6 ms·

As I understand it, it means banning end to end communication between clients. So you can chat over https, but only if the server in the middle (which can be se

by wisty 9y ago

As I understand it, it means banning end to end communication between clients. So you can chat over https, but only if the server in the middle (which can be served warrants) is doing the encryption.

askvictor 9y ago
That's not end to end encryption.
- vermilingua 9y ago
  ...which is why GP said "banning end to end communication"?
- lucb1e 9y ago
  To me it is. The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. Of course, there's no way you can tell from the outside since it looks like an ordinary https connection to an ordinary server. Then again, I can think of more ways to implement end-to-end encryption over wiretapped channels without it being obvious that encrypted data is being exchanged (stego is quite easy to make but very hard to detect if you don't know the method). So the whole ban is pointless. Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy, so they'll succeed. The general public will not care enough, and any widely used end-to-end solution will be banned anyway, so they'll just have to give up a little bit of privacy. No gains but at least the government is trying, right?
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Sorry, but that's just wrong. End-to-end encryption has a specific definition that you can't distort just to play devil's advocate.
    - itake 9y ago
      Can you elaborate? If I am communicating with a server over tls, how is that not e2e encryption? The communication between both clients (my computer and the server) are encrypted locally such that mitm are not able to read our secure communication. The "end" of the connection is either the server or my laptop.
      - SpaceManiac 9y ago
        "End to end" refers specifically to the two people involved - that is, nobody but the sender and recipient of a communication can read it. Twitter DMs happen over TLS, but they're not end-to-end - Twitter knows the content of the messages.
        lucb1e 9y ago
        There are two people involved. To quote myself: > The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. There are two people who can read the communications: me and whoever I'm talking to. But rather, my point was this: > Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy Setting up https is easy, and steganography is easy to do. Thus, a ban would be pointless because everyone who needs it for criminal activities, still can do it. It's everyone else that's put at a disadvantage.
        itake 9y ago
        Wikipedia just defines end to end as communication between nodes and it never specifically defines end to end as "person to person". [0] Do you have another source? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle
        kakarot 9y ago
        > . . . application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network, rather than in intermediary nodes . . . No one ever said it was people. We're talking about communication between two nodes that is simply facilitated by intermediary nodes. Your own source supports the argument, I think you should reread it.
CamperBob2 9y ago
The best way to explain these laws to the uninitiated is to point out that they literally criminalize private communication between citizens. Essentially, all letters must be written on postcards under a regime like what Turnbull is proposing.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Bingo. Unfortunately we already accept profound restrictions on our privacy by accepting regulations and taxes on private income, so it's hard to walk society back from this when there is already acceptance of the underlying moral principle.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    Regulations and taxes are not remotely in the same ballpark as banning private conversations.
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      To play the devil's advocate, how do we enforce taxes on a private transaction? Do we bake in some kind of asymmetry like a sales tax where one party has a financial incentive to report the expense so we can check if the recipient declared it as income? I don't know. I'm just asking.
      - dmurray 9y ago
        "We" audit a sample of citizens and if any of them had large non-private transactions (for example, buying a house, or investing millions in a hedge fund) we demand they explain where the money came from. If they don't explain it, or explain it came from a transaction which they should have disclosed, we confiscate their property or imprison them. It's hard to hide everything from the likes of the IRS.
      - rlpb 9y ago
        > Do we bake in some kind of asymmetry like a sales tax where one party has a financial incentive to report the expense so we can check if the recipient declared it as income? You essentially just described VAT.

by wisty 9y ago

As I understand it, it means banning end to end communication between clients. So you can chat over https, but only if the server in the middle (which can be served warrants) is doing the encryption.

askvictor 9y ago

That's not end to end encryption.

vermilingua 9y ago
...which is why GP said "banning end to end communication"?
lucb1e 9y ago
To me it is. The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. Of course, there's no way you can tell from the outside since it looks like an ordinary https connection to an ordinary server. Then again, I can think of more ways to implement end-to-end encryption over wiretapped channels without it being obvious that encrypted data is being exchanged (stego is quite easy to make but very hard to detect if you don't know the method). So the whole ban is pointless. Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy, so they'll succeed. The general public will not care enough, and any widely used end-to-end solution will be banned anyway, so they'll just have to give up a little bit of privacy. No gains but at least the government is trying, right?
- kakarot 9y ago
  Sorry, but that's just wrong. End-to-end encryption has a specific definition that you can't distort just to play devil's advocate.
  - itake 9y ago
    Can you elaborate? If I am communicating with a server over tls, how is that not e2e encryption? The communication between both clients (my computer and the server) are encrypted locally such that mitm are not able to read our secure communication. The "end" of the connection is either the server or my laptop.
    - SpaceManiac 9y ago
      "End to end" refers specifically to the two people involved - that is, nobody but the sender and recipient of a communication can read it. Twitter DMs happen over TLS, but they're not end-to-end - Twitter knows the content of the messages.
      - lucb1e 9y ago
        There are two people involved. To quote myself: > The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. There are two people who can read the communications: me and whoever I'm talking to. But rather, my point was this: > Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy Setting up https is easy, and steganography is easy to do. Thus, a ban would be pointless because everyone who needs it for criminal activities, still can do it. It's everyone else that's put at a disadvantage.
      - itake 9y ago
        Wikipedia just defines end to end as communication between nodes and it never specifically defines end to end as "person to person". [0] Do you have another source? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle
        kakarot 9y ago
        > . . . application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network, rather than in intermediary nodes . . . No one ever said it was people. We're talking about communication between two nodes that is simply facilitated by intermediary nodes. Your own source supports the argument, I think you should reread it.

CamperBob2 9y ago

The best way to explain these laws to the uninitiated is to point out that they literally criminalize private communication between citizens. Essentially, all letters must be written on postcards under a regime like what Turnbull is proposing.

Jabanga 9y ago
Bingo. Unfortunately we already accept profound restrictions on our privacy by accepting regulations and taxes on private income, so it's hard to walk society back from this when there is already acceptance of the underlying moral principle.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Regulations and taxes are not remotely in the same ballpark as banning private conversations.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    To play the devil's advocate, how do we enforce taxes on a private transaction? Do we bake in some kind of asymmetry like a sales tax where one party has a financial incentive to report the expense so we can check if the recipient declared it as income? I don't know. I'm just asking.
    - dmurray 9y ago
      "We" audit a sample of citizens and if any of them had large non-private transactions (for example, buying a house, or investing millions in a hedge fund) we demand they explain where the money came from. If they don't explain it, or explain it came from a transaction which they should have disclosed, we confiscate their property or imprison them. It's hard to hide everything from the likes of the IRS.
    - rlpb 9y ago
      > Do we bake in some kind of asymmetry like a sales tax where one party has a financial incentive to report the expense so we can check if the recipient declared it as income? You essentially just described VAT.