4 ms·

For one: I'm talking about the freedom to do what I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13253207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13253207 W

For one: I'm talking about the freedom to do what I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13253207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13253207 Without cracking down on the ability to do that, they've achieved nothing on the search warrant front.

gizmo686 10y ago
They would only need to show that the software they are asking you to unlock does not have the behaviour you describe; which will be easy in the common case of you using default software. If you are using plausibly deniable software, then they could still compel your peers to surrender their passwords unless everyone involved was using plausibly deniable software. This would put us back to the pre-dark world where the government had access to all digital records that were not maintained by people with super-human op-sec practices. Further, even if you do have amazing op-sec, they could still attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the data is an encrypted message through non technical means. For example, if they can show that you accessed the alleged data the week before. Even if there are some cases where, through technical means, one prevents the government access to the data, the number of such cases is still smaller than the number of cases that would be prevented by default encryption.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Right, the idea is you build and distribute a system, such as Signal, built around this concept. You haven't addressed the civil liberties angle though: should the government be able to make this software illegal? If not, crypto people can design such a system. Existing warrant processes already get you to the system that you describe, so I don't know why the House would talk about it as some future innovation and change needed, if their goal wasn't to make the system I describe less permitted.
  - gizmo686 10y ago
    The question is not if the government can make the software you describe illegal. The question is if the government can forbid Apple/Google/Microsoft from making it the default. Existing warrant processes do not get you to the system I describe, because it is not settled law yet whether or not the government can legally compel you to surrender your key, even in cases where there is no dispute that there is a key. The fact that there exists hypothetical software that would allow someone to plausibly dispute the existence of the key is not relevant to the above question.

gizmo686 10y ago

They would only need to show that the software they are asking you to unlock does not have the behaviour you describe; which will be easy in the common case of you using default software. If you are using plausibly deniable software, then they could still compel your peers to surrender their passwords unless everyone involved was using plausibly deniable software. This would put us back to the pre-dark world where the government had access to all digital records that were not maintained by people with super-human op-sec practices. Further, even if you do have amazing op-sec, they could still attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the data is an encrypted message through non technical means. For example, if they can show that you accessed the alleged data the week before. Even if there are some cases where, through technical means, one prevents the government access to the data, the number of such cases is still smaller than the number of cases that would be prevented by default encryption.

tanderson92 10y ago
Right, the idea is you build and distribute a system, such as Signal, built around this concept. You haven't addressed the civil liberties angle though: should the government be able to make this software illegal? If not, crypto people can design such a system. Existing warrant processes already get you to the system that you describe, so I don't know why the House would talk about it as some future innovation and change needed, if their goal wasn't to make the system I describe less permitted.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  The question is not if the government can make the software you describe illegal. The question is if the government can forbid Apple/Google/Microsoft from making it the default. Existing warrant processes do not get you to the system I describe, because it is not settled law yet whether or not the government can legally compel you to surrender your key, even in cases where there is no dispute that there is a key. The fact that there exists hypothetical software that would allow someone to plausibly dispute the existence of the key is not relevant to the above question.