8 ms·

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other o

by zeveb 10y ago

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

fweespeech 10y ago
They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marketanarchist 10y ago
  That would backfire economically and politically I think, especially long term. Let them ban it if they are so foolish.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    They license it to businesses that cooperate with the government. It wouldn't backfire, honestly. The fact no one has done anything major about any of the other surveillance state BS is proof enough of that.
    - marketanarchist 10y ago
      Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS. In any case, there are still the negative economic consequence which important alone, but also affect politics.
      - fweespeech 10y ago
        > Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-muslims-mosque-surveillance/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-muslims-... > Trump doubles down on calls for mosque surveillance http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26167... > Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection, something candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have also called for that was banned with the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which Cruz supported. Well I don't think I'm going to agree given the only person who made it to the GE is a guy who supports surveillance.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    They wouldn't need to outlaw or ban all cryptography, only the particular communication systems that don't have "lawful intercept" capability. There are already laws for this on the books, although they've generally been interpreted in such a way so as not to apply to non-telephony products so far. TBH it probably wouldn't require that much Orwellian apparatus; you just make the software slightly harder to use than it already is today, and network effects basically ensure that only people who are really interested in communications without government interception (who the government is presumably interested in) are using it. Then you can start doing endpoint attacks, deanonymization via compromised downloads, etc. The government's -- and I don't mean just the U.S.'s, but most large governments', I think -- ideal for Internet communications is something similar to the telephone network circa 1975. They're fine with privacy between one individual and another (i.e. keeping your conversations private from your neighbors), but they aren't going to be satisfied with any technology that prevents wiretaps by state-controlled apparatus. I am not exactly bullish on the ability of technology or technologists to resist this, over the long run. Unless there is a widespread and overwhelming realization on the part of individuals that governments shouldn't have this ability, and I don't think that consensus exists even in the liberal West if you frame the question even moderately advantageously to the government, then they will get it. There will always be pockets of noncompliance, and an ensuing cat-and-mouse game, but the steady state will likely be one that deters mainstream usage. And if we really are seeing the end of Anglo-American geopolitical dominance in favor of countries whose political systems emphasize stability and harmony over individual rights and dissent, then it becomes very difficult to see that consensus ever manifesting itself at a meaningful global level.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    RSA, ATT, and Verizon all took bribes from the NSA to screw over their users. At least one worked with DEA as well. These were leaked in prominent media with exposure to millions of American consumers and business people. So, let's test your theory: RSA Net Income (2011-2015): 426M 320M -306M -115M 79M Verizon Net same period: 2.4B 875M 11.5B 9.63B 17.88B ATT Net same period: 3.94B 7.26B 18.25B 6.22B 13.35B RSA took quite a hit but it could be market as well. I don't know what it's status was pre-Snowden but much of hit comes during year of the leaks. Revenue dropped a billion or two with profits turning to losses but rebounding into $75 million in 2015. Verizon and ATT are doing great. Other companies that are managed profitably that cooperate tightly with Washington are Microsoft, IBM, Google, and Oracle. Their net incomes are in the billions. So, I think the market data indicates you're wrong even in the worst scenario for working with the surveillance state. Also, the more lock-in the business has, the better it does despite any evil choice it makes. Rule of thumb.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and something like this (where millions would instantly be in violation) would absolutely, 100% end up in front of the Supreme Court.
  - andars 10y ago
    Except for when they aren't. There are several examples of ex post facto laws that have been upheld. The Supreme Court would definitely get involved.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    It isn't ex post facto if it has an effective date of 1/1/2017, regardless of what came before.
  - cderwin 10y ago
    But they can instead make it illegal to use such software, which would not be an ex post facto law (it would only apply to uses of said software after the law was enacted). IANAL though, so I digress.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    Some examples of when a law can be retroactively applied: When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security. I mean, you can argue it in front of a judge if you want, but thats how they established jurisdiction. Same goes for discretionary tax law at the IRS or any regulatory agency I agree its a problem, but if you live your life under your version of reality it is easy to get railroaded in the dragnet
    - zeveb 10y ago
      That just goes to show that the Constitution, while imperfect, is better than what we have now.
      - cloudjacker 10y ago
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, it was illegal to smoke marijuana everywhere in the US for several decades. That didn't stop people from doing it. And now it's becoming legal.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    Yes. However, that doesn't change the fact casual users that are largely harmless ended up losing years of their lives and had their ability to earn a good living to support themselves casually destroyed in the process.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      True, sadly enough. But my point is that the Drug War didn't stop people from doing what they wanted to do. Unjust laws tend to get ignored.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  It already is for exports unless you get license. They probably approve it but they left high-assurance security + a bunch of other stuff classified as munitions. The "victory" of the Crypto Wars was for mass market stuff that's basically insecure. Detailed analysis with appropriate links: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/11/the_return_of_c.html#c6682917 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/11/the_return_of... Note: I could be really misreading the material due to not being a lawyer or pouring through regs all the time. I think it says all this stuff is still 5A002 (munition) outside the exemptions they compromised on.
marketanarchist 10y ago
Spot on, that's the idea behind bitcoin as well.
ptero 10y ago
A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. Even if changed later, all the technologies already developed would still be available. Being provably secure is great, but this is a tall order -- there are always conditions to satisfy (solution is secure if A, B and C and governments and other attackers might invalidate those by a tap point, decree, a court action, etc.).
- zeveb 10y ago
  > A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. In America, we have had those, and it hasn't helped. We have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, and yet we have campaign-finance restrictions and gun control. Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad.
  - mikepurvis 10y ago
    Interesting perspective. I think the majority of the rest of the world is in awe that those two specific restrictions (such as they are today) are so inadequate at protecting anybody (from the rich and crazy people with guns, respectively).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nickff 10y ago
      The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect citizens from each other, the intent was very clearly to protect citizens and states against the federal government. Even with this limited scope, political pressures have overcome those two amendments (and most of the others). The parent is very right to point out that it is hard to restrain the majority, even with the constitution (and/or law) on your side.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I don't think it's sad, politics are supposed to change. Obviously you can be sad at specific changes, but the idea that political decisions in general can change is a good thing.
Lagged2Death 10y ago
Political solutions change as politics change... "Mathematical security" can be politically banned, is banned in many parts of the world. You only have the option to use mathematical security because other people have been doing the politics for you.
codedokode 10y ago
You cannot protect your privacy with just mathematics. It won't help against government tracking your cell phone location or looking into your bank account.
- mcbits 10y ago
  There are plausible solutions for both of those, or at least a clear direction to look for solutions. Unfortunately, there tends to be a critical mass that decentralized systems need to reach in terms of adoption before they become truly feasible. Consumers aren't interested in buying a "UWB mesh hub" or some such, which wouldn't appear to do anything but drain batteries. But they might, for example, buy a car stereo or security system that uses a wireless device to deliver specific features, and which also happens to help saturate the city with a p2p mesh network. Likewise with cryptocurrency, most people are not interested in the hassle for some intangible privacy benefit. But a lot of people might be interested in a crypto video game currency that can be easily traded, even between games. Or perhaps a currency-like mechanism to implement quotas on the mesh.

by zeveb 10y ago

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

fweespeech 10y ago

They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marketanarchist 10y ago
That would backfire economically and politically I think, especially long term. Let them ban it if they are so foolish.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  They license it to businesses that cooperate with the government. It wouldn't backfire, honestly. The fact no one has done anything major about any of the other surveillance state BS is proof enough of that.
  - marketanarchist 10y ago
    Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS. In any case, there are still the negative economic consequence which important alone, but also affect politics.
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      > Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-muslims-mosque-surveillance/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-muslims-... > Trump doubles down on calls for mosque surveillance http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26167... > Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection, something candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have also called for that was banned with the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which Cruz supported. Well I don't think I'm going to agree given the only person who made it to the GE is a guy who supports surveillance.
- Kadin 10y ago
  They wouldn't need to outlaw or ban all cryptography, only the particular communication systems that don't have "lawful intercept" capability. There are already laws for this on the books, although they've generally been interpreted in such a way so as not to apply to non-telephony products so far. TBH it probably wouldn't require that much Orwellian apparatus; you just make the software slightly harder to use than it already is today, and network effects basically ensure that only people who are really interested in communications without government interception (who the government is presumably interested in) are using it. Then you can start doing endpoint attacks, deanonymization via compromised downloads, etc. The government's -- and I don't mean just the U.S.'s, but most large governments', I think -- ideal for Internet communications is something similar to the telephone network circa 1975. They're fine with privacy between one individual and another (i.e. keeping your conversations private from your neighbors), but they aren't going to be satisfied with any technology that prevents wiretaps by state-controlled apparatus. I am not exactly bullish on the ability of technology or technologists to resist this, over the long run. Unless there is a widespread and overwhelming realization on the part of individuals that governments shouldn't have this ability, and I don't think that consensus exists even in the liberal West if you frame the question even moderately advantageously to the government, then they will get it. There will always be pockets of noncompliance, and an ensuing cat-and-mouse game, but the steady state will likely be one that deters mainstream usage. And if we really are seeing the end of Anglo-American geopolitical dominance in favor of countries whose political systems emphasize stability and harmony over individual rights and dissent, then it becomes very difficult to see that consensus ever manifesting itself at a meaningful global level.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  RSA, ATT, and Verizon all took bribes from the NSA to screw over their users. At least one worked with DEA as well. These were leaked in prominent media with exposure to millions of American consumers and business people. So, let's test your theory: RSA Net Income (2011-2015): 426M 320M -306M -115M 79M Verizon Net same period: 2.4B 875M 11.5B 9.63B 17.88B ATT Net same period: 3.94B 7.26B 18.25B 6.22B 13.35B RSA took quite a hit but it could be market as well. I don't know what it's status was pre-Snowden but much of hit comes during year of the leaks. Revenue dropped a billion or two with profits turning to losses but rebounding into $75 million in 2015. Verizon and ATT are doing great. Other companies that are managed profitably that cooperate tightly with Washington are Microsoft, IBM, Google, and Oracle. Their net incomes are in the billions. So, I think the market data indicates you're wrong even in the worst scenario for working with the surveillance state. Also, the more lock-in the business has, the better it does despite any evil choice it makes. Rule of thumb.
the_watcher 10y ago
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and something like this (where millions would instantly be in violation) would absolutely, 100% end up in front of the Supreme Court.
- andars 10y ago
  Except for when they aren't. There are several examples of ex post facto laws that have been upheld. The Supreme Court would definitely get involved.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  It isn't ex post facto if it has an effective date of 1/1/2017, regardless of what came before.
- cderwin 10y ago
  But they can instead make it illegal to use such software, which would not be an ex post facto law (it would only apply to uses of said software after the law was enacted). IANAL though, so I digress.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Some examples of when a law can be retroactively applied: When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security. I mean, you can argue it in front of a judge if you want, but thats how they established jurisdiction. Same goes for discretionary tax law at the IRS or any regulatory agency I agree its a problem, but if you live your life under your version of reality it is easy to get railroaded in the dragnet
  - zeveb 10y ago
    That just goes to show that the Constitution, while imperfect, is better than what we have now.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
mirimir 10y ago
Well, it was illegal to smoke marijuana everywhere in the US for several decades. That didn't stop people from doing it. And now it's becoming legal.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  Yes. However, that doesn't change the fact casual users that are largely harmless ended up losing years of their lives and had their ability to earn a good living to support themselves casually destroyed in the process.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    True, sadly enough. But my point is that the Drug War didn't stop people from doing what they wanted to do. Unjust laws tend to get ignored.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
It already is for exports unless you get license. They probably approve it but they left high-assurance security + a bunch of other stuff classified as munitions. The "victory" of the Crypto Wars was for mass market stuff that's basically insecure. Detailed analysis with appropriate links: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/11/the_return_of_c.html#c6682917 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/11/the_return_of... Note: I could be really misreading the material due to not being a lawyer or pouring through regs all the time. I think it says all this stuff is still 5A002 (munition) outside the exemptions they compromised on.

marketanarchist 10y ago

Spot on, that's the idea behind bitcoin as well.

ptero 10y ago

A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. Even if changed later, all the technologies already developed would still be available. Being provably secure is great, but this is a tall order -- there are always conditions to satisfy (solution is secure if A, B and C and governments and other attackers might invalidate those by a tap point, decree, a court action, etc.).

zeveb 10y ago
> A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. In America, we have had those, and it hasn't helped. We have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, and yet we have campaign-finance restrictions and gun control. Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad.
- mikepurvis 10y ago
  Interesting perspective. I think the majority of the rest of the world is in awe that those two specific restrictions (such as they are today) are so inadequate at protecting anybody (from the rich and crazy people with guns, respectively).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickff 10y ago
    The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect citizens from each other, the intent was very clearly to protect citizens and states against the federal government. Even with this limited scope, political pressures have overcome those two amendments (and most of the others). The parent is very right to point out that it is hard to restrain the majority, even with the constitution (and/or law) on your side.
- burkaman 10y ago
  I don't think it's sad, politics are supposed to change. Obviously you can be sad at specific changes, but the idea that political decisions in general can change is a good thing.

Lagged2Death 10y ago

Political solutions change as politics change... "Mathematical security" can be politically banned, is banned in many parts of the world. You only have the option to use mathematical security because other people have been doing the politics for you.

codedokode 10y ago

You cannot protect your privacy with just mathematics. It won't help against government tracking your cell phone location or looking into your bank account.

mcbits 10y ago
There are plausible solutions for both of those, or at least a clear direction to look for solutions. Unfortunately, there tends to be a critical mass that decentralized systems need to reach in terms of adoption before they become truly feasible. Consumers aren't interested in buying a "UWB mesh hub" or some such, which wouldn't appear to do anything but drain batteries. But they might, for example, buy a car stereo or security system that uses a wireless device to deliver specific features, and which also happens to help saturate the city with a p2p mesh network. Likewise with cryptocurrency, most people are not interested in the hassle for some intangible privacy benefit. But a lot of people might be interested in a crypto video game currency that can be easily traded, even between games. Or perhaps a currency-like mechanism to implement quotas on the mesh.