5 ms·

It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Mostly encryption protects privacy and business inf

It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Mostly encryption protects privacy and business information. Corporate espionage is bigger than state espionage or terrorism my many multiples, and directly threatens national security as well as markets. Encryption is pro-business and pro-privacy for business and individuals. Without encryption or with backdoors you are trusting that bad actors don't get access to it, they will. Why have a world class security system, yet plenty of keys under rocks in the backyard? I wish encryption was framed like this: Going without encryption or including backdoors is another level of trust, like leaving your window open on vacation and putting a note that says, "Only Sally the neighbor can come in through the window, please" (Sally being the gov't). Guess what, Sally won't be the only one coming in. In that situation you may as well open the front door because that is the same as the backdoor or window, just less obscurity but more attractive to underground/opposition forces whether that is state, corporate, personal or more. Oversight and security has gotten lazy, two decades of surveillance based detective work without warrants over real detective work with warrants has made enforcement and security lazy and unable to operate without all the noise that comes with access to everyone's data. Initially it was about terrorism, but everyone knows it is about business information, personal information and other over steps like the drug wars or fights against sex workers or other wars on people that are low hanging fruit that are picked on constantly. Good detective and intel work needs to come back and less of the surveillance type.

dclusin 7y ago
Perhaps because it prevents them from forcing a moral code on others? Like SOPA/PIPA protected the children and also penalized those immoral women who trade sex for money.
echelon 7y ago
Terrorists can and will use steganography, which even the most advanced automated systems cannot detect. They want to surveil the public.
- ohazi 7y ago
  They don't even need to... You can have a correct implementation of RSA in like 20 lines of code. The cat was out of the bag 20 years ago.
  - yuushi 7y ago
    Correctness defined as "this produces the right answer" vs correctness defined as the above with the addition of "this does not leak information / is not highly vulnerable to side-channel attacks" are very different things, and only one of those definitions is actually useful for cryptography. Writing it yourself for the first time, or just copying some code off the internet, is going to have a vanishingly small chance of being actually secure.
  - Shacklz 7y ago
    Totally agree with the sentiment of your statement, but RSA is probably a terrible choice, especially if you want to get it done in 20 lines of code. This article explains it pretty well: https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/07/08/fuck-rsa/ https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/07/08/fuck-rsa/
skybrian 7y ago
Many businesses like encryption but not end-to-end encryption because they need to monitor their employees' communications. For some businesses (financial firms) this is a regulatory requirement, which is why they were against TLS 1.3. (I'm not saying they're right, but to say that end-to-end encryption is always pro-business is naive.)
cududa 7y ago
They’re pro-whatever-gets-them-political-wins. Sometimes it’s “protect rights of businesses!” sometimes it’s “think of the children!” ️
nickik 7y ago
> It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Republicans were never pro-market. Or at least not in the last 100 years. Everybody that works for the state will not be a defender of freedom or liberty. They are servants of the American Empire, and the US is most certaintly an Empire. The primary function of the state security is preservation of the state, and not security for its people.
CJefferson 7y ago
The problem with your metaphor is that at the moment, without warning, the government can enter my house with a warrant. I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting for "privacy" reasons we should forbid police, with a warrant, from entering private property? If you tried to set up a "super protection" around your house, which (for example) electrocuted people who entered by breaking the door down, and this hurt a police officer you would go to jail. So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to.
- gtyras2mrs 7y ago
  >So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to. Physical access is easier to control as getting access has a cost. Digital access is effectively free. The problem with this is that physical access has a cost and limiting it behind approvals and procedures - can deter improper access. (Not always - if a cop really wanted into your house - they will get in) Digital access is effectively free. It doesn’t cost very much to use a backdoor on millions of devices across the globe. There isn’t much that can be done if the backdoor is leaked. Police officers use a battering ram or force to get into a house. We know how it works. But knowing it doesn’t increase chances of burglaries.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    There is no reason in principle why the big tech companies can't require a court order. They say they do that whenever possible. The problem is when the law is against them with things like national security orders, along with the question of how we can ensure that they are regulating access properly. But in theory, these things could be fixed.
    - gtyras2mrs 7y ago
      Let's think of it this way. If a police battering ram is stolen, you can't really use it to attack millions of houses in a day. There have been known cases of police personnel misusing their roles. Police have broken into houses without warrants. But the scope of damage is limited. Whereas digital backdoors can be used to jeopardize millions of devices in a very short period of time. Sure, you could require a warrant. But it doesn't reduce the risk of someone misusing digital backdoors. All it requires is one breach.

dclusin 7y ago

Perhaps because it prevents them from forcing a moral code on others? Like SOPA/PIPA protected the children and also penalized those immoral women who trade sex for money.

echelon 7y ago

Terrorists can and will use steganography, which even the most advanced automated systems cannot detect. They want to surveil the public.

ohazi 7y ago
They don't even need to... You can have a correct implementation of RSA in like 20 lines of code. The cat was out of the bag 20 years ago.
- yuushi 7y ago
  Correctness defined as "this produces the right answer" vs correctness defined as the above with the addition of "this does not leak information / is not highly vulnerable to side-channel attacks" are very different things, and only one of those definitions is actually useful for cryptography. Writing it yourself for the first time, or just copying some code off the internet, is going to have a vanishingly small chance of being actually secure.
- Shacklz 7y ago
  Totally agree with the sentiment of your statement, but RSA is probably a terrible choice, especially if you want to get it done in 20 lines of code. This article explains it pretty well: https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/07/08/fuck-rsa/ https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/07/08/fuck-rsa/

skybrian 7y ago

Many businesses like encryption but not end-to-end encryption because they need to monitor their employees' communications. For some businesses (financial firms) this is a regulatory requirement, which is why they were against TLS 1.3. (I'm not saying they're right, but to say that end-to-end encryption is always pro-business is naive.)

cududa 7y ago

They’re pro-whatever-gets-them-political-wins. Sometimes it’s “protect rights of businesses!” sometimes it’s “think of the children!” ️

nickik 7y ago

> It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Republicans were never pro-market. Or at least not in the last 100 years. Everybody that works for the state will not be a defender of freedom or liberty. They are servants of the American Empire, and the US is most certaintly an Empire. The primary function of the state security is preservation of the state, and not security for its people.

CJefferson 7y ago

The problem with your metaphor is that at the moment, without warning, the government can enter my house with a warrant. I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting for "privacy" reasons we should forbid police, with a warrant, from entering private property? If you tried to set up a "super protection" around your house, which (for example) electrocuted people who entered by breaking the door down, and this hurt a police officer you would go to jail. So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to.

gtyras2mrs 7y ago
>So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to. Physical access is easier to control as getting access has a cost. Digital access is effectively free. The problem with this is that physical access has a cost and limiting it behind approvals and procedures - can deter improper access. (Not always - if a cop really wanted into your house - they will get in) Digital access is effectively free. It doesn’t cost very much to use a backdoor on millions of devices across the globe. There isn’t much that can be done if the backdoor is leaked. Police officers use a battering ram or force to get into a house. We know how it works. But knowing it doesn’t increase chances of burglaries.
- skybrian 7y ago
  There is no reason in principle why the big tech companies can't require a court order. They say they do that whenever possible. The problem is when the law is against them with things like national security orders, along with the question of how we can ensure that they are regulating access properly. But in theory, these things could be fixed.
  - gtyras2mrs 7y ago
    Let's think of it this way. If a police battering ram is stolen, you can't really use it to attack millions of houses in a day. There have been known cases of police personnel misusing their roles. Police have broken into houses without warrants. But the scope of damage is limited. Whereas digital backdoors can be used to jeopardize millions of devices in a very short period of time. Sure, you could require a warrant. But it doesn't reduce the risk of someone misusing digital backdoors. All it requires is one breach.