5 ms·

How can this be true when it seems the deadliest attacks really are coordinated through end-to-end encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp? I'm not in favour of ba

How can this be true when it seems the deadliest attacks really are coordinated through end-to-end encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp? I'm not in favour of backdoors, but I have a hard time believing that I should rationally fear the government of most Western nations more than the people who carried out the Nice attacks when it comes to my personal safety.

pavel_lishin 7y ago
> the deadliest attacks really are coordinated through end-to-end encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp? Most of the recent attacks in America were carried out by lone-wolf far-right extremists. Some of the ones who were caught were actual government employees. Furthermore, there's more to fear than someone spraying bullets into a crowd; ICE is performing 3am Gestapo raids and imprisoning citizens. So you bet your ass I'm more afraid of the government than a guy driving a semi-truck. The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year.
- TrumpSucks 7y ago
  Sorry, you have to enter the United States of America legally. Please learn the rules. Thanks!
- ChrisCinelli 7y ago
  > "The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year" Of course. But we need to remind myself this: what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment? Aligned with your comment: I have to admit that one of my paranoid fears is that this will change in the future and who is supposed to protect us is actually going to be our enemy. This was also one of the founding fathers.I guess, we are in a good company. History is full of examples of good kings that die and their successors are very wicked men. At the moment I think that "being able to find out what they need to" is net positive for the world ( see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20509347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20509347 ) but what really bother me is that if in a future (hopefully remote) this change, there is no way to undo the past. From my prospective the security that they are able to provide because of being able to tap in any conversation and the risk of citizen data being used against innocent people is clearly a huge compromise.
  - pfisch 7y ago
    So the same attorney general that believes the FBI was infected by the "deep state" and is vulnerable to widescale corruption also thinks that same group should be able to remove encryption from anything? How can a man even hold both of those viewpoints?
    - nofollow 7y ago
      "In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values."
  - ChrisCinelli 7y ago
    For downvoters and everybody else: can you help suggesting some viable ways to overcome the tradeoff?
  - pavel_lishin 7y ago
    > what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment? Well, given that they're doing it now, I'd say somewhere near 100%.
- jesssse 7y ago
  I looked up the word Gestapo; your usage is incorrect.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    In the sense that they were the secret police of the Nazis, sure that’s incorrect usage. In the sense that ICE camps are being compared to WW2 concentration camps by people who were in WW2 concentration camps, and in the sense that the Gestapo played a key role in the WW2 camps, it’s uncomfortably accurate. After all, when it comes to who to detain and how, most of them are just following orders…
    - deogeo 7y ago
      I too recall all those Jewish people trying to immigrate into Nazi Germany...
      - ben_w 7y ago
        I assume you’re being facetious, but people can be misguided about the destination when they flee persecution. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_Nation...
        deogeo 7y ago
        I'm saying there's a huge, gigantic difference between keeping people out, and keeping people in.
        naturlich 7y ago
        If every bordering country keeps people out, they're complicit in keeping them in.
        deogeo 7y ago
        So is the great sin of the US that they're keeping people in South America, which is basically like Nazi Germany?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Don't be hyperbolic. The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning. With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually. Same is true of any terrorist, and any government. So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals? I say no. So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy.
  - dclowd9901 7y ago
    > The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning. I can't be the only person completely unconcerned by events like this taking place. And I'm not someone without copious anxiety in their life.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      You’re probably not literally the only person is unconcerned, but the overwhelming majority of the population seems to suffer from the availability heuristic, which means they’re concerned simply because it’s in the news, and it’s in the news simply because of its emotional affect.
  - brighter2morrow 7y ago
    >right wing terrorists /s?
  - pavel_lishin 7y ago
    > The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning.. I disagree. > With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually. What's an example of a terrorist group's scope creep? > So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals? Disagree. > So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy. Agree. Good talk.
tux3 7y ago
I think the usual devil's advocate argument is that those attacks are not a practical concern at all to anyone's life (except the extremely unfortunate — thoughts & prayers). It barely registers when compared to boring old regular crime and homicide, all of which is of dwarfed by road accidents. All of which combined is itself still single-digit chances of dying, the rest being cancer, disease and strokes. So the argument goes, you should focus on the much more direct and practical impact that laws & politics can have on your life.
- bradknowles 7y ago
  Like Kristallnacht?
BubRoss 7y ago
You might need a source showing that attacks would be stopped by backdoors in encryption, since anyone could make encrypted communication using software off of GitHub.
kromem 7y ago
A OTP is extremely easy to use for a terror network (just distribute several GB of pad on a thumb drive, have a shared secret for pad generation, etc) and completely unbreakable in the perfect use case, and feasibly unbreakable before an attack in the lazy-use case. Just because they opted to go with low-hanging fruit doesn't mean the fruit needs to be low-hanging for them to make use of it.
- ben_w 7y ago
  I have tried arguing this directly with members of the British parliament and failed abysmally. with the benefit of hindsight, I suggest a different approach. Untested hypothesis: what we consider to be trivial, politicians consider to be advanced magic. Alternative hypothesis: politicians understand the skill level required perfectly, but they also have good reason to believe the terrorists are complete morons who wouldn’t be able to find, generate, or use a one-time pad if their life depended on it (and in this case their life literally would depend on it).
  - ChrisCinelli 7y ago
    On average it is fair to assume, politicians do not know anything and just believe what they are told to by their direct reports and advisors. And it is fair to assume that some of those do not know a lot of what is going on in the trenches. I see a lot of analogies with what is happening in big corporations.
  - pilsetnieks 7y ago
    There's a story from Daniel Ellsberg about how access to secret information can make politicians (seemingly) stupid. It's possible that it's still very applicable here. > “You will deal with a person who doesn’t have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you’ll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You’ll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you’ll become something like a moron. You’ll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours.” https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsbe...
scottlocklin 7y ago
You mean the governments of Western nations who let the evil Nice dipshit into their country? "We need pervasive surveillance to protect you from the cannibals we imported to lower your salaries, peasants."
Zak 7y ago
On the face of it, I'd sort of agree with you, but a government wanting the ability to spy on anyone and seeking bans on technology that enables private communication should be terrifying. That's an enabling step for totalitarianism and should be treated as a red flag. It might be less of a red flag if regulation was likely to be able to prevent terrorists from using encrypted communication technology, but that's absurd as long as we have general-purpose computers and access to the open internet.
- domnomnom 7y ago
  How is it any different than busting down your door though? I agree the government shouldn’t be able to collect data randomly, but the slippy totalitarianism slope seems like a silly way to blame technology. Personally, I fear all advancements it cryptology will be classified in the future.
  - pavel_lishin 7y ago
    > How is it any different than busting down your door though? Well, it's hacker news, so let me pull a word we like to bandy about: "scale".

pavel_lishin 7y ago

> the deadliest attacks really are coordinated through end-to-end encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp? Most of the recent attacks in America were carried out by lone-wolf far-right extremists. Some of the ones who were caught were actual government employees. Furthermore, there's more to fear than someone spraying bullets into a crowd; ICE is performing 3am Gestapo raids and imprisoning citizens. So you bet your ass I'm more afraid of the government than a guy driving a semi-truck. The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year.

TrumpSucks 7y ago
Sorry, you have to enter the United States of America legally. Please learn the rules. Thanks!
ChrisCinelli 7y ago
> "The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year" Of course. But we need to remind myself this: what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment? Aligned with your comment: I have to admit that one of my paranoid fears is that this will change in the future and who is supposed to protect us is actually going to be our enemy. This was also one of the founding fathers.I guess, we are in a good company. History is full of examples of good kings that die and their successors are very wicked men. At the moment I think that "being able to find out what they need to" is net positive for the world ( see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20509347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20509347 ) but what really bother me is that if in a future (hopefully remote) this change, there is no way to undo the past. From my prospective the security that they are able to provide because of being able to tap in any conversation and the risk of citizen data being used against innocent people is clearly a huge compromise.
- pfisch 7y ago
  So the same attorney general that believes the FBI was infected by the "deep state" and is vulnerable to widescale corruption also thinks that same group should be able to remove encryption from anything? How can a man even hold both of those viewpoints?
  - nofollow 7y ago
    "In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values."
- ChrisCinelli 7y ago
  For downvoters and everybody else: can you help suggesting some viable ways to overcome the tradeoff?
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment? Well, given that they're doing it now, I'd say somewhere near 100%.
jesssse 7y ago
I looked up the word Gestapo; your usage is incorrect.
- ben_w 7y ago
  In the sense that they were the secret police of the Nazis, sure that’s incorrect usage. In the sense that ICE camps are being compared to WW2 concentration camps by people who were in WW2 concentration camps, and in the sense that the Gestapo played a key role in the WW2 camps, it’s uncomfortably accurate. After all, when it comes to who to detain and how, most of them are just following orders…
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I too recall all those Jewish people trying to immigrate into Nazi Germany...
    - ben_w 7y ago
      I assume you’re being facetious, but people can be misguided about the destination when they flee persecution. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_Nation...
      - deogeo 7y ago
        I'm saying there's a huge, gigantic difference between keeping people out, and keeping people in.
        naturlich 7y ago
        If every bordering country keeps people out, they're complicit in keeping them in.
        deogeo 7y ago
        So is the great sin of the US that they're keeping people in South America, which is basically like Nazi Germany?
bilbo0s 7y ago
Don't be hyperbolic. The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning. With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually. Same is true of any terrorist, and any government. So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals? I say no. So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy.
- dclowd9901 7y ago
  > The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning. I can't be the only person completely unconcerned by events like this taking place. And I'm not someone without copious anxiety in their life.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    You’re probably not literally the only person is unconcerned, but the overwhelming majority of the population seems to suffer from the availability heuristic, which means they’re concerned simply because it’s in the news, and it’s in the news simply because of its emotional affect.
- brighter2morrow 7y ago
  >right wing terrorists /s?
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning.. I disagree. > With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually. What's an example of a terrorist group's scope creep? > So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals? Disagree. > So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy. Agree. Good talk.

tux3 7y ago

I think the usual devil's advocate argument is that those attacks are not a practical concern at all to anyone's life (except the extremely unfortunate — thoughts & prayers). It barely registers when compared to boring old regular crime and homicide, all of which is of dwarfed by road accidents. All of which combined is itself still single-digit chances of dying, the rest being cancer, disease and strokes. So the argument goes, you should focus on the much more direct and practical impact that laws & politics can have on your life.

bradknowles 7y ago
Like Kristallnacht?

BubRoss 7y ago

You might need a source showing that attacks would be stopped by backdoors in encryption, since anyone could make encrypted communication using software off of GitHub.

kromem 7y ago

A OTP is extremely easy to use for a terror network (just distribute several GB of pad on a thumb drive, have a shared secret for pad generation, etc) and completely unbreakable in the perfect use case, and feasibly unbreakable before an attack in the lazy-use case. Just because they opted to go with low-hanging fruit doesn't mean the fruit needs to be low-hanging for them to make use of it.

ben_w 7y ago
I have tried arguing this directly with members of the British parliament and failed abysmally. with the benefit of hindsight, I suggest a different approach. Untested hypothesis: what we consider to be trivial, politicians consider to be advanced magic. Alternative hypothesis: politicians understand the skill level required perfectly, but they also have good reason to believe the terrorists are complete morons who wouldn’t be able to find, generate, or use a one-time pad if their life depended on it (and in this case their life literally would depend on it).
- ChrisCinelli 7y ago
  On average it is fair to assume, politicians do not know anything and just believe what they are told to by their direct reports and advisors. And it is fair to assume that some of those do not know a lot of what is going on in the trenches. I see a lot of analogies with what is happening in big corporations.
- pilsetnieks 7y ago
  There's a story from Daniel Ellsberg about how access to secret information can make politicians (seemingly) stupid. It's possible that it's still very applicable here. > “You will deal with a person who doesn’t have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you’ll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You’ll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you’ll become something like a moron. You’ll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours.” https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsbe...

scottlocklin 7y ago

You mean the governments of Western nations who let the evil Nice dipshit into their country? "We need pervasive surveillance to protect you from the cannibals we imported to lower your salaries, peasants."

Zak 7y ago

On the face of it, I'd sort of agree with you, but a government wanting the ability to spy on anyone and seeking bans on technology that enables private communication should be terrifying. That's an enabling step for totalitarianism and should be treated as a red flag. It might be less of a red flag if regulation was likely to be able to prevent terrorists from using encrypted communication technology, but that's absurd as long as we have general-purpose computers and access to the open internet.

domnomnom 7y ago
How is it any different than busting down your door though? I agree the government shouldn’t be able to collect data randomly, but the slippy totalitarianism slope seems like a silly way to blame technology. Personally, I fear all advancements it cryptology will be classified in the future.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > How is it any different than busting down your door though? Well, it's hacker news, so let me pull a word we like to bandy about: "scale".