4 ms·

Do they really think terrorists will stop using strong encryption if they ban it?

dllthomas 7y ago
They think that if they can jail people for using encryption then one of two things happen: terrorists stop using it (with the presumed good that entails) or terrorists don't stop using it. If the latter, they hope they can jail the terrorists for the use of illegal encryption - maybe even before any successful attack - without the need to show anything but the use of illegal encryption. If all you're focused on is short-term tactical progress in fighting terrorism, it's a win; I don't think it helps our argument to pretend like that's not the case.
- HappyDreamer 7y ago
  Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradually getting access to more and more private conversations, step by step turning the US into sth like Russia and China? Then they would use the same arguments about terrorism, as they do now, wouldn't they.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    "They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense. "But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).
    - HappyDreamer 7y ago
      Ok that's a good point. A problem could be that people in general don't care about: "increases the power of the government against the innocent" -- because that's a theoretical problem in the "distant" future? Personally I think the US gov getting too much power and gradually in small steps get access to "everyone's" communication, is like 1000 times more dangerous than "encrypted terrorism messages", and, what can be a good way to make people in general better understand the risks & dangers with small steps towards a dictatorship? Maybe if everyone reads 1984 :- / or if everyone was better educated about what happens if you're in China an critizise the government there? I didn't mean literally all lawmakers etc (although that's what I wrote). The next time I can try to write "some of them" instead.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        One part of the solution is probably to raise awareness of the ways that systems justified in these ways are already being abused. For instance, spying on romantic interests at the NSA was apparently common enough that they had a cutesy name for it.
api 7y ago
The majority of terrorist attacks in America in the last ten years were carried out by lone wolf attackers who were mentally ill or motivated by extreme political ideologies. They didn't use encryption because they weren't talking to anyone.
dTal 7y ago
Do terrorists even use it now? As far as I'm aware, the 2015 Paris attackers used unencrypted SMS and burner phones. Despite France supposedly being on "high alert" over Charlie Hebdo, they still evaded detection. But the anti-encryption handwringing brigade didn't let truth get in the way of a good story.

They think that if they can jail people for using encryption then one of two things happen: terrorists stop using it (with the presumed good that entails) or terrorists don't stop using it. If the latter, they hope they can jail the terrorists for the use of illegal encryption - maybe even before any successful attack - without the need to show anything but the use of illegal encryption. If all you're focused on is short-term tactical progress in fighting terrorism, it's a win; I don't think it helps our argument to pretend like that's not the case.

HappyDreamer 7y ago
Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradually getting access to more and more private conversations, step by step turning the US into sth like Russia and China? Then they would use the same arguments about terrorism, as they do now, wouldn't they.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  "They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense. "But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).
  - HappyDreamer 7y ago
    Ok that's a good point. A problem could be that people in general don't care about: "increases the power of the government against the innocent" -- because that's a theoretical problem in the "distant" future? Personally I think the US gov getting too much power and gradually in small steps get access to "everyone's" communication, is like 1000 times more dangerous than "encrypted terrorism messages", and, what can be a good way to make people in general better understand the risks & dangers with small steps towards a dictatorship? Maybe if everyone reads 1984 :- / or if everyone was better educated about what happens if you're in China an critizise the government there? I didn't mean literally all lawmakers etc (although that's what I wrote). The next time I can try to write "some of them" instead.
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      One part of the solution is probably to raise awareness of the ways that systems justified in these ways are already being abused. For instance, spying on romantic interests at the NSA was apparently common enough that they had a cutesy name for it.

api 7y ago

The majority of terrorist attacks in America in the last ten years were carried out by lone wolf attackers who were mentally ill or motivated by extreme political ideologies. They didn't use encryption because they weren't talking to anyone.

dTal 7y ago

Do terrorists even use it now? As far as I'm aware, the 2015 Paris attackers used unencrypted SMS and burner phones. Despite France supposedly being on "high alert" over Charlie Hebdo, they still evaded detection. But the anti-encryption handwringing brigade didn't let truth get in the way of a good story.