6 ms·

Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing again

Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a wooden plank in front of the hole in my building? Wouldn't that be a "door"? Making doors illegal is not going to stop people from making "doors". Now, people like to spin this analogy further and revise their proposal and say "Fine, keep your doors, but I get a spare key for every door made". Problems with this: - Yes, you and everyone in your office can grab the spare key and steal all my stuff (see TSA locks and basically any time in history that was tried). - Remember the wooden plank above? That guy will not give you a spare key and can still hide "bad stuff". - Fine, we will just use magical (blockchain) keys that nobody can steal and not make things insecure, but have an officer visit and inspect every room you have every 5 minutes. You have nothing to hide, do you?

jdsnape 7y ago
I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extension of what currently happens in physical space.
- lysium 7y ago
  Shouldn’t they come to me then and look into my phone instead of constantly looking into my messages on the server? I think the door is a great analogy.
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    and if you say "no", they're screwed. Whereas with a door, they can just push you out of the way and kick it down. I'm opposed to back doors, but the door analogy is a bad one.
    - isostatic 7y ago
      If you say no, then you're arrested for contempt of court or similar.
    - brlewis 7y ago
      > and if you say "no", they're screwed This is false. If it's ever true, the crime is confined to the perpetrator's mind.
    - laumars 7y ago
      There's no such thing as a perfect analogy because the entire point of an analogy is it takes an argument and reframes it in a different context. Different contexts have different edge cases and thus no analogy fits an argument perfectly. Given this door analogy works for the majority of the arguments being presented (which is impressive in itself given how different the physical and electronic worlds are), I'd say it's actually a pretty good analogy.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      Any analogy has its limitations, but I think it is helpful for talking about things like "back doors" (and how that is no different from not having doors at all) or how a proposal is basically only "unintended" consequences and no gain. Feel free to suggest a better analogy. The main difference where this analogy breaks down is that it is much easier to build practically unbreakable encryption (assuming P != NP), versus practically unbreakable doors or safes.
    - cjg 7y ago
      They can't kick it down and push me out of the way if I have built an underground bunker. And surely we all deserve an underground bunker.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
  - matt-attack 7y ago
    Right. I believe it’s just laziness on their part. If the crime is abusing children, go catch the guys doing the abuse. If you’re worried someone is in possession of illegal materials go get a warrant and search their home/computer, etc.
- igama 7y ago
  "If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in." That's what currently takes, place, Government doesn't have the keys, they have to use force to get in, or other methods. (However there are physical limits to materials, so there is usually a way to break in) But, by having a special key that opens all the doors, anyone could copy it - yes rules can put in place to who as access, etc, etc, but by knowing there is a "hole" in each device, every possible malicious agent will try and break it as soon as possible. Then what? We have seen examples by Law Enforcement officers using accesses to gather data that would required a court order, but they didn't have one, and it was for personal reasons. So, how does that work out?
  - tootie 7y ago
    How do you know nobody has a copy of your house key? I live in an apartment building and it's actually mandatory for the super to be able to enter my apartment in emergencies so he has a key.
    - amdavidson 7y ago
      That's not the argument they made. I do not know that there is no one out there in the world who has a key to my house. Even if there was and someone found that key on a city street they would likely not be able to figure out which house it opened. I know there is no legally mandated key to everyone's house that would allow anyone to enter whomever's house they please.
  - jdsnape 7y ago
    well, there is kinda a key is that lets anyone in - in the UK they call it 'the enforcer' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(battering_ram) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(battering_ram) If an officer does something that should require a court order and don't have one then they end up prosecuted in the same way a criminal would be. You put checks and balances in place to make sure that they are caught.
    - 7y ago
- laumars 7y ago
  Police can request access to your phone and if you say "no" then they can send it off to forensics to try and break their way into it. Some buildings are barricaded to make forced entry harder, some phones are more secure which makes hacking into them harder.
- gmuslera 7y ago
  The police, the government, the intelligence agencies and so on are not abstract entities, they are composed by people at all levels, in a capitalist economy, with human biases and wishes. There are plenty of documented examples of abuse of this kind of access for fun and profit. And besides those not-so-abstract entities, they have contractors from private companies and corporations that aren't abstract neither, but even in abstract mode are driven by profit, not respecting your privacy/security/economy.
- Zak 7y ago
  If the government of a wealthy nation state decides to read messages a given group of people have been sending to each other using user-friendly consumer chat services, it will succeed. It just can't do so casually, with minimal resources, with a low probability of detection like it can when those messages are sent in the clear. A targeted cyberattack authorized by a warrant is the digital equivalent of sending a SWAT team to kick in a door.
- ptero 7y ago
  > The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extension of what currently happens in physical space. The key difference, to me, is that the current setup where the police can kick in the door to get in does not require subjects to make it any easier / more convenient for the police. If they have to raid and break in and get an approval, they will, but I am not required to arrange my locks or my furniture to help. In fact, I am free to do the opposite. For example, I can put the things I do not want to share (private photos, detailed plans to become the world dictator, etc.), in an incinerator safe and try to destroy them if the doors are flying in. My 2c.
- parliament32 7y ago
  You don't have to go down to your police station with a copy of your key every time you change you lock, which some of the "solutions" imply. Further, there are no laws for how strong of a door you can build: you're more than welcome to have a safe with a 3-ft thick steel door and an unpickable lock, that'd take a professional a month to get through.
- phkahler 7y ago
  They can get a warrant and have a court compel you to provide passwords already. That's equivalent to locked doors. What they want is the ability to go through peoples stuff without them knowing (via court order or not isn't even the point). Its not at all like the physical world.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Warrants give the government the legal right to access private materials or information. It allows them to use measures that would normally be illegal, to gain that access. This is equally true for doors or encryption. If the government has a warrant for some data, they can attack the computing system that holds the data--just like trying to kick down a door. They do this successfully all the time. Encryption is math in theory, but in practice it is implemented in hardware and software, neither of which are perfect. They are usually breakable. The FBI made a big stink about forcing Apple to help them break the encryption on an iPhone. The FBI's own inspector general said that the FBI did not try hard enough to break into the phone before they went to court. And ultimately the FBI did break into that phone and access the data! There is no need for a special law weakening encryption.
forgotmypwd123 7y ago
> (see TSA locks and basically any time in history that was tried). For anyone unaware, the TSA lock master key was leaked by including a photo of an actual master key in a newspaper article about said locks. I don't think encryption keys shared with police/govt. will be any safer.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  Also, IIRC some of the keys were reverse engineered even with no government negligence necessary. https://www.google.com/amp/s/ctovswild.com/2016/07/25/safeskies-tsa-master-key-reverse-engineered/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/ctovswild.com/2016/07/25/safesk...
- parliament32 7y ago
  Everyone knows that encryption master keys will go exactly the same way -- they'll leak eventually (maybe there'll be a newspaper article with a picture of the master key).
szermer 7y ago
Reminds me of the concept of 'Perfect Security' from the 1800s https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/perfect-security/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/perfect-security/ The pursuit of lock-picking is as old as the lock, which is itself as old as civilization. But in the entire history of the world, there was only one brief moment, lasting about 70 years, where you could put something under lock and key—a chest, a safe, your home—and have complete, unwavering certainty that no intruder could get to it. This is a feeling that security experts call “perfect security.” Since we lost perfect security in the 1850s, it has remained elusive. Despite tremendous leaps forward in security technology, we have never been able to get perfect security back
untog 7y ago
To counter that metaphor, what would the objection be to doors that lock, but the police are given a master key? There are a few obvious issues with centralisation and the possibility of bad actors on the police, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is against “think of the children!!”
- tracker1 7y ago
  Every power any government has ever been given has been abused. Best to limit any government as much as reasonable. Most places where child endangerment is/would happen is already encrypted, and it doesn't seem to be significantly hindering investigation. Beyond this, requiring a master key won't stop independent implementations that don't have such a thing. It's like criminals are willing to break the law or something. Areas with strict gun control still have gun crimes, and people willing to endanger children would still use encryption without said back door.
  - untog 7y ago
    > Every power any government has ever been given has been abused. Best to limit any government as much as reasonable. Do you really think this is sellable to the average voter? That isn't a mainstream opinion.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      Which is pretty sad. It's part of what this country (USA) was founded on.
- parliament32 7y ago
  The objection is they'll lose it, and locks will be useless. See: TSA locks are now useless because the TSA leaked images of the master keys, which anyone can create now.

jdsnape 7y ago

I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extension of what currently happens in physical space.

lysium 7y ago
Shouldn’t they come to me then and look into my phone instead of constantly looking into my messages on the server? I think the door is a great analogy.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  and if you say "no", they're screwed. Whereas with a door, they can just push you out of the way and kick it down. I'm opposed to back doors, but the door analogy is a bad one.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    If you say no, then you're arrested for contempt of court or similar.
  - brlewis 7y ago
    > and if you say "no", they're screwed This is false. If it's ever true, the crime is confined to the perpetrator's mind.
  - laumars 7y ago
    There's no such thing as a perfect analogy because the entire point of an analogy is it takes an argument and reframes it in a different context. Different contexts have different edge cases and thus no analogy fits an argument perfectly. Given this door analogy works for the majority of the arguments being presented (which is impressive in itself given how different the physical and electronic worlds are), I'd say it's actually a pretty good analogy.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    Any analogy has its limitations, but I think it is helpful for talking about things like "back doors" (and how that is no different from not having doors at all) or how a proposal is basically only "unintended" consequences and no gain. Feel free to suggest a better analogy. The main difference where this analogy breaks down is that it is much easier to build practically unbreakable encryption (assuming P != NP), versus practically unbreakable doors or safes.
  - cjg 7y ago
    They can't kick it down and push me out of the way if I have built an underground bunker. And surely we all deserve an underground bunker.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
- matt-attack 7y ago
  Right. I believe it’s just laziness on their part. If the crime is abusing children, go catch the guys doing the abuse. If you’re worried someone is in possession of illegal materials go get a warrant and search their home/computer, etc.
igama 7y ago
"If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in." That's what currently takes, place, Government doesn't have the keys, they have to use force to get in, or other methods. (However there are physical limits to materials, so there is usually a way to break in) But, by having a special key that opens all the doors, anyone could copy it - yes rules can put in place to who as access, etc, etc, but by knowing there is a "hole" in each device, every possible malicious agent will try and break it as soon as possible. Then what? We have seen examples by Law Enforcement officers using accesses to gather data that would required a court order, but they didn't have one, and it was for personal reasons. So, how does that work out?
- tootie 7y ago
  How do you know nobody has a copy of your house key? I live in an apartment building and it's actually mandatory for the super to be able to enter my apartment in emergencies so he has a key.
  - amdavidson 7y ago
    That's not the argument they made. I do not know that there is no one out there in the world who has a key to my house. Even if there was and someone found that key on a city street they would likely not be able to figure out which house it opened. I know there is no legally mandated key to everyone's house that would allow anyone to enter whomever's house they please.
- jdsnape 7y ago
  well, there is kinda a key is that lets anyone in - in the UK they call it 'the enforcer' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(battering_ram) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(battering_ram) If an officer does something that should require a court order and don't have one then they end up prosecuted in the same way a criminal would be. You put checks and balances in place to make sure that they are caught.
  - 7y ago
laumars 7y ago
Police can request access to your phone and if you say "no" then they can send it off to forensics to try and break their way into it. Some buildings are barricaded to make forced entry harder, some phones are more secure which makes hacking into them harder.
gmuslera 7y ago
The police, the government, the intelligence agencies and so on are not abstract entities, they are composed by people at all levels, in a capitalist economy, with human biases and wishes. There are plenty of documented examples of abuse of this kind of access for fun and profit. And besides those not-so-abstract entities, they have contractors from private companies and corporations that aren't abstract neither, but even in abstract mode are driven by profit, not respecting your privacy/security/economy.
Zak 7y ago
If the government of a wealthy nation state decides to read messages a given group of people have been sending to each other using user-friendly consumer chat services, it will succeed. It just can't do so casually, with minimal resources, with a low probability of detection like it can when those messages are sent in the clear. A targeted cyberattack authorized by a warrant is the digital equivalent of sending a SWAT team to kick in a door.
ptero 7y ago
> The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extension of what currently happens in physical space. The key difference, to me, is that the current setup where the police can kick in the door to get in does not require subjects to make it any easier / more convenient for the police. If they have to raid and break in and get an approval, they will, but I am not required to arrange my locks or my furniture to help. In fact, I am free to do the opposite. For example, I can put the things I do not want to share (private photos, detailed plans to become the world dictator, etc.), in an incinerator safe and try to destroy them if the doors are flying in. My 2c.
parliament32 7y ago
You don't have to go down to your police station with a copy of your key every time you change you lock, which some of the "solutions" imply. Further, there are no laws for how strong of a door you can build: you're more than welcome to have a safe with a 3-ft thick steel door and an unpickable lock, that'd take a professional a month to get through.
phkahler 7y ago
They can get a warrant and have a court compel you to provide passwords already. That's equivalent to locked doors. What they want is the ability to go through peoples stuff without them knowing (via court order or not isn't even the point). Its not at all like the physical world.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Warrants give the government the legal right to access private materials or information. It allows them to use measures that would normally be illegal, to gain that access. This is equally true for doors or encryption. If the government has a warrant for some data, they can attack the computing system that holds the data--just like trying to kick down a door. They do this successfully all the time. Encryption is math in theory, but in practice it is implemented in hardware and software, neither of which are perfect. They are usually breakable. The FBI made a big stink about forcing Apple to help them break the encryption on an iPhone. The FBI's own inspector general said that the FBI did not try hard enough to break into the phone before they went to court. And ultimately the FBI did break into that phone and access the data! There is no need for a special law weakening encryption.

forgotmypwd123 7y ago

> (see TSA locks and basically any time in history that was tried). For anyone unaware, the TSA lock master key was leaked by including a photo of an actual master key in a newspaper article about said locks. I don't think encryption keys shared with police/govt. will be any safer.

mattnewton 7y ago
Also, IIRC some of the keys were reverse engineered even with no government negligence necessary. https://www.google.com/amp/s/ctovswild.com/2016/07/25/safeskies-tsa-master-key-reverse-engineered/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/ctovswild.com/2016/07/25/safesk...
parliament32 7y ago
Everyone knows that encryption master keys will go exactly the same way -- they'll leak eventually (maybe there'll be a newspaper article with a picture of the master key).

szermer 7y ago

Reminds me of the concept of 'Perfect Security' from the 1800s https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/perfect-security/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/perfect-security/ The pursuit of lock-picking is as old as the lock, which is itself as old as civilization. But in the entire history of the world, there was only one brief moment, lasting about 70 years, where you could put something under lock and key—a chest, a safe, your home—and have complete, unwavering certainty that no intruder could get to it. This is a feeling that security experts call “perfect security.” Since we lost perfect security in the 1850s, it has remained elusive. Despite tremendous leaps forward in security technology, we have never been able to get perfect security back

untog 7y ago

To counter that metaphor, what would the objection be to doors that lock, but the police are given a master key? There are a few obvious issues with centralisation and the possibility of bad actors on the police, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is against “think of the children!!”

tracker1 7y ago
Every power any government has ever been given has been abused. Best to limit any government as much as reasonable. Most places where child endangerment is/would happen is already encrypted, and it doesn't seem to be significantly hindering investigation. Beyond this, requiring a master key won't stop independent implementations that don't have such a thing. It's like criminals are willing to break the law or something. Areas with strict gun control still have gun crimes, and people willing to endanger children would still use encryption without said back door.
- untog 7y ago
  > Every power any government has ever been given has been abused. Best to limit any government as much as reasonable. Do you really think this is sellable to the average voter? That isn't a mainstream opinion.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Which is pretty sad. It's part of what this country (USA) was founded on.
parliament32 7y ago
The objection is they'll lose it, and locks will be useless. See: TSA locks are now useless because the TSA leaked images of the master keys, which anyone can create now.