25 ms·

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doi

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doing multiplication. Make every politician who opposes encryption feel like an idiot for thinking they can stop people from adding and multiplying.

emptybits 7y ago
Indeed. It would appear all the necessary components for encryption are impossible to ban, by simple common sense if not by guarantees of very basic constitutional or charter rights. 1. public and private keys (criminalize the possession of large integers?) 2. transmission and reception (criminalize freedom to speak or write or read or hear large numbers or random-appearing text?) 3. encryption and decryption (criminalize, as you say, some relatively simple math operations?) Anti-encryption governments and law enforcement don't want this simple breakdown understood by voters. They'll emphasize fear (<insert_threat>) and shame/virtue ("what do innocent people have to hide?") Weak arguments but they seem to press stronger emotional buttons than the more principled (IMO) philosophical math and speech arguments that should guarantee freedom to encrypt forever.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  The weirdest part of this is criminals making child porn already break the law, why would the law stop them using encryption? It doesn’t actually make sense.
  - wruza 7y ago
    Their basic idea is that those who encrypt messages would be easily traceable and countable.
wruza 7y ago
Sadly, courts will laugh and proceed. The same argument could be done for firearms – it’s just physics, and not even space/quantum physics. Really, a device pushing a small body to some direction via expansion of another body. It’s all bodies, you can’t stop people from surrounding them with these. If adopted, a law will state “the piece of information for which format and representation cannot be detected in a considerable amount of time” and then a judge to decide. Send some random bytes and you’re in trouble.
- protomyth 7y ago
  Courts are not our worry. Politicians making the laws are the problem. We need to focus on those passing these laws and make them fear any law limiting encryption. Encryption isn't even complicated math, and can be done with a deck of cards. We need to emphasis there is no safe backdoor, and all politicians are doing is ensuring our money will be stolen and our pictures of our children will end up in the hands of perverts and freaks because of unencrypted data breaches. "Why do you want your constituents ripped off?" "Why do you want little Timmy's picture stolen by perverts?" Turn it around, make them the evil ones. The only real way to protect ourselves is to actually make this a voting issue and make the other side out to be the villain. Its been a while since politics was logical arguments and being a victim of these idiots is getting old.
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
  Luckily speech (math, algorithms, etc) are protected in the US and many other developed countries so even when the PGP code was considered a 'munition', at the end of the day they couldn't/wouldn't bother charging the creator of PGP with exporting munitions[0]. Currently the same shame 'investigation' is occurring with 3D blueprints to print firearms[1] but it's almost certainly going to fall under protected speech as well. The difference between the two is that encrypted data can also be considered speech while the actual manufacture/printing of a gun can be regulated. The big IF at least in the US IMHO is whether the government can force private companies to not offer E2EE but there is 0% chance that encryption in general could be criminalized. i.e it will always be legal to send PGP encrypted text through WhatsApp or a private Chanel (self-hosting IRC, email, etc.) So the hypothetical law you proposed wouldn't be legal in the US. On the other hand, if major companies are forced to break their E2EE, it will make the rest of us stand out like a really sore thumb.
cookie_monsta 7y ago
Unfortunately, feeling like or even being an idiot seems a price they're willing to pay: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-end-end-encryption-ban-says-laws-mathematics-dont-apply-down https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-en...
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
From the article: "Tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can obtain access to data in a readable and useable format" They would target companies, not math or protocols.
- scotty79 7y ago
  But software is written not only by companies. Single person can deliver to millions of users and remain anonymous if he's careful. So drop the idea you can prevent encryption, learn to live with it. Drop the idea of giving your policemen ability to time travel and listen to anyones private conversation from the past while remaining invisible. It would be nice for you but physics (of internet) does not allow it.
- clarry 7y ago
  If that means commercial software developed by tech companies will be abandoned for good, I'm all for it. Come come, open source revolution.
onion2k 7y ago
Encryption is math. No it isn't. The algorithm is math, but the application is much more than that. It's design, ux, marketing, etc. Governments weren't calling for an end to encryption when PGP was the best most people had. The thing that changed is how easy it is now, and that lower barrier is what governments are fighting in a very ill-thought way.
- 4ad 7y ago
  > Governments weren't calling for an end to encryption when PGP was the best most people had. Actually during the first crypto wars, that's exactly what they did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars#PC_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars#PC_era

emptybits 7y ago

Indeed. It would appear all the necessary components for encryption are impossible to ban, by simple common sense if not by guarantees of very basic constitutional or charter rights. 1. public and private keys (criminalize the possession of large integers?) 2. transmission and reception (criminalize freedom to speak or write or read or hear large numbers or random-appearing text?) 3. encryption and decryption (criminalize, as you say, some relatively simple math operations?) Anti-encryption governments and law enforcement don't want this simple breakdown understood by voters. They'll emphasize fear (<insert_threat>) and shame/virtue ("what do innocent people have to hide?") Weak arguments but they seem to press stronger emotional buttons than the more principled (IMO) philosophical math and speech arguments that should guarantee freedom to encrypt forever.

andy_ppp 7y ago
The weirdest part of this is criminals making child porn already break the law, why would the law stop them using encryption? It doesn’t actually make sense.
- wruza 7y ago
  Their basic idea is that those who encrypt messages would be easily traceable and countable.

wruza 7y ago

Sadly, courts will laugh and proceed. The same argument could be done for firearms – it’s just physics, and not even space/quantum physics. Really, a device pushing a small body to some direction via expansion of another body. It’s all bodies, you can’t stop people from surrounding them with these. If adopted, a law will state “the piece of information for which format and representation cannot be detected in a considerable amount of time” and then a judge to decide. Send some random bytes and you’re in trouble.

protomyth 7y ago
Courts are not our worry. Politicians making the laws are the problem. We need to focus on those passing these laws and make them fear any law limiting encryption. Encryption isn't even complicated math, and can be done with a deck of cards. We need to emphasis there is no safe backdoor, and all politicians are doing is ensuring our money will be stolen and our pictures of our children will end up in the hands of perverts and freaks because of unencrypted data breaches. "Why do you want your constituents ripped off?" "Why do you want little Timmy's picture stolen by perverts?" Turn it around, make them the evil ones. The only real way to protect ourselves is to actually make this a voting issue and make the other side out to be the villain. Its been a while since politics was logical arguments and being a victim of these idiots is getting old.
KingMachiavelli 7y ago
Luckily speech (math, algorithms, etc) are protected in the US and many other developed countries so even when the PGP code was considered a 'munition', at the end of the day they couldn't/wouldn't bother charging the creator of PGP with exporting munitions[0]. Currently the same shame 'investigation' is occurring with 3D blueprints to print firearms[1] but it's almost certainly going to fall under protected speech as well. The difference between the two is that encrypted data can also be considered speech while the actual manufacture/printing of a gun can be regulated. The big IF at least in the US IMHO is whether the government can force private companies to not offer E2EE but there is 0% chance that encryption in general could be criminalized. i.e it will always be legal to send PGP encrypted text through WhatsApp or a private Chanel (self-hosting IRC, email, etc.) So the hypothetical law you proposed wouldn't be legal in the US. On the other hand, if major companies are forced to break their E2EE, it will make the rest of us stand out like a really sore thumb.

cookie_monsta 7y ago

Unfortunately, feeling like or even being an idiot seems a price they're willing to pay: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-end-end-encryption-ban-says-laws-mathematics-dont-apply-down https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-en...

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

From the article: "Tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can obtain access to data in a readable and useable format" They would target companies, not math or protocols.

scotty79 7y ago
But software is written not only by companies. Single person can deliver to millions of users and remain anonymous if he's careful. So drop the idea you can prevent encryption, learn to live with it. Drop the idea of giving your policemen ability to time travel and listen to anyones private conversation from the past while remaining invisible. It would be nice for you but physics (of internet) does not allow it.
clarry 7y ago
If that means commercial software developed by tech companies will be abandoned for good, I'm all for it. Come come, open source revolution.

onion2k 7y ago

Encryption is math. No it isn't. The algorithm is math, but the application is much more than that. It's design, ux, marketing, etc. Governments weren't calling for an end to encryption when PGP was the best most people had. The thing that changed is how easy it is now, and that lower barrier is what governments are fighting in a very ill-thought way.

4ad 7y ago
> Governments weren't calling for an end to encryption when PGP was the best most people had. Actually during the first crypto wars, that's exactly what they did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars#PC_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars#PC_era