether a non-controllable medium of remote communication should exist, and who may use it, is a social and political question (like, for example, cloning: it is technically possible, but drastically controlled by laws). I understand it's quite natural for us HN-ers to stand on one side, but the world is bigger that HN.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        the discussion has just started I'm afraid it's been going on for decades: https://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/ https://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/ And that's partly why the mistrust exists. Law enforcement agencies are not given the benefit of the doubt on this because of previous abuses. There's a history here which is too long to #include every time the subject comes up. Deciding whether a non-controllable medium of remote communication should exist, and who may use it, is a social and political question "Controllable" is a word shift from "secret", and that's what the US 1st Amendment guarantees: the existence of non-controllable means of remote communication. After all, one of the founding heroes of the US was a ""terrorist"" who brought messages to the other members of his anti-government cell. The UK situation is much worse, and a full discussion would have to involve the abuses of the last generation of antiterrorist police and military action in Northern Ireland.
xrorre 11y ago
> Well the security they engender is mostly physical security i.e. not getting blown up by terrorists while the security they want to breach is information security. This is exactly my point. They use the terrorist strawman to frame their agenda; which is to hack all the internets without anyone batting an eyelid. Information technology is but one facet of reality, and a reflection. It is not the whole thing. It's for this reason it is more suitable to get to the core of why anyone would want to commit an act such as blowing oneself up in the first place. It's like going all guns blazing on the symptoms of flu. Unless a cure is invented it will haunt us and we only have symptomatic relief. I can understand the motivations for going after anyone doing something technically interesting with a computer (actually a rare thing unless you are supremely skilled and have chosen a life of learning systems and divulging technical manuals). Also see: homebrew crypto