6 ms·

This is a case of the government trying to force Facebook to essentially strip out their technology; saying technology is the solution here is kinda ignorant of

This is a case of the government trying to force Facebook to essentially strip out their technology; saying technology is the solution here is kinda ignorant of the actual issue

seorphates 8y ago
Is it? You kind of lost me. Isn't the actual issue math?
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  The issue is the government wanting to strip the encryption going forward. In other words, even the most decentralized & encrypted app can still have NSA_RemoteConn.Log(dat) written into it's source code
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Stripping encryption is one thing, sure. But for the backdoor, you'd have to have the clients phone nsaserv.spy/writeremoteconnlog then or sure, write some record on the client's device. You can't "tap" encrypted communications unless you can figure out how to factor integers then you'd get a Field's medal. Or, ofc, get people to adopt insecure protocols. That we know (or have good suspicion) they've tried.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  The issue is laws. A country that's going to mandate backdoors/access to such communications, are going to outlaw communication methods they can't backdoor. Say Apple makes a federated end-to-end encrypted messenger app, the government will still go to Apple and say "let us read all the messages, otherwise you can't sell your devices". THAT is the problem, and it can't be solved by more technology and shouting "BLOCKCHAIN!"
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Laws are an issue and enforceability is an issue. If a largish group of users could create end-to-end encryption not with a single company but with "readily available materials", then stopping it could be harder. So it's a combination of state dictate and the practical ability of users to defy that. This isn't saying I'm optimistic, I'm rather pessimistic on any ability of a wide home-grown encrypted-messaging milieu to appear - if few are aiming for this, those few can easily be picked-off. But I don't think we should just give up on any part of this.
    - croshan 8y ago
      And who would use that system, if it were so closely associated with status as a federal criminal? You're forgetting that the average user doesn't care enough to sacrifice ease of use for greater political benefit.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        There's a difference between running a Tor exit node and encrypting a personal conversation. At least in the US, if a US citizen is part of a potentially incriminating conversation, the government's going to have a hard time forcing a court to force the citizen to decrypt the conversation. Lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a conversation wouldn't be subject to the vagaries of "combination to a safe"-production loopholes.
    - merinowool 8y ago
      Possession of encryption software could be treated the same as possession of drugs. On the next stop and search you would only had to handover your phone. If police password will not work it will be confiscated. If encryption software is found you go in the dock. It is the future. Society accepted ridiculous laws to jail people for having a plant, they'll accept jailing for programs. Only terrorists, thieves and adulterers encrypt their messages ;-)
      - joe_the_user 8y ago
- philipov 8y ago
  It's this: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - seorphates 8y ago
    This actually feels more like what I would expect police work to be like given the situation. They most certainly do not have cause to demand access to swaths of comms no matter whose comms they're after and most assuredly when that access actually entails enabling access to all of the comms. I posit there is no authority that should be able to demand this as a matter of the right to human existence. Law, order, society and government should not have ultimate authority on private communications no matter what the tech is capable of. We, as humans in a modern world, can speak and if desired do so in private. This is our right as individuals and if encryption helps us accomplish and enforce that right then so be it. If they have probable cause then they need to beat feet or beat heads but either way they need to get to work. And by work I do not mean trying to impose a different reality than the one that we currently have - where math is fact, compute is cheap and source is open. What's it going to be? 100 go free or six lines from everyone?
  - dylan604 8y ago
    set up the device to wipe itself after $x number of incorrect attempts. keep giving the wrong password after every whack from the wrench. then you have plausible deniability. "how can i possibly think straight when you keep hitting me with that wrench?" just need to make $x a value small enough that you can survive the wrench.
    - wdh505 8y ago
      No good, it is already standard for forensic teams to clone and checksum a hardrive before attempting to look through files. The clone is sent to evidence and any password attempts will be made on a copy. The "original" copy will be kept safe and any number of passwords can be used against nth iteration of copying the clone.
      - josephagoss 8y ago
ekianjo 8y ago
technology owned by a single company you can coerce is the issue.
- extralego 8y ago
  I think that’s close, but until a technical solution to this comes around, we’ve got to look elsewhere. An easy target is saying the government is too powerful. That would be a mistake. If Facebook were more powerful than the government, we would no be in any better hands. The problems with the US government are that it does not work for the people. It would be painfully short-sighted to say this debacle goes to show the gov and private companies are not too involved with one another. This will be handled with some deal that will deepen the coupling and citizens will not have a say. That’s how most things in our lives get handles. Without regard for us, that is. Private interests have eroded our state of civility. Citizens voices mean nothing and that is all that’s going on here. We need our government back. Nothing else is going to solve this, unless of course we can actually address the technical issue that you raised. That would be nice. A government that was our government would simply not step over this line. It’s possible; not easy, but possible.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    I am not sure what you are onto. People are still voting for about every election so the realization that the government is not what they wanted is not anywhere in the public psyche. Id say it would be better to decentralize governments so that you dont have any great accumulation of power anywhere, and by bringing government closer to communities you automatically bring back power to the people.
    - philipov 8y ago
      Decentralizing government would not have the effect of stopping power consolidation. It just means power gets accumulated by the megacorporations, which is an even worse outcome.

This is a case of the government trying to force Facebook to essentially strip out their technology; saying technology is the solution here is kinda ignorant of the actual issue

seorphates 8y ago

Is it? You kind of lost me. Isn't the actual issue math?

tomatotomato37 8y ago
The issue is the government wanting to strip the encryption going forward. In other words, even the most decentralized & encrypted app can still have NSA_RemoteConn.Log(dat) written into it's source code
- noobermin 8y ago
  Stripping encryption is one thing, sure. But for the backdoor, you'd have to have the clients phone nsaserv.spy/writeremoteconnlog then or sure, write some record on the client's device. You can't "tap" encrypted communications unless you can figure out how to factor integers then you'd get a Field's medal. Or, ofc, get people to adopt insecure protocols. That we know (or have good suspicion) they've tried.
madeofpalk 8y ago
The issue is laws. A country that's going to mandate backdoors/access to such communications, are going to outlaw communication methods they can't backdoor. Say Apple makes a federated end-to-end encrypted messenger app, the government will still go to Apple and say "let us read all the messages, otherwise you can't sell your devices". THAT is the problem, and it can't be solved by more technology and shouting "BLOCKCHAIN!"
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Laws are an issue and enforceability is an issue. If a largish group of users could create end-to-end encryption not with a single company but with "readily available materials", then stopping it could be harder. So it's a combination of state dictate and the practical ability of users to defy that. This isn't saying I'm optimistic, I'm rather pessimistic on any ability of a wide home-grown encrypted-messaging milieu to appear - if few are aiming for this, those few can easily be picked-off. But I don't think we should just give up on any part of this.
  - croshan 8y ago
    And who would use that system, if it were so closely associated with status as a federal criminal? You're forgetting that the average user doesn't care enough to sacrifice ease of use for greater political benefit.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      There's a difference between running a Tor exit node and encrypting a personal conversation. At least in the US, if a US citizen is part of a potentially incriminating conversation, the government's going to have a hard time forcing a court to force the citizen to decrypt the conversation. Lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a conversation wouldn't be subject to the vagaries of "combination to a safe"-production loopholes.
  - merinowool 8y ago
    Possession of encryption software could be treated the same as possession of drugs. On the next stop and search you would only had to handover your phone. If police password will not work it will be confiscated. If encryption software is found you go in the dock. It is the future. Society accepted ridiculous laws to jail people for having a plant, they'll accept jailing for programs. Only terrorists, thieves and adulterers encrypt their messages ;-)
    - joe_the_user 8y ago
philipov 8y ago
It's this: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- seorphates 8y ago
  This actually feels more like what I would expect police work to be like given the situation. They most certainly do not have cause to demand access to swaths of comms no matter whose comms they're after and most assuredly when that access actually entails enabling access to all of the comms. I posit there is no authority that should be able to demand this as a matter of the right to human existence. Law, order, society and government should not have ultimate authority on private communications no matter what the tech is capable of. We, as humans in a modern world, can speak and if desired do so in private. This is our right as individuals and if encryption helps us accomplish and enforce that right then so be it. If they have probable cause then they need to beat feet or beat heads but either way they need to get to work. And by work I do not mean trying to impose a different reality than the one that we currently have - where math is fact, compute is cheap and source is open. What's it going to be? 100 go free or six lines from everyone?
- dylan604 8y ago
  set up the device to wipe itself after $x number of incorrect attempts. keep giving the wrong password after every whack from the wrench. then you have plausible deniability. "how can i possibly think straight when you keep hitting me with that wrench?" just need to make $x a value small enough that you can survive the wrench.
  - wdh505 8y ago
    No good, it is already standard for forensic teams to clone and checksum a hardrive before attempting to look through files. The clone is sent to evidence and any password attempts will be made on a copy. The "original" copy will be kept safe and any number of passwords can be used against nth iteration of copying the clone.
    - josephagoss 8y ago

ekianjo 8y ago

technology owned by a single company you can coerce is the issue.

extralego 8y ago
I think that’s close, but until a technical solution to this comes around, we’ve got to look elsewhere. An easy target is saying the government is too powerful. That would be a mistake. If Facebook were more powerful than the government, we would no be in any better hands. The problems with the US government are that it does not work for the people. It would be painfully short-sighted to say this debacle goes to show the gov and private companies are not too involved with one another. This will be handled with some deal that will deepen the coupling and citizens will not have a say. That’s how most things in our lives get handles. Without regard for us, that is. Private interests have eroded our state of civility. Citizens voices mean nothing and that is all that’s going on here. We need our government back. Nothing else is going to solve this, unless of course we can actually address the technical issue that you raised. That would be nice. A government that was our government would simply not step over this line. It’s possible; not easy, but possible.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  I am not sure what you are onto. People are still voting for about every election so the realization that the government is not what they wanted is not anywhere in the public psyche. Id say it would be better to decentralize governments so that you dont have any great accumulation of power anywhere, and by bringing government closer to communities you automatically bring back power to the people.
  - philipov 8y ago
    Decentralizing government would not have the effect of stopping power consolidation. It just means power gets accumulated by the megacorporations, which is an even worse outcome.