5 ms·

Just think of the outrage if the government required master keys to everyone's homes? I know there is a difference, but it's not a huge leap to compare the two

by xupybd 10y ago

Just think of the outrage if the government required master keys to everyone's homes? I know there is a difference, but it's not a huge leap to compare the two. We don't want the government to have such easy access to our homes because we can't trust every government employee not to abuse it. I think the same goes here. No mater what safe guards you put in place it's a scary thought that you simply can't keep the government out of your affair's. Sure now you think you have nothing to hide. But what if your political views become criminal, what if your religious views become hate speech? We're not there yet but times can change quickly.

bo1024 10y ago
Not to mention the chance that a buearocrat loses their copy of the master key, or has it stolen or secretly copied, and before you know it thousands of criminals have access to every home in the country. After the damage is done, we go through a large expense to re-key every house with new locks and the process continues. I think it's a good analogy.
- jwfxpr 10y ago
  This is essentially the case right now with TSA key designs available with little trouble online. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-lugg...
joering2 10y ago
I think its not a correct comparison. The reason government doesn't have or need keys to every house, because no matter how many lock you put on your door, government (SWAT team, for example) can break in anyways, if deem necessary. So for this reason alone if they truly want to... every house can be and will be open to them, no matter what. Meanwhile here the locks are based on sophisticated math.. and that math is smarter or more complicated than the largest compute power they can get hold of.. hence make your virtual locks unbreakable. I think that's the whole issue they have here.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I am reminded of a quote from The Princess Bride: "...you cannot track it, not with a thousand bloodhounds, and you cannot break it, not with a thousand swords." And that just infuriates the prince, to the point where he just has to go destroy something beautiful, out of spite. People put locks on their homes to keep criminals out. It does not matter if the government can break those locks, until the government itself begins to act like a criminal. At that point, it becomes necessary to build locks that even a government cannot break. The Snowden alarum showed us all that a portion of the US government has become functionally indistinguishable from an organized crime ring. So, sorry Comey, but perhaps the FBI should focus for a while on investigating and burning out the criminal corruption within its own umbrella organization before we talk about maybe allowing it the power to intrude upon our personal lives at will, in the name of the greater good. By the house metaphor, law enforcement is more like vampire legends. The vampire has the strength to batter down any door, but if it crosses the threshold without first being invited inside, it loses its power. Except the cop-vampire can also be invited in by a magistrate who issues a warrant. And perhaps even that is too lenient. Maybe our warrants should be issued by a grand jury. Allowing them to be issued by a sole judge, or panel of judges, seems an invitation to erect secret, rubber-stamp courts like those used for FISA warrants. Maybe your secret keys should be protected by an M-of-N consensus algorithm using about 30 cryptographically-random peers. The government then has to convince a bunch of presumably reasonable strangers that it should be allowed access to your keys. Should be no problem if you're a dangerous criminal, but impossible if the state just wants to sniff around in your dirty drawers.
sanderjd 10y ago
Disclaimer: I agree with you but I always struggle to convince people that this line of reasoning makes sense. The government can already enter anybody's home upon receiving a warrant to do so. If you don't let them in, they can bust through a door or tear down a wall. We trust the government not to do this without court oversight. We trust courts to provide good and honest oversight. It is far from a perfect system, but we set up lots of human-level checks and balances to keep power distributed enough that this basically works. The problem with strong encryption is that this is impossible. Even if there is a very good reason signed off by an honest court, it is impossible to get in. This breaks that human-level checks-and-balances system. What replaces it?
- xupybd 10y ago
  Personally I think you can make it a crime not to produce a key if a warrant has been issued to search what ever you've encrypted. That is a lot more out in the open than a "back door". When the government bashes through the door at least it's in plain site and the house owner knows it's happening. But with encryption how would you know if the government has used their access?
  - jungletek 10y ago
    >Personally I think you can make it a crime not to produce a key if a warrant has been issued to search what ever you've encrypted. Personally, I find that suggestion repugnant.
    - xupybd 10y ago
      How is this different to getting a warrant to search say a safe deposit box at a bank? Is there something about encrypted data that should be beyond the reach of the law?
      - Thiez 10y ago
        I already have so many different accounts on various websites that I regularly forget a password, the same can happen with an encryption key. Should that be a crime?
vbezhenar 10y ago
Government already has master key to anyone's home. They'll just break the door, it can be done easily. Proper encryption is a different beast, you just don't have that option to break the door.
- thanksgiving 10y ago
  Maybe there needs to be a publicly accessible/downloadable/searchable registry to which all warrants issued by any court in the us gets logged? Who has the mandate to create such a requirement?
  - kabdib 10y ago
    Government actions fly in the face of pesky requirements. Black bag operations have always existed, and will always exist, despite legislation or other rule-making to the contrary.
- rocqua 10y ago
  I can see a broken door, I can't see an escrowed key being accessed.
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  Breaking a door is not the same as having its master key. It's a flaw of the door. Encryption can be broken as well, but everyone has encryption that is better at not breaking than most doors.

by xupybd 10y ago

bo1024 10y ago

Not to mention the chance that a buearocrat loses their copy of the master key, or has it stolen or secretly copied, and before you know it thousands of criminals have access to every home in the country. After the damage is done, we go through a large expense to re-key every house with new locks and the process continues. I think it's a good analogy.

jwfxpr 10y ago
This is essentially the case right now with TSA key designs available with little trouble online. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-lugg...

joering2 10y ago

I think its not a correct comparison. The reason government doesn't have or need keys to every house, because no matter how many lock you put on your door, government (SWAT team, for example) can break in anyways, if deem necessary. So for this reason alone if they truly want to... every house can be and will be open to them, no matter what. Meanwhile here the locks are based on sophisticated math.. and that math is smarter or more complicated than the largest compute power they can get hold of.. hence make your virtual locks unbreakable. I think that's the whole issue they have here.

logfromblammo 10y ago
I am reminded of a quote from The Princess Bride: "...you cannot track it, not with a thousand bloodhounds, and you cannot break it, not with a thousand swords." And that just infuriates the prince, to the point where he just has to go destroy something beautiful, out of spite. People put locks on their homes to keep criminals out. It does not matter if the government can break those locks, until the government itself begins to act like a criminal. At that point, it becomes necessary to build locks that even a government cannot break. The Snowden alarum showed us all that a portion of the US government has become functionally indistinguishable from an organized crime ring. So, sorry Comey, but perhaps the FBI should focus for a while on investigating and burning out the criminal corruption within its own umbrella organization before we talk about maybe allowing it the power to intrude upon our personal lives at will, in the name of the greater good. By the house metaphor, law enforcement is more like vampire legends. The vampire has the strength to batter down any door, but if it crosses the threshold without first being invited inside, it loses its power. Except the cop-vampire can also be invited in by a magistrate who issues a warrant. And perhaps even that is too lenient. Maybe our warrants should be issued by a grand jury. Allowing them to be issued by a sole judge, or panel of judges, seems an invitation to erect secret, rubber-stamp courts like those used for FISA warrants. Maybe your secret keys should be protected by an M-of-N consensus algorithm using about 30 cryptographically-random peers. The government then has to convince a bunch of presumably reasonable strangers that it should be allowed access to your keys. Should be no problem if you're a dangerous criminal, but impossible if the state just wants to sniff around in your dirty drawers.

sanderjd 10y ago

Disclaimer: I agree with you but I always struggle to convince people that this line of reasoning makes sense. The government can already enter anybody's home upon receiving a warrant to do so. If you don't let them in, they can bust through a door or tear down a wall. We trust the government not to do this without court oversight. We trust courts to provide good and honest oversight. It is far from a perfect system, but we set up lots of human-level checks and balances to keep power distributed enough that this basically works. The problem with strong encryption is that this is impossible. Even if there is a very good reason signed off by an honest court, it is impossible to get in. This breaks that human-level checks-and-balances system. What replaces it?

xupybd 10y ago
Personally I think you can make it a crime not to produce a key if a warrant has been issued to search what ever you've encrypted. That is a lot more out in the open than a "back door". When the government bashes through the door at least it's in plain site and the house owner knows it's happening. But with encryption how would you know if the government has used their access?
- jungletek 10y ago
  >Personally I think you can make it a crime not to produce a key if a warrant has been issued to search what ever you've encrypted. Personally, I find that suggestion repugnant.
  - xupybd 10y ago
    How is this different to getting a warrant to search say a safe deposit box at a bank? Is there something about encrypted data that should be beyond the reach of the law?
    - Thiez 10y ago
      I already have so many different accounts on various websites that I regularly forget a password, the same can happen with an encryption key. Should that be a crime?

vbezhenar 10y ago

Government already has master key to anyone's home. They'll just break the door, it can be done easily. Proper encryption is a different beast, you just don't have that option to break the door.

thanksgiving 10y ago
Maybe there needs to be a publicly accessible/downloadable/searchable registry to which all warrants issued by any court in the us gets logged? Who has the mandate to create such a requirement?
- kabdib 10y ago
  Government actions fly in the face of pesky requirements. Black bag operations have always existed, and will always exist, despite legislation or other rule-making to the contrary.
rocqua 10y ago
I can see a broken door, I can't see an escrowed key being accessed.
theandrewbailey 10y ago
Breaking a door is not the same as having its master key. It's a flaw of the door. Encryption can be broken as well, but everyone has encryption that is better at not breaking than most doors.