5 ms·

This debate has been raging since the Clipper chip controversy 25 years ago. I worry that encryption will only continue to weaken. It already occurred in Austra

This debate has been raging since the Clipper chip controversy 25 years ago. I worry that encryption will only continue to weaken. It already occurred in Austrailia.

big_chungus 7y ago
It will happen eventually, I believe. There is simply to much potential power to be wielded for politicians to ignore it long-term. Government only ever takes more power, and the common man does not care enough about this issue to stop it.
- unnouinceput 7y ago
  I strongly disagree. It will lead to criminals having their own app to communicate while rest of normal commercial communications will be broken with potential of criminals stealing stuff left and right. All it will take is for some big politician to lose all their money in a heist for these useless attempts to forever disappear. I actually root for this to happen as fast as possible so all these attempts to go away forever already so that law enforcing agencies go do their actual job.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    The fix for that will be to make using those levels of encryption illegal and to put you under suspicion for criminal activity (suspicion of terrorism, for instance) in addition to the criminal activity of using that type of encryption in the first place. Yes, routing mechanisms, etc exist to make it harder to find out who is using the encryption but the law enforcement power could then also be extended to take down anyone participating in such a network as well as setting up honeypots that somehow get around entrapment laws.
    - nitwit005 7y ago
      Criminals, almost by definition, are good at doing things without law enforcement catching on. It's possible to try to crack down on this stuff, but like anything else they'll only catch the less competent people.
      - sjy 7y ago
        Catching the less competent people isn’t a bad thing, though. Someone who is competent enough to commit crimes and get away with it is also competent enough to get a well-paid job and choose to live a pro-social life, without the risk of one slip-up sending them to prison.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I suspect that as usual, congressmen will grant themselves exceptions. I absolutely agree that banning or attempting to control encryption will not prevent the bad guys from using it, and will only prevent law-abiding citizens using it to protect themselves and their data.
- smt88 7y ago
  > Government only ever takes more power This is reductive and untrue. There are many US Amendments (notably the 4th) and Supreme Court decisions where the ruling decreases the government's power, sometimes dramatically. Examples[1]: - Loving v. Virginia: Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. - Roe v. Wade: Women have a constitutional right to an abortion during the first two trimesters. - United States v. Nixon: President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial. - District of Columbia v. Heller: Citizens have a right to possess firearms at home for self-defense. - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts in elections. ...and then there are a lot of decisions related to upholding/broadening the Fourth Amendment (very relevant to this Facebook issue) that Wikipedia has a full list of[2]. 1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-cases-history/29185891/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/supr... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States#Fourth_Amendment_Rights:_Freedom_from_unreasonable_searches_and_seizures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisio...
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    SCOTUS and the constitution act as limiting factors on the government's power, that does not disprove the general rule that government power tends to increase over time. Example: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/waynecrews/files/2017/08/Public-Laws-Vs-Agency-Rules-1.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/waynecrews/files/2017/08/Pub..., including both actual passed laws and agency rulemaking. Also see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733378 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733378
    - smt88 7y ago
      I was not disproving that a typical govt increases in power over time, only that "governments only ever increase power" isn't true. There are steps forward, steps back, and then the general trend. Considering the fact that the US used to have millions of slaves (whose ownership was Constitutional and enforced law police), weaker freedom of speech, lower bars for police searches, and no FOIA, I'd suggest the general trend here since 1776 is a decreasing power of govt.

This debate has been raging since the Clipper chip controversy 25 years ago. I worry that encryption will only continue to weaken. It already occurred in Austrailia.

big_chungus 7y ago

It will happen eventually, I believe. There is simply to much potential power to be wielded for politicians to ignore it long-term. Government only ever takes more power, and the common man does not care enough about this issue to stop it.

unnouinceput 7y ago
I strongly disagree. It will lead to criminals having their own app to communicate while rest of normal commercial communications will be broken with potential of criminals stealing stuff left and right. All it will take is for some big politician to lose all their money in a heist for these useless attempts to forever disappear. I actually root for this to happen as fast as possible so all these attempts to go away forever already so that law enforcing agencies go do their actual job.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  The fix for that will be to make using those levels of encryption illegal and to put you under suspicion for criminal activity (suspicion of terrorism, for instance) in addition to the criminal activity of using that type of encryption in the first place. Yes, routing mechanisms, etc exist to make it harder to find out who is using the encryption but the law enforcement power could then also be extended to take down anyone participating in such a network as well as setting up honeypots that somehow get around entrapment laws.
  - nitwit005 7y ago
    Criminals, almost by definition, are good at doing things without law enforcement catching on. It's possible to try to crack down on this stuff, but like anything else they'll only catch the less competent people.
    - sjy 7y ago
      Catching the less competent people isn’t a bad thing, though. Someone who is competent enough to commit crimes and get away with it is also competent enough to get a well-paid job and choose to live a pro-social life, without the risk of one slip-up sending them to prison.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I suspect that as usual, congressmen will grant themselves exceptions. I absolutely agree that banning or attempting to control encryption will not prevent the bad guys from using it, and will only prevent law-abiding citizens using it to protect themselves and their data.
smt88 7y ago
> Government only ever takes more power This is reductive and untrue. There are many US Amendments (notably the 4th) and Supreme Court decisions where the ruling decreases the government's power, sometimes dramatically. Examples[1]: - Loving v. Virginia: Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. - Roe v. Wade: Women have a constitutional right to an abortion during the first two trimesters. - United States v. Nixon: President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial. - District of Columbia v. Heller: Citizens have a right to possess firearms at home for self-defense. - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts in elections. ...and then there are a lot of decisions related to upholding/broadening the Fourth Amendment (very relevant to this Facebook issue) that Wikipedia has a full list of[2]. 1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-cases-history/29185891/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/supr... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States#Fourth_Amendment_Rights:_Freedom_from_unreasonable_searches_and_seizures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisio...
- Karunamon 7y ago
  SCOTUS and the constitution act as limiting factors on the government's power, that does not disprove the general rule that government power tends to increase over time. Example: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/waynecrews/files/2017/08/Public-Laws-Vs-Agency-Rules-1.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/waynecrews/files/2017/08/Pub..., including both actual passed laws and agency rulemaking. Also see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733378 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733378
  - smt88 7y ago
    I was not disproving that a typical govt increases in power over time, only that "governments only ever increase power" isn't true. There are steps forward, steps back, and then the general trend. Considering the fact that the US used to have millions of slaves (whose ownership was Constitutional and enforced law police), weaker freedom of speech, lower bars for police searches, and no FOIA, I'd suggest the general trend here since 1776 is a decreasing power of govt.