7 ms·

>PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If, technologically, it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key - t

by Gratsby 11y ago

>PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If, technologically, it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key - there's no door at all - then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? It's so disappointing to me to hear a quote like that from the President.

x5n1 11y ago
What if the terrorist or pedo has things in his mind, that means all people's minds should be monitored at all times... Otherwise there is a chance that they might think thoughts to do evil things and then they might carry them out. I uhh want to emphasize that we should think of the uhh children.
Jafit 11y ago
Its fine though, because if you make something illegal then criminals won't use it.
- mozumder 11y ago
  So, get rid of all laws?
- Odin78 11y ago
  The thing is: if encryption is illegal and you encrypt your illegal material so law enforcement can't convict you for it, they can still convict you for using encryption.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    Which is such a great idea, because proper encryption is undistinguishable from random data: so, if you have a drive, any drive, good luck convincing anyone that it does not contain any encrypted content, and that whatever is in the empty sectors is just garbage. Guilty until proven innocent.
    - obvio171 11y ago
      Enjoy your entropy while it lasts.[1] [1] https://www.google.com.br/search?q=appelbaum+right+to+be+entropic https://www.google.com.br/search?q=appelbaum+right+to+be+ent...
      - Piskvorrr 11y ago
        This is not even about deniable encryption (which is apparently a part of the threat model?): this is a nightstick to beat anybody who's inconvenient in any minor way. "Prove to me that your song collection contains no secret message, else you're guilty." There's no way to do that! For anything I could come up with, the universal response "well maybe it's hidden even better" holds. In other words, introducing "guilty until proven otherwise" introduces witch-trials pretty much by definition: if she floats, she's a witch (so far, so good; yay it works); if she drowns (or dies in notprisonnosirnotatall after years of not confessing nonexistent secrets), she was innocent. Of course, there is absolutely no way this might be abused, and certainly not for personal vengeance. Welcome to Salem, MA.
jrapdx3 11y ago
To that statement I'd immediately ask, "what did we do before there were smartphones? Did we not investigate crimes? Can't we do that now?" Criminals have always tried to hide their activities and keep secrets. Sure with strong encryption maybe some information is hard to search, but that was always the case. (Did they ever find Jimmy Hoffa's body?) I mostly agree with the idea that we have a lot more to lose by inserting backdoors than we would ever gain.
mozumder 11y ago
So how DO you disrupt criminal plots, then? Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? You're going to find, that once you think it through, that you'll end up limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals... there's no getting around that. Life sucks that way. People were never their own little countries. I just feel sorry for the middle-class suckers that thought they had freedom. Poor guys - they never figured out they were the tools of the wealthy and powerful telling them they had freedom, in order to make them work harder against the lower-class.
- kelnos 11y ago
  Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? Yes, that's exactly what you do. I would much rather we let a few (more) crimes get through here and there. Weakening privacy for everyone isn't worth it.
  - mozumder 11y ago
    You'll find the people value security more than privacy. This is why conspiracy to commit crime is already illegal. That's just how society is. Your choice on whether you want to live with the rest of society or not.
    - wiz21 11y ago
      dead wrong. The majority of people do as you say, but the majority don't understand the balance. Security means protecting a few targets. Privacy means protecting the freedom of every single person. With that kind of reasoning, you'll favor research for medicine against rare 100% lethal diseases instead of 20%-lethal cancer...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Polls show more support for Apple's position than for the FBI's, so I'm not sure your argument regarding the position of society is very convincing: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-poll-idUSKCN0VX159 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-poll-idUS... Just making conspiracy illegal doesn't mean you don't value privacy; it depends on what means are permissible to obtain evidence for the conspiracy.
bsder 11y ago
The moment you mention "child pornography" as justification I consider that you have lost the argument. This is simply Godwin's Law for the modern era.
- SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
  Lovejoy's Law - "would somebody please think of the children"
- Silhouette 11y ago
  It's also a horribly counter-productive argument. This is obviously a politically charged subject, but let's try to be rational for a moment. It seems likely that by far the most prolific creators of child pornography today are... children. What today's parent and grandparent generations used to do in relative privacy behind the metaphorical bike shed, surely today's teenagers are doing with their phones and laptops, perhaps unaware of how insecure and non-private their communications might be. There are all sorts of difficult ethical questions about how that kind of behaviour should in itself be treated in law, but let's ignore those for now. In any case, if kids are carrying around that kind of material or sending it to each other, surely the best way to protect them is to make sure it stays as private as it should be? That means making everything as secure and safely encrypted as possible. Arguing for weaknesses in encryption or creating backdoor vulnerabilities has exactly the opposite effect.
  - TACIXAT 11y ago
    While I agree that privacy and secure communications are the best means to protect kids in the first world, there are still enough horrible people in the world who rape children and take pictures, as well, there is child sex trafficking. We shouldn't forget that these things exist and reduce child porn to snapchat and selfies.
    - fl0wenol 11y ago
      The availability of strong encryption does not enable or disable child rape or human trafficking. This will happen behind traditional closed doors and guarded with guns and/or money unless other aspects of society and human nature change.
rogersmith 11y ago
Disappointing with regards to the rest of his track records? re: Guantanamo, reining in Wall Street, cracking down on whistleblowers, widespread use of drones to perform extra-judicial assassination? If after 8 years you still think Obama is the Nobel peace prize wielding progressive philanthropist you've been fooled into thinking he is, joke's on you tbh.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  While I agree with you, I also think this isn't the appropriate place for that discussion. I imagine that explains the downvotes you're getting.
  - rogersmith 11y ago
    Parent comment expresses incredulity at Obama's comment on the topic being discussed in the thread. I point out said comment is perfectly in line with the policies implemented by Obama and his administration during his two terms and OP's incredulity is unwarranted. Not sure how that's OT or inappropriate but furry muff, HN works in mysterious ways.
    - btilly 11y ago
      You would be better off having picked examples that are closer to the topic at hand. Such as the fact that he voted for retroactive telecom immunity as a senator, supported increases in NSA surveillance as a President, and certainly signed off on the extraordinary measures taken to try and apprehend Snowden. His stance on surveillance is clear. He has strongly supported it since 2008. (Before he was the Democratic nominee he spoke out against it.)
  - fjiwbjebe 11y ago
    Fuck HN Moderation. HN mods support government fascists, and absolutely accept the statui quo, will bury Snowden news, and allow government shills to post. Fuck HN mods.
pjc50 11y ago
Turn it around: when all communications are compromised to the FBI, how can anyone do any politics that is considered the slightest bit fringe? Always remember that the FBI was against the civil rights movement and MLK. And consider that one of the leading presidential candidates is getting into the habit of inciting violence: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-rage-and-the-derp--2 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-rage-and-the-derp--2
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Government/police types trend heavily Republican, though. I assume many of them are voting for Trump.
  - greenisland 11y ago
    Actually, either far left or far right lean control freak. Hitler and his Fascist ally, Mussolini, were both far-right contol freaks. Josef Stalin and his predecessors were far left control freaks. People in power like control, contrary to what they might say. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. People want to be elected because of their egos. Full stop. There is no other reason. No one does it because "they love America". They want to latch onto the gravy train and collect a check all the while dictating terms and or furthering an agenda. It's patently obvious to all.
    - mSparks 11y ago
      In most of Europe "far left" means "not even a little bit of a control freak" and "far right" means "kill anyone you don't like". And all the politics is what Americans and English call "left wing". Which is why the likes of Stalin and Hitler are referred to as "right wing", even though their politics was mostly left wing by a US/UK definition. imho, "control freskishness" is more acurrately captured on a liberal/fascist scale. Big difference between say Obama and Clinton, while both "left wing" in the sense of "supporting the poor". is Obama is liberal whereas Clinton is bordering on European "far right" fascist to compete with the most well known of them.
    - 11y ago
Umn44 11y ago
"It's so disappointing to me to hear a quote like that from the President." Then you need to get informed how democracy works... Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. AKA we can be manipulated to believe things against our interest. Science on reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ "Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role." Crisis of democracy http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/ http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democra... Democracy Inc. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverte... Testing theories of representative government https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 Energy subsidies https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW07021... Manufacturing consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://vimeo.com/39566117 https://vimeo.com/39566117
hammock 11y ago
Imagine if he had said "If it is possible to make an impenetrable safebox so strong that there's no key - there's no door at all - then how do we apprehend the money or gold inside it? How do we save the economy?" That is the next frontier. A backdoor into your bank account. There is already precedent inside and outside the US.
zerohm 11y ago
The irony here is that we are arguing about encryption options being included (not enabled) by default. Any criminal with half a brain will be able to find a wide selection of free 3rd party encryption tools. Undermining default encryption mostly just weakens the security of average, every day, law abiding citizens.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
To answer his question, we don't. I am so sick of them using this as a justification for stripping away all rights that I'm ready to apply first amendment protections to all digital data to stop this Trojan horse. Yes, there are bad people doing bad things. But we are enabling much worse people to do much worse things trying to stop the bad people (also, if you make it so the low handing fruit of people who only possess digital data can no longer be used to score political points and to give the appearance of helping, it could force law enforcement to dedicate even more resources to the producers, thus being a win for both freedom and for the innocents needing protection).

by Gratsby 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

What if the terrorist or pedo has things in his mind, that means all people's minds should be monitored at all times... Otherwise there is a chance that they might think thoughts to do evil things and then they might carry them out. I uhh want to emphasize that we should think of the uhh children.

Jafit 11y ago

Its fine though, because if you make something illegal then criminals won't use it.

mozumder 11y ago
So, get rid of all laws?
Odin78 11y ago
The thing is: if encryption is illegal and you encrypt your illegal material so law enforcement can't convict you for it, they can still convict you for using encryption.
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  Which is such a great idea, because proper encryption is undistinguishable from random data: so, if you have a drive, any drive, good luck convincing anyone that it does not contain any encrypted content, and that whatever is in the empty sectors is just garbage. Guilty until proven innocent.
  - obvio171 11y ago
    Enjoy your entropy while it lasts.[1] [1] https://www.google.com.br/search?q=appelbaum+right+to+be+entropic https://www.google.com.br/search?q=appelbaum+right+to+be+ent...
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      This is not even about deniable encryption (which is apparently a part of the threat model?): this is a nightstick to beat anybody who's inconvenient in any minor way. "Prove to me that your song collection contains no secret message, else you're guilty." There's no way to do that! For anything I could come up with, the universal response "well maybe it's hidden even better" holds. In other words, introducing "guilty until proven otherwise" introduces witch-trials pretty much by definition: if she floats, she's a witch (so far, so good; yay it works); if she drowns (or dies in notprisonnosirnotatall after years of not confessing nonexistent secrets), she was innocent. Of course, there is absolutely no way this might be abused, and certainly not for personal vengeance. Welcome to Salem, MA.

jrapdx3 11y ago

To that statement I'd immediately ask, "what did we do before there were smartphones? Did we not investigate crimes? Can't we do that now?" Criminals have always tried to hide their activities and keep secrets. Sure with strong encryption maybe some information is hard to search, but that was always the case. (Did they ever find Jimmy Hoffa's body?) I mostly agree with the idea that we have a lot more to lose by inserting backdoors than we would ever gain.

mozumder 11y ago

So how DO you disrupt criminal plots, then? Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? You're going to find, that once you think it through, that you'll end up limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals... there's no getting around that. Life sucks that way. People were never their own little countries. I just feel sorry for the middle-class suckers that thought they had freedom. Poor guys - they never figured out they were the tools of the wealthy and powerful telling them they had freedom, in order to make them work harder against the lower-class.

kelnos 11y ago
Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? Yes, that's exactly what you do. I would much rather we let a few (more) crimes get through here and there. Weakening privacy for everyone isn't worth it.
- mozumder 11y ago
  You'll find the people value security more than privacy. This is why conspiracy to commit crime is already illegal. That's just how society is. Your choice on whether you want to live with the rest of society or not.
  - wiz21 11y ago
    dead wrong. The majority of people do as you say, but the majority don't understand the balance. Security means protecting a few targets. Privacy means protecting the freedom of every single person. With that kind of reasoning, you'll favor research for medicine against rare 100% lethal diseases instead of 20%-lethal cancer...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Polls show more support for Apple's position than for the FBI's, so I'm not sure your argument regarding the position of society is very convincing: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-poll-idUSKCN0VX159 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-poll-idUS... Just making conspiracy illegal doesn't mean you don't value privacy; it depends on what means are permissible to obtain evidence for the conspiracy.

bsder 11y ago

The moment you mention "child pornography" as justification I consider that you have lost the argument. This is simply Godwin's Law for the modern era.

SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
Lovejoy's Law - "would somebody please think of the children"
Silhouette 11y ago
It's also a horribly counter-productive argument. This is obviously a politically charged subject, but let's try to be rational for a moment. It seems likely that by far the most prolific creators of child pornography today are... children. What today's parent and grandparent generations used to do in relative privacy behind the metaphorical bike shed, surely today's teenagers are doing with their phones and laptops, perhaps unaware of how insecure and non-private their communications might be. There are all sorts of difficult ethical questions about how that kind of behaviour should in itself be treated in law, but let's ignore those for now. In any case, if kids are carrying around that kind of material or sending it to each other, surely the best way to protect them is to make sure it stays as private as it should be? That means making everything as secure and safely encrypted as possible. Arguing for weaknesses in encryption or creating backdoor vulnerabilities has exactly the opposite effect.
- TACIXAT 11y ago
  While I agree that privacy and secure communications are the best means to protect kids in the first world, there are still enough horrible people in the world who rape children and take pictures, as well, there is child sex trafficking. We shouldn't forget that these things exist and reduce child porn to snapchat and selfies.
  - fl0wenol 11y ago
    The availability of strong encryption does not enable or disable child rape or human trafficking. This will happen behind traditional closed doors and guarded with guns and/or money unless other aspects of society and human nature change.

rogersmith 11y ago

Disappointing with regards to the rest of his track records? re: Guantanamo, reining in Wall Street, cracking down on whistleblowers, widespread use of drones to perform extra-judicial assassination? If after 8 years you still think Obama is the Nobel peace prize wielding progressive philanthropist you've been fooled into thinking he is, joke's on you tbh.

CWuestefeld 11y ago
While I agree with you, I also think this isn't the appropriate place for that discussion. I imagine that explains the downvotes you're getting.
- rogersmith 11y ago
  Parent comment expresses incredulity at Obama's comment on the topic being discussed in the thread. I point out said comment is perfectly in line with the policies implemented by Obama and his administration during his two terms and OP's incredulity is unwarranted. Not sure how that's OT or inappropriate but furry muff, HN works in mysterious ways.
  - btilly 11y ago
    You would be better off having picked examples that are closer to the topic at hand. Such as the fact that he voted for retroactive telecom immunity as a senator, supported increases in NSA surveillance as a President, and certainly signed off on the extraordinary measures taken to try and apprehend Snowden. His stance on surveillance is clear. He has strongly supported it since 2008. (Before he was the Democratic nominee he spoke out against it.)
- fjiwbjebe 11y ago
  Fuck HN Moderation. HN mods support government fascists, and absolutely accept the statui quo, will bury Snowden news, and allow government shills to post. Fuck HN mods.

pjc50 11y ago

Turn it around: when all communications are compromised to the FBI, how can anyone do any politics that is considered the slightest bit fringe? Always remember that the FBI was against the civil rights movement and MLK. And consider that one of the leading presidential candidates is getting into the habit of inciting violence: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-rage-and-the-derp--2 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-rage-and-the-derp--2

cryoshon 11y ago
Government/police types trend heavily Republican, though. I assume many of them are voting for Trump.
- greenisland 11y ago
  Actually, either far left or far right lean control freak. Hitler and his Fascist ally, Mussolini, were both far-right contol freaks. Josef Stalin and his predecessors were far left control freaks. People in power like control, contrary to what they might say. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. People want to be elected because of their egos. Full stop. There is no other reason. No one does it because "they love America". They want to latch onto the gravy train and collect a check all the while dictating terms and or furthering an agenda. It's patently obvious to all.
  - mSparks 11y ago
    In most of Europe "far left" means "not even a little bit of a control freak" and "far right" means "kill anyone you don't like". And all the politics is what Americans and English call "left wing". Which is why the likes of Stalin and Hitler are referred to as "right wing", even though their politics was mostly left wing by a US/UK definition. imho, "control freskishness" is more acurrately captured on a liberal/fascist scale. Big difference between say Obama and Clinton, while both "left wing" in the sense of "supporting the poor". is Obama is liberal whereas Clinton is bordering on European "far right" fascist to compete with the most well known of them.
  - 11y ago

Umn44 11y ago

"It's so disappointing to me to hear a quote like that from the President." Then you need to get informed how democracy works... Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. AKA we can be manipulated to believe things against our interest. Science on reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ "Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role." Crisis of democracy http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/ http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democra... Democracy Inc. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverte... Testing theories of representative government https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 Energy subsidies https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW07021... Manufacturing consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://vimeo.com/39566117 https://vimeo.com/39566117

hammock 11y ago

Imagine if he had said "If it is possible to make an impenetrable safebox so strong that there's no key - there's no door at all - then how do we apprehend the money or gold inside it? How do we save the economy?" That is the next frontier. A backdoor into your bank account. There is already precedent inside and outside the US.

zerohm 11y ago

The irony here is that we are arguing about encryption options being included (not enabled) by default. Any criminal with half a brain will be able to find a wide selection of free 3rd party encryption tools. Undermining default encryption mostly just weakens the security of average, every day, law abiding citizens.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

To answer his question, we don't. I am so sick of them using this as a justification for stripping away all rights that I'm ready to apply first amendment protections to all digital data to stop this Trojan horse. Yes, there are bad people doing bad things. But we are enabling much worse people to do much worse things trying to stop the bad people (also, if you make it so the low handing fruit of people who only possess digital data can no longer be used to score political points and to give the appearance of helping, it could force law enforcement to dedicate even more resources to the producers, thus being a win for both freedom and for the innocents needing protection).