3 ms·

> The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere

by ffwd 10y ago

> The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere, but as James Comey has himself said, this debate kicked into high gear late 2014 when Apple started with the default encryption, and law enforcement saw an increase in devices they couldn't get into. I think if strong encryption had been on the outliers as it was before that time, we wouldn't have seen this issues raised by the FBI in this manner. I think it is undoubtable that the default is a big reason for this because if many companies start to follow suit, it can have real consequences. Even though James Comey's proposal of wanting "both strong encryption AND government access" probably came from a place of ignorance of the technology, I do think there is a debate to be had there about securing servers with keys or whatever else just like Google and Facebook and Apple are expected to secure all their other data. Right now, it is completely out of the question when you ask a tech person, because of lack of trust. > They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place. Absolutely, the way I like to look at it is basic costs and benefits, pros and cons. There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability.

CaptSpify 10y ago
And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.
- ffwd 10y ago
  This is becoming a super long thread now but I want to say I understand your points, that's why this is difficult to discuss. What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either. If there comes a point where a large percentage of pedophiles, 'common criminals' and others can't get convicted because of default encryption (the evidence is on their phones), then the FBI and police will move to other methods, like the aforementioned ones. Because of this, I'm not sure your last point holds: > But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet. Unless the FBI and the police are lying, then it will get worse as time goes on. Here's a quote by Comey http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-national-talk-over-encryption-vs-safety http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-... > Speaking Friday at the American Bar Association annual conference in San Francisco, James Comey said the agency was unable to access 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months. Barring some bigger discussion about government power altogether, this seems to be the issue we are facing. I also want to say that it's not just about conviction and putting someone in jail. Sure in a lot of these cases, there will be other evidence and other things to nail them on, but it's also about revealing the full scope of a crime and not just a harsher crime. In the name of justice so to speak.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either. I don't see why it should. Encryption isn't taking something away that the government has always had, it's about taking something back that they never should have been collecting in the first place, and evidently don't know how to use properly anyway. Just because we've taken away their new toys doesn't mean they get to continue to abuse the system. > Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet. Really? I've been pretty civil with this, despite my inclination that you are just trolling, but I can't even take this part seriously. > Unless the FBI and the police are lying Either they are being malicious, or they are being ignorant. I'm not sure which is worse. But we have plenty of evidence that they are and have been lying. You keep framing this discussion as though it's reasonable they are the good guys looking out for everyone, but there's just too much evidence that this isn't the case. EDIT: > 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months How many conversations about crimes were had in private that they couldn't record? I'm guessing many more than 5,000. Does that mean we should ban non-transcribed conversations?

by ffwd 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago

And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.

ffwd 10y ago
This is becoming a super long thread now but I want to say I understand your points, that's why this is difficult to discuss. What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either. If there comes a point where a large percentage of pedophiles, 'common criminals' and others can't get convicted because of default encryption (the evidence is on their phones), then the FBI and police will move to other methods, like the aforementioned ones. Because of this, I'm not sure your last point holds: > But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet. Unless the FBI and the police are lying, then it will get worse as time goes on. Here's a quote by Comey http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-national-talk-over-encryption-vs-safety http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-... > Speaking Friday at the American Bar Association annual conference in San Francisco, James Comey said the agency was unable to access 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months. Barring some bigger discussion about government power altogether, this seems to be the issue we are facing. I also want to say that it's not just about conviction and putting someone in jail. Sure in a lot of these cases, there will be other evidence and other things to nail them on, but it's also about revealing the full scope of a crime and not just a harsher crime. In the name of justice so to speak.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either. I don't see why it should. Encryption isn't taking something away that the government has always had, it's about taking something back that they never should have been collecting in the first place, and evidently don't know how to use properly anyway. Just because we've taken away their new toys doesn't mean they get to continue to abuse the system. > Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet. Really? I've been pretty civil with this, despite my inclination that you are just trolling, but I can't even take this part seriously. > Unless the FBI and the police are lying Either they are being malicious, or they are being ignorant. I'm not sure which is worse. But we have plenty of evidence that they are and have been lying. You keep framing this discussion as though it's reasonable they are the good guys looking out for everyone, but there's just too much evidence that this isn't the case. EDIT: > 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months How many conversations about crimes were had in private that they couldn't record? I'm guessing many more than 5,000. Does that mean we should ban non-transcribed conversations?