5 ms·

>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'

by jasode 11y 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 11y 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.
- jasode 11y ago
  >but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels. Your phrasing and labeling of "angels" is not the same as mine. We are starting from different assumptions. In my opinion, you've made a leap of logic and a priori called the abstract actors in the government, "angels". I would weaken your sentence to say: "but you can't expand it to a larger group of 3rd-parties." It's critical that I call them 3rd-parties because it is not yet known if they will behave with angel or demon intentions. It's also impossible for technology to determine that. >You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate I respect that you consider it a separate issue but I think that bad actors (or sometimes incompetence without malice[1]) within the government is intertwined with what an "angel" is. To not get bogged down on "angel", let's say we just consider if there's a way for technology to create a backdoor that only works for the government but not non-government. Again, the answer would be no. [1]such as the leaks of SSN, mothers maiden name, etc from OPM backround checks: https://www.google.com/search?q=opm+background+checks+leaked https://www.google.com/search?q=opm+background+checks+leaked
  - slg 11y ago
    I think you just proved my point of why no one is changing their mind on this issue. You went from saying you had a trivial mathematical argument to debating semantics and disagreeing on the meaning of the word "angel". Politicians thrive on those type of semantic arguments. If you want to change their minds, you have to get better at explaining that mathematical argument more convincingly than this video did or you did in your first post.
    - jasode 11y ago
      >You went from ... I went from Math to Semantics because I was engaging with your points specifically... and you mentioned the technology angle because... CodeGrey mentioned it in the video. I wasn't making a universal treatise about government backdoors such that anyone from anti-vaccination parents to moon landing deniers will be convinced of the merits. The technology impossibility of digital locks used by angels-vs-demons mentioned by CodeGrey is a red herring and not really part of the debate that I've heard. Instead, people like Obama/FBI/NSA already know that a backdoor provided to the government is impossible to keep out of criminals' hands. They knowingly avoid mentioning the misuse by criminals and only highlight the benefits of catching terrorists. They don't need to be convinced of math proofs because that part was never the stumbling point.

by jasode 11y ago

slg 11y 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.

jasode 11y ago
>but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels. Your phrasing and labeling of "angels" is not the same as mine. We are starting from different assumptions. In my opinion, you've made a leap of logic and a priori called the abstract actors in the government, "angels". I would weaken your sentence to say: "but you can't expand it to a larger group of 3rd-parties." It's critical that I call them 3rd-parties because it is not yet known if they will behave with angel or demon intentions. It's also impossible for technology to determine that. >You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate I respect that you consider it a separate issue but I think that bad actors (or sometimes incompetence without malice[1]) within the government is intertwined with what an "angel" is. To not get bogged down on "angel", let's say we just consider if there's a way for technology to create a backdoor that only works for the government but not non-government. Again, the answer would be no. [1]such as the leaks of SSN, mothers maiden name, etc from OPM backround checks: https://www.google.com/search?q=opm+background+checks+leaked https://www.google.com/search?q=opm+background+checks+leaked
- slg 11y ago
  I think you just proved my point of why no one is changing their mind on this issue. You went from saying you had a trivial mathematical argument to debating semantics and disagreeing on the meaning of the word "angel". Politicians thrive on those type of semantic arguments. If you want to change their minds, you have to get better at explaining that mathematical argument more convincingly than this video did or you did in your first post.
  - jasode 11y ago
    >You went from ... I went from Math to Semantics because I was engaging with your points specifically... and you mentioned the technology angle because... CodeGrey mentioned it in the video. I wasn't making a universal treatise about government backdoors such that anyone from anti-vaccination parents to moon landing deniers will be convinced of the merits. The technology impossibility of digital locks used by angels-vs-demons mentioned by CodeGrey is a red herring and not really part of the debate that I've heard. Instead, people like Obama/FBI/NSA already know that a backdoor provided to the government is impossible to keep out of criminals' hands. They knowingly avoid mentioning the misuse by criminals and only highlight the benefits of catching terrorists. They don't need to be convinced of math proofs because that part was never the stumbling point.