8 ms·

Encryption Needs a Side Door

4 points by aaronmhatch 11y ago

WalterSear 11y ago
The author is working from the assumption that it's easier to make governments and authorities infallible and incorruptable than it is to deal with a world with encrypted communication. Coming from a reporter (someone supposedly professionally versed current affairs), this is contemptibly stupid position to take.
- foolshdropout 11y ago
  I agree, the author is clueless on so many fundamental levels it's a travesty.
  - aaronmhatch 11y ago
    Please explain, thanks.
    - foolshdropout 11y ago
      Here's a short list I compiled just for you Aaron, but you have to do your own reading. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption... http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/4-reasons-to-fear-encryption-back-doors http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/4-reasons-to-fear-encrypti... https://www.servint.net/university/article/keep-the-back-doors-to-encryption-shut/ https://www.servint.net/university/article/keep-the-back-doo... https://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-nsa-review-panel-says-encryption-back-doors-cant-be-exploited-by-foreign-spies-do-we-believe-them/ https://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-nsa-review-panel-says-encry... http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-government-mandated-encryption-backdoors-are-bad-for-us-businesses/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-government-mandated-... http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-need-encryption-even-nsa-cant-decipher-352073 http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-need-encryption-even-nsa-cant... https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-strong-encryption/ https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-st... https://www.rt.com/usa/319236-no-encryption-backdoor-apple-ceo/ https://www.rt.com/usa/319236-no-encryption-backdoor-apple-c... http://www.techrepublic.com/article/encryption-you-cant-put-the-genie-back-in-the-bottle/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/encryption-you-cant-put-... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/backdoors-encryption-china-apple-google-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/backdoo... https://www.yahoo.com/tech/defense-secretary-favors-strong-encryption-220358733.html https://www.yahoo.com/tech/defense-secretary-favors-strong-e... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3395743/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3395743/posts BTW Aaron, a sidedoor is just a backdoor on an adjacent wall...
      - aaronmhatch 11y ago
        Thanks for the links, foolshdropout. I've read most of those, and they tend to the make the same points over again. I called it a "side door" to make the point that we need a compromise between the front and back. The pro-encryption crowd doesn't want a back door, and the anti-encryption crowd doesn't want a front door. As Amnesty International recommends, we need some compromise. Given that you think I'm clueless on many fundamental levels, I presume you disagree with Amnesty International.
        WalterSear 11y ago
        The pro-encryption crowd knows that a 'side-door' is mathematically impossible and the 'side-door' crowd know the power of magical belief.
        aaronmhatch 11y ago
        I agree that the answer is complicated, but I don't agree that we must appeal to mathematics to solve the problem. We need to have a discussion about what is a good compromise and how much security and privacy we have to sacrifice in order to ultimately strengthen them. We sacrifice some of our privacy and security by allowing government to break into our homes, yet we feel safer and more private because law enforcement and our justice system is on our side and works to thwart criminals. It isn't perfect, but I personally would feel less comfortable if our homes were impenetrable - think of the ramsomware cases with encryption. The fact that there's no way to unlock those encrypted machines without the key is a tragedy. You might say the answer is to stop the ramsomware nuts instead of undermining encryption, but that's like saying we should stop the pedophile from raping our kid in his impenetrable basement instead of making it so we can break in. How do we solve this? It's hard to say, but there are solutions. foolshdropout's first Guardian link presents a good example with the TSA luggage lock standardization. That is essentially a backdoor and has led to many thefts. The flaw in that example, however, is that with enough force, a lock can be broken, and any luggage can be penetrated, making the need for master keys and standardized locks unnecessary. So, it's not a good analogy with encryption, which cannot realistically be broken into. Giving the government master keys to standardized encryption methods is not a good way to do it. However, the FBI's method of getting Apple to disable the guess limit is a "lesser" backdoor, if you must call it that. That provides some compromise because it requires the government going to Apple for each warrant and having them on a case-by-case basis disable the limit. This adds a few hurdles to slow down the process, which is basically what encryption does in the first place, while allowing authorities to lawfully search and seize. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that if we stick to absolutes (total encryption, no encryption), we are only hurting ourselves.
- aaronmhatch 11y ago
  I agree: that is a contemptible position to take - and it's not mine. It's impossible to make authority infallible and incorruptible. However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it? Just so I'm clear, do you disagree with Amnesty International's suggestions for restricted encryption?
  - WalterSear 11y ago
    >However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it? Wow!? What makes you think any of that? Or did you miss a negative there? :) Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them.
    - aaronmhatch 11y ago
      > Wow!? What makes you think any of that? My experience living in the United States and researching other countries has given me that perspective. > Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them. So, you do disagree with Amnesty International's recommendations for restricted encryption. That's fine, but I hope you also disagree with the government being allowed to enter our homes with a warrant.
  - osivertsson 11y ago
    Aaron, I have only read the executive summary of the briefing from Amnesty International you reference, but I fail to see that they make any suggestion for restricted encryption. Can you please clearly cite what in that briefing makes you conclude this?
    - aaronmhatch 11y ago
aaronmhatch 11y ago
I've reversed my stance: https://medium.com/@aaron_michael_hatch/reversal-on-encryption-needs-a-side-door-5e33bbfb777b#.gp8fpt5q4 https://medium.com/@aaron_michael_hatch/reversal-on-encrypti...

4 points by aaronmhatch 11y ago

The author is working from the assumption that it's easier to make governments and authorities infallible and incorruptable than it is to deal with a world with encrypted communication. Coming from a reporter (someone supposedly professionally versed current affairs), this is contemptibly stupid position to take.

foolshdropout 11y ago
I agree, the author is clueless on so many fundamental levels it's a travesty.
- aaronmhatch 11y ago
  Please explain, thanks.
  - foolshdropout 11y ago
    Here's a short list I compiled just for you Aaron, but you have to do your own reading. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption... http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/4-reasons-to-fear-encryption-back-doors http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/4-reasons-to-fear-encrypti... https://www.servint.net/university/article/keep-the-back-doors-to-encryption-shut/ https://www.servint.net/university/article/keep-the-back-doo... https://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-nsa-review-panel-says-encryption-back-doors-cant-be-exploited-by-foreign-spies-do-we-believe-them/ https://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-nsa-review-panel-says-encry... http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-government-mandated-encryption-backdoors-are-bad-for-us-businesses/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-government-mandated-... http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-need-encryption-even-nsa-cant-decipher-352073 http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-need-encryption-even-nsa-cant... https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-strong-encryption/ https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-st... https://www.rt.com/usa/319236-no-encryption-backdoor-apple-ceo/ https://www.rt.com/usa/319236-no-encryption-backdoor-apple-c... http://www.techrepublic.com/article/encryption-you-cant-put-the-genie-back-in-the-bottle/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/encryption-you-cant-put-... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/backdoors-encryption-china-apple-google-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/backdoo... https://www.yahoo.com/tech/defense-secretary-favors-strong-encryption-220358733.html https://www.yahoo.com/tech/defense-secretary-favors-strong-e... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3395743/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3395743/posts BTW Aaron, a sidedoor is just a backdoor on an adjacent wall...
    - aaronmhatch 11y ago
      Thanks for the links, foolshdropout. I've read most of those, and they tend to the make the same points over again. I called it a "side door" to make the point that we need a compromise between the front and back. The pro-encryption crowd doesn't want a back door, and the anti-encryption crowd doesn't want a front door. As Amnesty International recommends, we need some compromise. Given that you think I'm clueless on many fundamental levels, I presume you disagree with Amnesty International.
      - WalterSear 11y ago
        The pro-encryption crowd knows that a 'side-door' is mathematically impossible and the 'side-door' crowd know the power of magical belief.
        aaronmhatch 11y ago
        I agree that the answer is complicated, but I don't agree that we must appeal to mathematics to solve the problem. We need to have a discussion about what is a good compromise and how much security and privacy we have to sacrifice in order to ultimately strengthen them. We sacrifice some of our privacy and security by allowing government to break into our homes, yet we feel safer and more private because law enforcement and our justice system is on our side and works to thwart criminals. It isn't perfect, but I personally would feel less comfortable if our homes were impenetrable - think of the ramsomware cases with encryption. The fact that there's no way to unlock those encrypted machines without the key is a tragedy. You might say the answer is to stop the ramsomware nuts instead of undermining encryption, but that's like saying we should stop the pedophile from raping our kid in his impenetrable basement instead of making it so we can break in. How do we solve this? It's hard to say, but there are solutions. foolshdropout's first Guardian link presents a good example with the TSA luggage lock standardization. That is essentially a backdoor and has led to many thefts. The flaw in that example, however, is that with enough force, a lock can be broken, and any luggage can be penetrated, making the need for master keys and standardized locks unnecessary. So, it's not a good analogy with encryption, which cannot realistically be broken into. Giving the government master keys to standardized encryption methods is not a good way to do it. However, the FBI's method of getting Apple to disable the guess limit is a "lesser" backdoor, if you must call it that. That provides some compromise because it requires the government going to Apple for each warrant and having them on a case-by-case basis disable the limit. This adds a few hurdles to slow down the process, which is basically what encryption does in the first place, while allowing authorities to lawfully search and seize. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that if we stick to absolutes (total encryption, no encryption), we are only hurting ourselves.
aaronmhatch 11y ago
I agree: that is a contemptible position to take - and it's not mine. It's impossible to make authority infallible and incorruptible. However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it? Just so I'm clear, do you disagree with Amnesty International's suggestions for restricted encryption?
- WalterSear 11y ago
  >However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it? Wow!? What makes you think any of that? Or did you miss a negative there? :) Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them.
  - aaronmhatch 11y ago
    > Wow!? What makes you think any of that? My experience living in the United States and researching other countries has given me that perspective. > Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them. So, you do disagree with Amnesty International's recommendations for restricted encryption. That's fine, but I hope you also disagree with the government being allowed to enter our homes with a warrant.
- osivertsson 11y ago
  Aaron, I have only read the executive summary of the briefing from Amnesty International you reference, but I fail to see that they make any suggestion for restricted encryption. Can you please clearly cite what in that briefing makes you conclude this?
  - aaronmhatch 11y ago

aaronmhatch 11y ago

I've reversed my stance: https://medium.com/@aaron_michael_hatch/reversal-on-encryption-needs-a-side-door-5e33bbfb777b#.gp8fpt5q4 https://medium.com/@aaron_michael_hatch/reversal-on-encrypti...