4 ms·

I genuinely hope this will influence the whole government mandated back door debate for the better but I'm afraid that this will just be forgotten in a matter o

by daenney 10y ago

I genuinely hope this will influence the whole government mandated back door debate for the better but I'm afraid that this will just be forgotten in a matter of minutes. Like Gove said "we've had enough of experts", especially when their educated opinions don't suit us.

SixSigma 10y ago
Except the "no encryption at all" crowd gets a louder voice.
Razengan 10y ago
Did anything come of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
slg 10y ago
If a terrorist attack occurred and it was clear that it could have been prevented if the authorities could have read encrypted information, would that change your opinion of backdoors? If not, why are you criticizing the other side for being just as steadfast in their beliefs as you are in yours? The truth is that no policy is going to be 100% effective so I'm not sure why either side of the debate should overadjust based on a single failure
- mulmen 10y ago
  I would not criticize the other side of the debate for being steadfast. I will however criticize the belief itself. I will base my criticism on actual events such as this one instead of hypotheticals. I do not think considering this case in the encryption/backdoor debate is an over-adjustment based on a single failure. I think this a relevant example of the risks of creating and using a golden key. If you discount every individual example what are you left with? As daenney stated, the hope is to influence debate, not base the decision entirely on one event. Do you believe this situation has no relevance to the encryption and backdoor debate? Are you arguing that because no policy will be 100% effective we just shouldn't bother with a discussion?
  - slg 10y ago
    >I will base my criticism on actual events such as this one instead of hypotheticals. The problem is that due to its nature, you only hear about one side of these events. We never hear about the attacks that were stopped or could have been stopped by backdoors. Many people take that as proof that these events don't happen but as the old saying goes absence of proof is not proof of absence. Without that proof, all we can do is provide hypotheticals. I am not arguing that this story isn't relevant. I am arguing that people who feel this story should change their opponents minds are guilty of hypocrisy. In my personal view, both side in this debate have pros and cons. However, most in the tech community refuse to acknowledge that which results in zero progress.
    - elmigranto 10y ago
      > absence of proof is not proof of absence I don't think this applies here. I suppose your point is goverment's exploits might be effective but they keep it low not to expose the fact of their existence. Well, this might very well justify anything from 1984 or any other anti-utopia — "let us do whatever, it is effective and needed, but we won't give any facts or details, because it might compromise our system".
      - slg 10y ago
        You are proving my point. Not everything is black and white. Not every slope is slippery. There is room for discussion and compromise. You comparing the people on the other side of the debate to fans of 1984 style totalitarian government gets nothing accomplished just like people on the other side saying you are enabling terrorists gets nothing accomplished. The only difference is that the other side of the debate is already in power. So if the tech community doesn't even want to discuss this issue, guess which side of the issue will win the debate and decide future encryption law.
        int_19h 10y ago
        Writing the law is easy. Enforcing it, on the other hand ...
- woodman 10y ago
  Are you of the opinion that all beliefs are above ridicule, or just this one? Because in my opinion the idea of a government controlled key escrow is the most stupid thing I've heard suggested and its proponents are either willfully ignorant or just insane. Recent history is full of major failures on the part of the USG to properly safeguard data of the most sensitive nature, as well as cases where they had collected clear text intel and just failed to connect the dots. So there is nothing to gain and everything to lose; they have enough data, they should work on their analytics before they endeavor to intentionally weaken everybody's security.

by daenney 10y ago

SixSigma 10y ago

Except the "no encryption at all" crowd gets a louder voice.

Razengan 10y ago

Did anything come of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

slg 10y ago

If a terrorist attack occurred and it was clear that it could have been prevented if the authorities could have read encrypted information, would that change your opinion of backdoors? If not, why are you criticizing the other side for being just as steadfast in their beliefs as you are in yours? The truth is that no policy is going to be 100% effective so I'm not sure why either side of the debate should overadjust based on a single failure

mulmen 10y ago
I would not criticize the other side of the debate for being steadfast. I will however criticize the belief itself. I will base my criticism on actual events such as this one instead of hypotheticals. I do not think considering this case in the encryption/backdoor debate is an over-adjustment based on a single failure. I think this a relevant example of the risks of creating and using a golden key. If you discount every individual example what are you left with? As daenney stated, the hope is to influence debate, not base the decision entirely on one event. Do you believe this situation has no relevance to the encryption and backdoor debate? Are you arguing that because no policy will be 100% effective we just shouldn't bother with a discussion?
- slg 10y ago
  >I will base my criticism on actual events such as this one instead of hypotheticals. The problem is that due to its nature, you only hear about one side of these events. We never hear about the attacks that were stopped or could have been stopped by backdoors. Many people take that as proof that these events don't happen but as the old saying goes absence of proof is not proof of absence. Without that proof, all we can do is provide hypotheticals. I am not arguing that this story isn't relevant. I am arguing that people who feel this story should change their opponents minds are guilty of hypocrisy. In my personal view, both side in this debate have pros and cons. However, most in the tech community refuse to acknowledge that which results in zero progress.
  - elmigranto 10y ago
    > absence of proof is not proof of absence I don't think this applies here. I suppose your point is goverment's exploits might be effective but they keep it low not to expose the fact of their existence. Well, this might very well justify anything from 1984 or any other anti-utopia — "let us do whatever, it is effective and needed, but we won't give any facts or details, because it might compromise our system".
    - slg 10y ago
      You are proving my point. Not everything is black and white. Not every slope is slippery. There is room for discussion and compromise. You comparing the people on the other side of the debate to fans of 1984 style totalitarian government gets nothing accomplished just like people on the other side saying you are enabling terrorists gets nothing accomplished. The only difference is that the other side of the debate is already in power. So if the tech community doesn't even want to discuss this issue, guess which side of the issue will win the debate and decide future encryption law.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        Writing the law is easy. Enforcing it, on the other hand ...
woodman 10y ago
Are you of the opinion that all beliefs are above ridicule, or just this one? Because in my opinion the idea of a government controlled key escrow is the most stupid thing I've heard suggested and its proponents are either willfully ignorant or just insane. Recent history is full of major failures on the part of the USG to properly safeguard data of the most sensitive nature, as well as cases where they had collected clear text intel and just failed to connect the dots. So there is nothing to gain and everything to lose; they have enough data, they should work on their analytics before they endeavor to intentionally weaken everybody's security.