5 ms·

> The government is demanding new powers: the power to search our communications. That's not entirely accurate though. The United States has been allowed to se

> The government is demanding new powers: the power to search our communications. That's not entirely accurate though. The United States has been allowed to search your mail and tap your phone if they have a warrant and there have been cases where it happened without a warrant. They will, eventually, be shut out of the communications channel entirely due to encryption.

akshatpradhan 11y ago
>They will, eventually, be shut out of the communications channel entirely due to encryption. That's not entirely accurate though. Its an arms race between Cryptography and Cryptanalysis. We don't know what we don't know and there's still not enough transparency into the government's capabilities.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Fair. Realistically though they'll be shut out without company cooperation. As computing power and techniques improve both being able to use and break encryption will increase but breaking encryption, just because of how it works, always takes more power than the creation.
studentrob 11y ago
> The United States has been allowed to search your mail and tap your phone if they have a warrant and there have been cases where it happened without a warrant. True. But the government never had a means to get the entire history of the bulk of your conversations. They could only install a wiretap after they suspected you of some crime, and even then it was a tedious process for them. Reading digital data is not tedious, it's instant. On balance, the idea of guaranteeing warranted access to encrypted data is a bad idea because it makes us less safe overall. We put copies of everything into our phones these days. These are new powers that the government started to acquire when we all increased our PC and smart phone usage. We increased usage because we trusted the security systems designed by private companies. I did not start buying things online or banking online because the government kept those computer systems secure. I did it because the tech companies keep them secure. Data breaches cause customers to flee. Tech companies have always been in an arms race against hackers and if we handcuff them in this manner they will not be able to fix weaknesses in their software as quickly as they do today. By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer.
- djillionsmix 11y ago
  >These are new powers that the government started to acquire Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"? The government has always had the right to look at your photos, listen to your calls, and read your mail, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime. Nowadays all those things are on your phone, so the government has the right to search your phone, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime. Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue to claim that it is. >By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer. Maybe it legitimately is the case that it's impossible for techies to ensure warranted government access without guaranteeing that same access to any and every hacker on Earth. But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to believe them.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"? I'm not talking about the 228 year old law. I'm talking about the government's ability to collect information about conversations you had 10 years ago after a suspected crime which occurred, say, last week. This massive collection of data creates an imbalance between safety and potential data breaches and abuses. > Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue to claim that it is. Please read my comments carefully. You misunderstand my meaning > But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to believe them. You can educate yourself and make up your own mind. You shouldn't believe or disbelieve a certain position based on the attitude of the person from whom you get your information. It's as unfortunate to miss the truth because of a terrible presenter (think of your worst science teacher) as it is to gulp down misinformation because it is presented in simple terms (think Trump). I've written tons of comments on HN about this issue with many citations. Here are detailed responses to Sam Harris [1] and President Obama [2] To date, I feel the most compelling argument comes from Senator Lindsey Graham's position. He was initially very supportive of the DOJ's position, and publicly called for Apple to comply. Later, after researching the topic and questioning Attorney General Loretta Lynch, he found his view changed [3] I also have a summary of recent events here [4] [1] https://pastelink.net/151k https://pastelink.net/151k [2] https://pastelink.net/1555 https://pastelink.net/1555 [3] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s [4] https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/ https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/...
dragonwriter 11y ago
They can get what is actually transmitted over the channel. They may have difficulty interpreting that data because of encryption, but that's always been the case -- encryption is older than electronics, and has been applied to sensitive data in every medium longer than the US has existed. This idea that the government can regulate how you are permitted to communicate just so that it is convenient for them to interpret later if they have a legal basis for intercepting it is a novel claim of government power and, given that it cannot be exercised without creating the same convenience for both illegal government interception and third party interception, an absurd and dangerous one.
marris 11y ago
You are correct. I should have been more accurate and stated that the new power that the government is demanding is demanding in the Apple court case is the power to decrypt our records and communications with a warrant. There are also government agents who are pushing for the right to decrypt everyone's communications and records without a warrant. Interestingly, the government never "demanded" the right to search everyone's unencrypted communications. They just went out and did it.

akshatpradhan 11y ago

>They will, eventually, be shut out of the communications channel entirely due to encryption. That's not entirely accurate though. Its an arms race between Cryptography and Cryptanalysis. We don't know what we don't know and there's still not enough transparency into the government's capabilities.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Fair. Realistically though they'll be shut out without company cooperation. As computing power and techniques improve both being able to use and break encryption will increase but breaking encryption, just because of how it works, always takes more power than the creation.

studentrob 11y ago

> The United States has been allowed to search your mail and tap your phone if they have a warrant and there have been cases where it happened without a warrant. True. But the government never had a means to get the entire history of the bulk of your conversations. They could only install a wiretap after they suspected you of some crime, and even then it was a tedious process for them. Reading digital data is not tedious, it's instant. On balance, the idea of guaranteeing warranted access to encrypted data is a bad idea because it makes us less safe overall. We put copies of everything into our phones these days. These are new powers that the government started to acquire when we all increased our PC and smart phone usage. We increased usage because we trusted the security systems designed by private companies. I did not start buying things online or banking online because the government kept those computer systems secure. I did it because the tech companies keep them secure. Data breaches cause customers to flee. Tech companies have always been in an arms race against hackers and if we handcuff them in this manner they will not be able to fix weaknesses in their software as quickly as they do today. By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer.

djillionsmix 11y ago
>These are new powers that the government started to acquire Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"? The government has always had the right to look at your photos, listen to your calls, and read your mail, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime. Nowadays all those things are on your phone, so the government has the right to search your phone, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime. Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue to claim that it is. >By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer. Maybe it legitimately is the case that it's impossible for techies to ensure warranted government access without guaranteeing that same access to any and every hacker on Earth. But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to believe them.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"? I'm not talking about the 228 year old law. I'm talking about the government's ability to collect information about conversations you had 10 years ago after a suspected crime which occurred, say, last week. This massive collection of data creates an imbalance between safety and potential data breaches and abuses. > Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue to claim that it is. Please read my comments carefully. You misunderstand my meaning > But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to believe them. You can educate yourself and make up your own mind. You shouldn't believe or disbelieve a certain position based on the attitude of the person from whom you get your information. It's as unfortunate to miss the truth because of a terrible presenter (think of your worst science teacher) as it is to gulp down misinformation because it is presented in simple terms (think Trump). I've written tons of comments on HN about this issue with many citations. Here are detailed responses to Sam Harris [1] and President Obama [2] To date, I feel the most compelling argument comes from Senator Lindsey Graham's position. He was initially very supportive of the DOJ's position, and publicly called for Apple to comply. Later, after researching the topic and questioning Attorney General Loretta Lynch, he found his view changed [3] I also have a summary of recent events here [4] [1] https://pastelink.net/151k https://pastelink.net/151k [2] https://pastelink.net/1555 https://pastelink.net/1555 [3] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s [4] https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/ https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/...

dragonwriter 11y ago

They can get what is actually transmitted over the channel. They may have difficulty interpreting that data because of encryption, but that's always been the case -- encryption is older than electronics, and has been applied to sensitive data in every medium longer than the US has existed. This idea that the government can regulate how you are permitted to communicate just so that it is convenient for them to interpret later if they have a legal basis for intercepting it is a novel claim of government power and, given that it cannot be exercised without creating the same convenience for both illegal government interception and third party interception, an absurd and dangerous one.

marris 11y ago

You are correct. I should have been more accurate and stated that the new power that the government is demanding is demanding in the Apple court case is the power to decrypt our records and communications with a warrant. There are also government agents who are pushing for the right to decrypt everyone's communications and records without a warrant. Interestingly, the government never "demanded" the right to search everyone's unencrypted communications. They just went out and did it.