6 ms·

"But suppose we could construct a truly limited mechanism that would give them the ability to recover only a small amount of encrypted data. " Hahahahahahahaha

by yarrel 9y ago

"But suppose we could construct a truly limited mechanism that would give them the ability to recover only a small amount of encrypted data. " Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait you're serious.

d4mi3n 9y ago
Parent seems to be trying to encourage some real discussion on this topic. For those of us not well versed in crypto, could you elaborate on why this is problematic rather than being dismissive? Why is this not possible? How could we improve the situation? What are the risks?
- echlebek 9y ago
  Suppose some system like this is actually possible and not just fiction. Then, the FBI still doesn't need it, because the legal system already has a way to address this problem. Warrants.
  - heartles 9y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the criteria for "exceptional criminal investigations" included the obtaining of a warrant to access said data. Suppose some magical system like this was possible "breakable encryption, but only in the presence of a warrant". What are the arguments against this?
    - natch 9y ago
      What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? How is that a good thing? Please explain.
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        This is the way things have worked since the United States was formed and is written into the Constitution. Do you actually think the justice system should not have the ability to use warrants? Then you need to change the Constitution.
        natch 9y ago
        It needs to work for all countries, not just the US. Please continue your explanation.
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        All countries with a government have a warrant system. Please explain your point.
        natch 9y ago
        As I said: What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? I think the problem I see is in there somewhere. Did I state it poorly? How could I state it better?
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        The point is they already can. You're proposing to change the status quo in every functioning government on the planet. Since these people are ultimately controlled by the voters, they are ultimately acting to fulfill the will of the voters.
        natch 9y ago
        No, they can't, at least that's what they're telling us. Some devices, they haven't been able to get into. That is the status quo. Being able to crack properly done, effectively unbreakable encryption is not the status quo, it's a fantasy. And voting? You are assuming democracy. Also you're forgetting about the tyranny of the majority. If you aren't even going to read what I'm saying, let's just stop here.
      - heartles 9y ago
        Agreeing with other comments, that seems like a problem with warrants in general, not with some supposed technology. If cops can get a warrant to raid anyone's house then of course they'd be able to get a warrant to raid anyone's phone in this situation. The solution to that issue would be to fix how warrants are granted to make them less prone to abuse. But that seems like an entirely different debate.
- esrauch 9y ago
  You don't have to resort to complicated cryptography: anything the FBI can decrypt, anyone who knows what the FBI knows can also decrypt: is is prima facie impossible to have a decryption algorithm that only works when accompanied by a valid warrant. So that's it: there's actually no way to allow the FBI to decrypt an iPhones without also assuming hackers will (perhaps after a delay before a leak/weakness is discovered), you only get to choose "hackable" or "not hackable", there's no "hackable only by the honorable American government" Also, it's already very hard to make things "not hackable" without deliberately introducing a certain way to hack it.
- neltnerb 9y ago
  It seems like the discussion would need to be... what information that law enforcement wants to have classified as "limited" which the public finds acceptable to definitely be hackable by third parties who will inevitably figure out how to bypass the encryption. Even if it's just a corrupt FBI agent selling the key on the black market, all it takes is one time. There might be some subset of things that fit this. Maybe a call record? But would the public be cool with the Russian Mafia definitely being able to get their GPS location and text message contents? Saved passwords? All your emails from the last decade? That's how I see the tradeoff and risk. There is little that the FBI would be interested in that criminals wouldn't be able to make a buck off of.
- natch 9y ago
  How do you prevent against evil law enforcement? You may foolishly think that all law enforcement is perfect... it's hard to state what I think of this level of naiveté and stay within HN rules of polite commenting.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Pretty much every electronic secret the American government tried to keep gets stolen. F-35 plans, diplomatic cables, TSA’s special key, Forms SF-86 for clandestine employees...everything. It is unreasonable to expect the magic phone unlocker to not suffer a similar fate.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    When one has read WaPo and watched the "Sunday conventional wisdom shows" for enough years, one gains amazing powers of self-delusion. For instance, one might be convinced that the litany of leaks you mention, and the thousands of leaks you didn't mention, were all intentional at some level. Maybe it was counterintelligence? Since you mention F-35, you might consider the fact that Lockheed made hundreds of millions of dollars "redesigning" the plane after the Chinese got all the original designs. If you wait to ask until late enough at night, some of these mooks will tell you that Snowden was some sort of 5-D chess maneuver! After one's brain has deteriorated to such an extent, why wouldn't one believe in FBI crypto magic?
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      He's not blaming anyone; he's saying it was stolen.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Yes 'JumpCrisscross and I are in fairly complete agreement on this issue. The counter-argument I offered has always amused me when I've seen it. I reproduced it in the hope that it would amuse you as well; sorry humor is difficult.
FilterSweep 9y ago
> "Idea: Make brute force key recovery possible but very expensive" My eyes glazed over. Quantum computing isn't a fantasy realm, and non-quantum processors are still improving.
dang 9y ago
This comment broke the HN guidelines badly. Please don't push discussions into the internet swamp here. If someone is misinformed, you can correct them in a way that teaches the rest of us something, too. You can also just post nothing. But please don't post uncivilly or unsubstantively. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by yarrel 9y ago

"But suppose we could construct a truly limited mechanism that would give them the ability to recover only a small amount of encrypted data. " Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait you're serious.

d4mi3n 9y ago

Parent seems to be trying to encourage some real discussion on this topic. For those of us not well versed in crypto, could you elaborate on why this is problematic rather than being dismissive? Why is this not possible? How could we improve the situation? What are the risks?

echlebek 9y ago
Suppose some system like this is actually possible and not just fiction. Then, the FBI still doesn't need it, because the legal system already has a way to address this problem. Warrants.
- heartles 9y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the criteria for "exceptional criminal investigations" included the obtaining of a warrant to access said data. Suppose some magical system like this was possible "breakable encryption, but only in the presence of a warrant". What are the arguments against this?
  - natch 9y ago
    What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? How is that a good thing? Please explain.
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      This is the way things have worked since the United States was formed and is written into the Constitution. Do you actually think the justice system should not have the ability to use warrants? Then you need to change the Constitution.
      - natch 9y ago
        It needs to work for all countries, not just the US. Please continue your explanation.
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        All countries with a government have a warrant system. Please explain your point.
        natch 9y ago
        As I said: What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? I think the problem I see is in there somewhere. Did I state it poorly? How could I state it better?
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        The point is they already can. You're proposing to change the status quo in every functioning government on the planet. Since these people are ultimately controlled by the voters, they are ultimately acting to fulfill the will of the voters.
        natch 9y ago
        No, they can't, at least that's what they're telling us. Some devices, they haven't been able to get into. That is the status quo. Being able to crack properly done, effectively unbreakable encryption is not the status quo, it's a fantasy. And voting? You are assuming democracy. Also you're forgetting about the tyranny of the majority. If you aren't even going to read what I'm saying, let's just stop here.
    - heartles 9y ago
      Agreeing with other comments, that seems like a problem with warrants in general, not with some supposed technology. If cops can get a warrant to raid anyone's house then of course they'd be able to get a warrant to raid anyone's phone in this situation. The solution to that issue would be to fix how warrants are granted to make them less prone to abuse. But that seems like an entirely different debate.
esrauch 9y ago
You don't have to resort to complicated cryptography: anything the FBI can decrypt, anyone who knows what the FBI knows can also decrypt: is is prima facie impossible to have a decryption algorithm that only works when accompanied by a valid warrant. So that's it: there's actually no way to allow the FBI to decrypt an iPhones without also assuming hackers will (perhaps after a delay before a leak/weakness is discovered), you only get to choose "hackable" or "not hackable", there's no "hackable only by the honorable American government" Also, it's already very hard to make things "not hackable" without deliberately introducing a certain way to hack it.
neltnerb 9y ago
It seems like the discussion would need to be... what information that law enforcement wants to have classified as "limited" which the public finds acceptable to definitely be hackable by third parties who will inevitably figure out how to bypass the encryption. Even if it's just a corrupt FBI agent selling the key on the black market, all it takes is one time. There might be some subset of things that fit this. Maybe a call record? But would the public be cool with the Russian Mafia definitely being able to get their GPS location and text message contents? Saved passwords? All your emails from the last decade? That's how I see the tradeoff and risk. There is little that the FBI would be interested in that criminals wouldn't be able to make a buck off of.
natch 9y ago
How do you prevent against evil law enforcement? You may foolishly think that all law enforcement is perfect... it's hard to state what I think of this level of naiveté and stay within HN rules of polite commenting.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Pretty much every electronic secret the American government tried to keep gets stolen. F-35 plans, diplomatic cables, TSA’s special key, Forms SF-86 for clandestine employees...everything. It is unreasonable to expect the magic phone unlocker to not suffer a similar fate.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  When one has read WaPo and watched the "Sunday conventional wisdom shows" for enough years, one gains amazing powers of self-delusion. For instance, one might be convinced that the litany of leaks you mention, and the thousands of leaks you didn't mention, were all intentional at some level. Maybe it was counterintelligence? Since you mention F-35, you might consider the fact that Lockheed made hundreds of millions of dollars "redesigning" the plane after the Chinese got all the original designs. If you wait to ask until late enough at night, some of these mooks will tell you that Snowden was some sort of 5-D chess maneuver! After one's brain has deteriorated to such an extent, why wouldn't one believe in FBI crypto magic?
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    He's not blaming anyone; he's saying it was stolen.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Yes 'JumpCrisscross and I are in fairly complete agreement on this issue. The counter-argument I offered has always amused me when I've seen it. I reproduced it in the hope that it would amuse you as well; sorry humor is difficult.

FilterSweep 9y ago

> "Idea: Make brute force key recovery possible but very expensive" My eyes glazed over. Quantum computing isn't a fantasy realm, and non-quantum processors are still improving.

dang 9y ago

This comment broke the HN guidelines badly. Please don't push discussions into the internet swamp here. If someone is misinformed, you can correct them in a way that teaches the rest of us something, too. You can also just post nothing. But please don't post uncivilly or unsubstantively. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html