4 ms·

Thanks for posting this. Throughout this discussion about Apple, The FBI, Tha All Writs Act, etc. I've been saying we have already had this discussion some 20 y

Thanks for posting this. Throughout this discussion about Apple, The FBI, Tha All Writs Act, etc. I've been saying we have already had this discussion some 20 years ago and the key point made then is still relevant today. If you create a key for Government, the Government cannot prevent bad actors from using those keys. The only thing of substance to this discussion that has changed since then is we have multiple robust open source cryptography implementations, which ensures that if the DOJ can lobby congress to make some laws requiring back doors or key escrow, that only criminals will have access to robust cryptography. And it will likely kick off a cryptography arms race, which will only make their job more difficult than they are saying it is already. I doubt however the Legislative Branch will give them the laws they want. The last thing our legislators want is to make it easier for the FBI to spy on them.

citizensixteen 11y ago
>I doubt however the Legislative Branch will give them the laws they want. The last thing our legislators want is to make it easier for the FBI to spy on them. I hope you are right, the thing that concerns me is how brainwashed people are in the post-911 era.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Brainwashed or just uninformed yeah. We need to educate people about the technology in their pockets. As discussed in another thread [1], I'm forming a grassroots campaign to do that with a few other developers. If you're interested in being involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service. You don't need to be a developer to contribute. There are some existing groups working on this, such as Fight for the Future's Save Security campaign [2] and of course the EFF [3]. I support those efforts and have reached out to see how we can work together, though we still plan to make our own website and campaign name for this cause. My hope is Obama changes his mind on this issue and stops pursuing anti-encryption legislation. Then the campaign would be over. But unless the President strongly endorses encryption, there will be public discussion. We technologists should be a part of that debate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 [2] https://savesecurity.org/ https://savesecurity.org/ [3] https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/
kazinator 11y ago
> The only thing of substance to this discussion that has changed since then is we have multiple robust open source cryptography implementation We had some decent OSS crypto in the Clipper time frame. What's changed is that strong crypto is now much more wide-spread in NON open-source consumer products. Crypto is not just for governments plus a handful of geeks any more. That's the big change.
- ethbro 11y ago
  In reading the article over lunch, I realized something else changed as well: the government now has the capability to data mine without human intervention on a massive scale. (Which I strongly suspect they didn't in the early 90s) That substantially changes the key escrow argument. What the NSA et al want is not the ability to decrypt communications, but the ability to search all communications to generate intelligence. Naturally, this only works if the stored take is searchable, which encrypted content is not. (For practical and flexible purposes) So the very existence of key escrow coupled with the desires of the NSA would almost mandate that any escrow keys available to the government be used continuously and automatically to decrypt content into a searchable data warehouse. Which is why if we allow this then in 5 years or less we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion. Or to quote Strangelove, "Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know."
  - schoen 11y ago
    > we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion There are signs in the Snowden documents that this view is already pervasive in the government.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      Not only is it already pervasive in government, this type of dissembling has also been policy at Google for a long time. LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney. All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records, read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?” And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.” I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t. Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything. Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?” And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.” (from PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets", part 2)

citizensixteen 11y ago

>I doubt however the Legislative Branch will give them the laws they want. The last thing our legislators want is to make it easier for the FBI to spy on them. I hope you are right, the thing that concerns me is how brainwashed people are in the post-911 era.

studentrob 11y ago
Brainwashed or just uninformed yeah. We need to educate people about the technology in their pockets. As discussed in another thread [1], I'm forming a grassroots campaign to do that with a few other developers. If you're interested in being involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service. You don't need to be a developer to contribute. There are some existing groups working on this, such as Fight for the Future's Save Security campaign [2] and of course the EFF [3]. I support those efforts and have reached out to see how we can work together, though we still plan to make our own website and campaign name for this cause. My hope is Obama changes his mind on this issue and stops pursuing anti-encryption legislation. Then the campaign would be over. But unless the President strongly endorses encryption, there will be public discussion. We technologists should be a part of that debate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 [2] https://savesecurity.org/ https://savesecurity.org/ [3] https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/

kazinator 11y ago

> The only thing of substance to this discussion that has changed since then is we have multiple robust open source cryptography implementation We had some decent OSS crypto in the Clipper time frame. What's changed is that strong crypto is now much more wide-spread in NON open-source consumer products. Crypto is not just for governments plus a handful of geeks any more. That's the big change.

ethbro 11y ago
In reading the article over lunch, I realized something else changed as well: the government now has the capability to data mine without human intervention on a massive scale. (Which I strongly suspect they didn't in the early 90s) That substantially changes the key escrow argument. What the NSA et al want is not the ability to decrypt communications, but the ability to search all communications to generate intelligence. Naturally, this only works if the stored take is searchable, which encrypted content is not. (For practical and flexible purposes) So the very existence of key escrow coupled with the desires of the NSA would almost mandate that any escrow keys available to the government be used continuously and automatically to decrypt content into a searchable data warehouse. Which is why if we allow this then in 5 years or less we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion. Or to quote Strangelove, "Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know."
- schoen 11y ago
  > we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion There are signs in the Snowden documents that this view is already pervasive in the government.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Not only is it already pervasive in government, this type of dissembling has also been policy at Google for a long time. LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney. All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records, read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?” And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.” I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t. Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything. Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?” And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.” (from PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets", part 2)