6 ms·

This is incredibly naive bordering on puerile. To suggest that POTUS' view on this is without nuance is to miss his point. POTUS went on to cite existing warran

by ecma 11y ago

This is incredibly naive bordering on puerile. To suggest that POTUS' view on this is without nuance is to miss his point. POTUS went on to cite existing warrant mechanisms and their underlying principle: "And we agree on that, because we recognize that just like all of our other rights ... that there are going to be some constraints we impose so we are safe, secure and can live in a civilized society." I'm not suggesting that this means POTUS and the government have the right answers at the moment. Despite that, we can't ignore the important role law enforcement plays in society, the requirements in support of their role, and the complexities surrounding the right to privacy. We need people advocating for the right balance, not just getting each other frustrated. OP may have worries other than US law enforcement being from another country. This is one of the /many/ complexities in this space.

andrewfromx 11y ago
but there is no "balance" when somethig is binary. You either have encryption or you don't.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  So Apple either designs their phones such that they themselves can't hack them, or they have to comply with government court orders.
  - tehwebguy 11y ago
    Sounds binary to me.
- ecma 11y ago
  If the San Bernardino case proves anything, it's that encryption is not the whole picture.
  - HillaryBriss 11y ago
    So far, my takeaway from the federal government's reaction to the San Bernardino attacks is the following prioritization of freedom: Higher priority freedoms: 1. Freedom of religious choice and freedom from religious persecution. Freedom of religious assembly. 2. Freedom to immigrate to the US. Lower Priority Freedoms: 1. Freedom to purchase guns and ammunition 2. Freedom to use encryption to keep personal communication private
- harryh 11y ago
  That's wrong. The government isn't saying that no one should be able to encrypt data. They just thing that, in some cases, it should be done in such a way that certain data can be read by use of a centralized master key. This, of course, presents certain problems. What if that master key leaks? But it's not binary. Data secured this way is absolutely safer than not encrypting something at all. "Is it safe enough?" is certainly a question that people can disagree on. It's not binary.
  - andrewfromx 11y ago
    no way man. either I have the right to use technology to make something encrypted (my definition of encrypted is cannot be broken) or I don't.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      There's no award for effort. Apple built a cryptosystem that doesn't work against an adversary that is Apple. "Encrypting" isn't some magical property that makes your data safe. The encryption itself is just one aspect of a whole system that must be designed to protect against certain adversaries with certain capabilities. The government would be totally allowed, for example, to tamper with your wax seals if it had a warrant to read your mail. I lied, there is an award for effort. Wherever you have an "reasonable expectation of privacy", the government must get a warrant or your permission to exercise its search and seizure authority. That's the protection that you're entitled to by our laws. Even the EFF is acknowledging the weakness of your argument when they try to frame it as an issue about Apple's free speech instead.
  - andrewfromx 11y ago
    wow, when you put it that way it's like saying "either I have the right to own a gun or I do not." So I guess if people except limits on gun ownership they should accept limits on encryption cuz it's just as dangerous?
    - gambiting 11y ago
      To me personally the concept of even owning a gun is utterly ridiculous, but I guess American people would be incredibly upset if every gun had to come with a built-in remotely controlled switch that could be used by the police to disable it. This is essentially what they are trying to do with encryption - you are free to use it, but we want to be able to manually switch it off if we want to.
- Aleman360 11y ago
  What about disabling the bricking mechanism that would have allowed the FBI to brute-force the PIN?
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> We need people advocating for the right balance, not just getting each other frustrated. I don't understand this line of thinking regarding the big encryption debate. Yeah it sounds good if you don't know anything about encryption. "Look, he's being reasonable. Why is everyone saying he's wrong instead of striking a balance". The problem is it's a binary problem. There is zero way to strike any type of balance here. You either encrypt communication to prevent others from accessing it or you provide a backdoor or escrow key to access the data in which case all encrypted communications are now insecure. There isn't a middle ground there. If there is I have yet to see anyone suggest it and I can't think of a technical way to do it. Too many attack vectors when you purposefully impose multiple party keys or backdoors.
- wpietri 11y ago
  In that case, perhaps the balance we need to strike is rhetorical, not technical. I think some people in the tech world are 4th-amendment absolutists. That's not a new thing; in Cryptonomnicon there was the electromagnetic doorframe so strong that it would wipe drives passing through it. I don't know that it's a position I hold myself, but it's one I definitely respect. But we have a multi-century history of the government being able to read people's documents once they have a warrant. A lot of crime-fighting makes use of this. Whatever the intricacies of the technology, there's a status quo that I think we should at least acknowledge. So I think the rhetorical balance we need to strike as an industry is along the lines of, "Yes, we totally get why you would want to get into that terrorist's phone. We wish we could find a way to give you access to just that without compromising everything. But it's not like a wall we can put a special door in. It's like a balloon. The moment it loses integrity, it's worthless. We want to help you, but we can't." When the message instead comes across as absolutist, I think we're in danger of losing public support. Without that, we'll have a very hard time resisting government demands for access.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Your message can basically be distilled into "it's absolutist but we can't let it come across that way to hurt our PR". I'm not sure trying to increase the complexity of the issue just to make it sound like the technology community doesn't see this as binary is a good solution. I think what we need to do is education people around how encryption works. If we're wishy-washy about the whole thing it may come off as something we can possibly do in the end. I think education is the only way. But that's just my opinion.
BWStearns 11y ago
I don't believe that Obama himself has an blunt understanding of this issue, but I can't know what is truly in his heart or head and the view promoted in his statements here is utterly oversimplified and purposely lacking in nuance. Glossing over the impossibility of providing security only against "bad guys" while leaving you open to "good guys" is an intentionally low resolution view of the issue intended to make refutations based on that impossibility sound like nerds nitpicking the implementation details.
- beeboop 11y ago
  I don't think whether he understands it to really matter. I think even if he was the world's foremost security expert, his message would be the same as it is now.

by ecma 11y ago

andrewfromx 11y ago

but there is no "balance" when somethig is binary. You either have encryption or you don't.

marcoperaza 11y ago
So Apple either designs their phones such that they themselves can't hack them, or they have to comply with government court orders.
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  Sounds binary to me.
ecma 11y ago
If the San Bernardino case proves anything, it's that encryption is not the whole picture.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  So far, my takeaway from the federal government's reaction to the San Bernardino attacks is the following prioritization of freedom: Higher priority freedoms: 1. Freedom of religious choice and freedom from religious persecution. Freedom of religious assembly. 2. Freedom to immigrate to the US. Lower Priority Freedoms: 1. Freedom to purchase guns and ammunition 2. Freedom to use encryption to keep personal communication private
harryh 11y ago
That's wrong. The government isn't saying that no one should be able to encrypt data. They just thing that, in some cases, it should be done in such a way that certain data can be read by use of a centralized master key. This, of course, presents certain problems. What if that master key leaks? But it's not binary. Data secured this way is absolutely safer than not encrypting something at all. "Is it safe enough?" is certainly a question that people can disagree on. It's not binary.
- andrewfromx 11y ago
  no way man. either I have the right to use technology to make something encrypted (my definition of encrypted is cannot be broken) or I don't.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    There's no award for effort. Apple built a cryptosystem that doesn't work against an adversary that is Apple. "Encrypting" isn't some magical property that makes your data safe. The encryption itself is just one aspect of a whole system that must be designed to protect against certain adversaries with certain capabilities. The government would be totally allowed, for example, to tamper with your wax seals if it had a warrant to read your mail. I lied, there is an award for effort. Wherever you have an "reasonable expectation of privacy", the government must get a warrant or your permission to exercise its search and seizure authority. That's the protection that you're entitled to by our laws. Even the EFF is acknowledging the weakness of your argument when they try to frame it as an issue about Apple's free speech instead.
- andrewfromx 11y ago
  wow, when you put it that way it's like saying "either I have the right to own a gun or I do not." So I guess if people except limits on gun ownership they should accept limits on encryption cuz it's just as dangerous?
  - gambiting 11y ago
    To me personally the concept of even owning a gun is utterly ridiculous, but I guess American people would be incredibly upset if every gun had to come with a built-in remotely controlled switch that could be used by the police to disable it. This is essentially what they are trying to do with encryption - you are free to use it, but we want to be able to manually switch it off if we want to.
Aleman360 11y ago
What about disabling the bricking mechanism that would have allowed the FBI to brute-force the PIN?

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

> We need people advocating for the right balance, not just getting each other frustrated. I don't understand this line of thinking regarding the big encryption debate. Yeah it sounds good if you don't know anything about encryption. "Look, he's being reasonable. Why is everyone saying he's wrong instead of striking a balance". The problem is it's a binary problem. There is zero way to strike any type of balance here. You either encrypt communication to prevent others from accessing it or you provide a backdoor or escrow key to access the data in which case all encrypted communications are now insecure. There isn't a middle ground there. If there is I have yet to see anyone suggest it and I can't think of a technical way to do it. Too many attack vectors when you purposefully impose multiple party keys or backdoors.

wpietri 11y ago
In that case, perhaps the balance we need to strike is rhetorical, not technical. I think some people in the tech world are 4th-amendment absolutists. That's not a new thing; in Cryptonomnicon there was the electromagnetic doorframe so strong that it would wipe drives passing through it. I don't know that it's a position I hold myself, but it's one I definitely respect. But we have a multi-century history of the government being able to read people's documents once they have a warrant. A lot of crime-fighting makes use of this. Whatever the intricacies of the technology, there's a status quo that I think we should at least acknowledge. So I think the rhetorical balance we need to strike as an industry is along the lines of, "Yes, we totally get why you would want to get into that terrorist's phone. We wish we could find a way to give you access to just that without compromising everything. But it's not like a wall we can put a special door in. It's like a balloon. The moment it loses integrity, it's worthless. We want to help you, but we can't." When the message instead comes across as absolutist, I think we're in danger of losing public support. Without that, we'll have a very hard time resisting government demands for access.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Your message can basically be distilled into "it's absolutist but we can't let it come across that way to hurt our PR". I'm not sure trying to increase the complexity of the issue just to make it sound like the technology community doesn't see this as binary is a good solution. I think what we need to do is education people around how encryption works. If we're wishy-washy about the whole thing it may come off as something we can possibly do in the end. I think education is the only way. But that's just my opinion.

BWStearns 11y ago

I don't believe that Obama himself has an blunt understanding of this issue, but I can't know what is truly in his heart or head and the view promoted in his statements here is utterly oversimplified and purposely lacking in nuance. Glossing over the impossibility of providing security only against "bad guys" while leaving you open to "good guys" is an intentionally low resolution view of the issue intended to make refutations based on that impossibility sound like nerds nitpicking the implementation details.

beeboop 11y ago
I don't think whether he understands it to really matter. I think even if he was the world's foremost security expert, his message would be the same as it is now.