5 ms·

Should All Locks Have Keys? Phones, Castles, Encryption, and You [video]

53 points by hugofirth 10y ago

slg 10y ago
This is a very good video that gives you insight into both sides of the debate, but I'm not sure it will change many minds because the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything. The entire thing rests on on argument, "There is no way to build a digital lock that only angels can open and demons cannot." However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back. It also makes the entire debate black and white which isn't the case in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. There are guilty people who get off and innocent people who are convicted. If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate?
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  > If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate? How to have confidence angels will remain angelic and not be susceptible to demonic blackmail and bribery?
  - slg 10y ago
    The same way we do with everything else, democracy, laws, and the legal system. I'm not sure why encryption would have to be different in that regard.
    - pixl97 10y ago
      The legal system describes punishment, not protection. The legal system only works inside of said country and does not pertain to outside actors, individual or state level that are beyond your prosecution. Even the government itself protects itself from itself by using compartmentalization. By giving the government the keys to everything we have ruined said compartmentalization and put everyone at risk.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  No, it wouldn't, because we have different ideas of which people comprise each group. I would apply strict scrutiny and the tightest limits to the angels group. Its obvious from past behavior the government, especially prosecutors, favor adding to both groups at their convenience.
  - slg 10y ago
    This is not an argument for encryption. This is an argument for who has the keys. It is much easier to reach a compromise on the latter than the former.
    - Retric 10y ago
      I don't think so. Personally I think breaking encryption should be setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. IMO, this represents a reasonable compromise where rogue agents are simply not going to stalk their ex. The point is this needs to be the kind of choice where the president is in on the call. Not simply a secret that can be sold to foreign governments within a week.
      - pixl97 10y ago
        >setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. Which means every X months that cost drops by half. Hopefully you don't need to keep your secrets very long. In 10 years with the rate of Moores law it will cost you a few thousand dollars at most to crack it. Your idea is bad and puts peoples lives at danger.
        Retric 10y ago
        Moors law is dead. https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php Q1 2011 330$ i7 2600k 29.64 GFLOPS / computer. Q1 2016 336$ i7-4790K 43.78 GFLOPS / computer. Five years < 50% speed boost. And let's not forget some people can overclocked that 2600k from 3.4ghz to 5.2+ Ghz where people are having issues getting the 4790K that high even with a 4ghz base clock. GPU's got faster for longer, but they where using older processes. Also, for live systems you can always re encrypt.
- jasode 10y ago
  >However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. It seems obvious to me why it's trivially true but maybe you had something else in mind. Let's say you have an equation like this: x+3=10. How do we make it so the answer of "x=7" is only given by angels but never by demons? Cryptography is mathematics and for the entire period of its existence, there's no math that only the good guys can perform but the bad guys can't. Math and numbers don't have a concept of angels vs demons acting on it. Same idea as a physical key not knowing if the hand using it is a legitimate police officer or a criminal.[1] Also, the distinction of angels-vs-demons is not as simple mapping it to government-vs-terrorists. What if the actors in government are the demons?!?" Examples are police officers using their computers to digitally stalk people or CIA officers probing into citizen's private files that they're not authorized for. Clinton said, "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,"[2] Ok, it seems like someone can just sit down with Clinton and outline the math above. Or, if we really really wanted to play along with the "there must be a way" idea, I suppose we could postulate a math device that only performed mathematics after scanning the users brain and determining that the neural patterns constitute a "good guy" with lawful intentions. Well, what about all the electronics and math unrelated to the biometric verification? Just bypass it. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+keys+leaked https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+keys+leaked [2]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-w...
  - slg 10y ago
    I think the obvious response to your first argument is that encryption already works on the angels vs demons system. Except with the current technology the angels are the owner of the data and anyone with which they share the data. Why does the mathematics work for that but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, your second point isn't an argument involving encryption. You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate that is relevant in a whole bunch of other areas and not specifically encryption.
    - 10y ago
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back. Completely agree; it could have done better to reinforce the why it's not possible. > If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate? No because that would also collapse our entire e-commerce industry in America. Why would any company do business here if they are now liable for people using a back door into their software / network and stealing all of their data? Plus this is the information age; if you keep out nearly all of the demons then that means at least SOME demons are getting in which is the same as ALL demons getting in. Think about it. One bad person gets in and...all the data is now in a torrent. It only takes a single demon getting in. One.
- cb18 10y ago
  the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything. You missed the point of the video. Thinking of encryption as a 'lock' is only a metaphor, it isn't actually a 'lock'. There aren't 2 sides to this 'debate.' There is no debate here. Something is either encrypted or it isn't. There is no in between. If you want to take an opposing side in a debate, you would have to say something like "encryption is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed to exist, we must wipe it from the face of the earth." Yeah... good luck with that. Not only would attempting such a task be futile and foolhardy, but the vast majority of political will would be aligned against attempting such an idea since so much of the modern world rests upon encryption. in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. Our legal system doesn't rest on the absolutes of mathematical thinking in the way that encryption does. 2+2 = 4 is '100% accurate'

53 points by hugofirth 10y ago

slg 10y ago

This is a very good video that gives you insight into both sides of the debate, but I'm not sure it will change many minds because the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything. The entire thing rests on on argument, "There is no way to build a digital lock that only angels can open and demons cannot." However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back. It also makes the entire debate black and white which isn't the case in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. There are guilty people who get off and innocent people who are convicted. If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate?

anexprogrammer 10y ago
> If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate? How to have confidence angels will remain angelic and not be susceptible to demonic blackmail and bribery?
- slg 10y ago
  The same way we do with everything else, democracy, laws, and the legal system. I'm not sure why encryption would have to be different in that regard.
  - pixl97 10y ago
    The legal system describes punishment, not protection. The legal system only works inside of said country and does not pertain to outside actors, individual or state level that are beyond your prosecution. Even the government itself protects itself from itself by using compartmentalization. By giving the government the keys to everything we have ruined said compartmentalization and put everyone at risk.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
No, it wouldn't, because we have different ideas of which people comprise each group. I would apply strict scrutiny and the tightest limits to the angels group. Its obvious from past behavior the government, especially prosecutors, favor adding to both groups at their convenience.
- slg 10y ago
  This is not an argument for encryption. This is an argument for who has the keys. It is much easier to reach a compromise on the latter than the former.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I don't think so. Personally I think breaking encryption should be setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. IMO, this represents a reasonable compromise where rogue agents are simply not going to stalk their ex. The point is this needs to be the kind of choice where the president is in on the call. Not simply a secret that can be sold to foreign governments within a week.
    - pixl97 10y ago
      >setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. Which means every X months that cost drops by half. Hopefully you don't need to keep your secrets very long. In 10 years with the rate of Moores law it will cost you a few thousand dollars at most to crack it. Your idea is bad and puts peoples lives at danger.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Moors law is dead. https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php Q1 2011 330$ i7 2600k 29.64 GFLOPS / computer. Q1 2016 336$ i7-4790K 43.78 GFLOPS / computer. Five years < 50% speed boost. And let's not forget some people can overclocked that 2600k from 3.4ghz to 5.2+ Ghz where people are having issues getting the 4790K that high even with a 4ghz base clock. GPU's got faster for longer, but they where using older processes. Also, for live systems you can always re encrypt.
jasode 10y ago
>However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. It seems obvious to me why it's trivially true but maybe you had something else in mind. Let's say you have an equation like this: x+3=10. How do we make it so the answer of "x=7" is only given by angels but never by demons? Cryptography is mathematics and for the entire period of its existence, there's no math that only the good guys can perform but the bad guys can't. Math and numbers don't have a concept of angels vs demons acting on it. Same idea as a physical key not knowing if the hand using it is a legitimate police officer or a criminal.[1] Also, the distinction of angels-vs-demons is not as simple mapping it to government-vs-terrorists. What if the actors in government are the demons?!?" Examples are police officers using their computers to digitally stalk people or CIA officers probing into citizen's private files that they're not authorized for. Clinton said, "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,"[2] Ok, it seems like someone can just sit down with Clinton and outline the math above. Or, if we really really wanted to play along with the "there must be a way" idea, I suppose we could postulate a math device that only performed mathematics after scanning the users brain and determining that the neural patterns constitute a "good guy" with lawful intentions. Well, what about all the electronics and math unrelated to the biometric verification? Just bypass it. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+keys+leaked https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+keys+leaked [2]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-w...
- slg 10y ago
  I think the obvious response to your first argument is that encryption already works on the angels vs demons system. Except with the current technology the angels are the owner of the data and anyone with which they share the data. Why does the mathematics work for that but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, your second point isn't an argument involving encryption. You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate that is relevant in a whole bunch of other areas and not specifically encryption.
  - 10y ago
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back. Completely agree; it could have done better to reinforce the why it's not possible. > If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate? No because that would also collapse our entire e-commerce industry in America. Why would any company do business here if they are now liable for people using a back door into their software / network and stealing all of their data? Plus this is the information age; if you keep out nearly all of the demons then that means at least SOME demons are getting in which is the same as ALL demons getting in. Think about it. One bad person gets in and...all the data is now in a torrent. It only takes a single demon getting in. One.
cb18 10y ago
the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything. You missed the point of the video. Thinking of encryption as a 'lock' is only a metaphor, it isn't actually a 'lock'. There aren't 2 sides to this 'debate.' There is no debate here. Something is either encrypted or it isn't. There is no in between. If you want to take an opposing side in a debate, you would have to say something like "encryption is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed to exist, we must wipe it from the face of the earth." Yeah... good luck with that. Not only would attempting such a task be futile and foolhardy, but the vast majority of political will would be aligned against attempting such an idea since so much of the modern world rests upon encryption. in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. Our legal system doesn't rest on the absolutes of mathematical thinking in the way that encryption does. 2+2 = 4 is '100% accurate'