10 ms·

A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering both the head of the FBI and the CIA have con

A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering both the head of the FBI and the CIA have confirmed that the lack of a back door would impede the fight against ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/08/fbi-chief-backdoor-access-encryption-isis https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/08/fbi-chief...

yonaguska 7y ago
Why is that alarming? The FBI and CIA requests for backdoors are alarming. Unless you're positing that these apps may have secretly complied with CIA and FBI requests? If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this.
- danso 7y ago
  I think nimbius was being sarcastic?
  - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
    Pointing out a contradiction of policy and interest between civilian and military who each have independent concerns and capability doesn't necessary imply sarcasm. I took nimbius to mean that it will be interesting (as in get your popcorn) to see who's influence in the halls of power win out when such a contradiction exists.
    - Shivetya 7y ago
      I see little conflict, there is little reason the military would observe restrictions in the battlefield. now they could limits its use only while deployed or simply run it under an exception only policy, as in you get to use it for this period of time and not otherwise. there has always been separate rules applied to the people and government, the issue comes down to the simple matter elected officials should always be considered public while in office.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 9dev 7y ago
  My interpretation is that he meant it's alarming to see the government suddenly openly suggesting an e2e messenger because it might hint to the agencies having discovered a hole in the Signal protocol. I highly doubt that personally, but that's what I read from nimbius comment.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    So then why would they want the military to use it for internal discussion? If the govt is aware of a hole, then other nations might be aware of the same or a different issue.
    - peteradio 7y ago
      Because its only crackable by the 1kqb quantum computer located in Mt rushmore under Lincolns invisible top hat.
      - retbull 7y ago
        I need me some of this invisible top hat quantum computer.
    - stevehawk 7y ago
      they aren't using it for classified conversations so it doesn't really matter
      - merpnderp 7y ago
        It does matter. Soldiers talk about sensitive stuff all the time. You don’t want schedules, personnel, whatever, leaking through inane conversations to people we’re at war with.
      - erikbye 7y ago
        Unfortunately, classified comms of various classification levels spill over into publicly available channels all the time, both accidental and out of laziness, but also sometimes an immediate necessity.
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  >If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this. I largely agree with you but a more cynical take would be that it allows the following argument to be advanced: "If the 82nd Airborne uses it, then it is a weapon of war. Why should civilians have access to the same communication equipment as a soldier needs in a time of war." That is, they associate the technology with combat and the military. Then, they use that association as a way to argue the technology is only inherently useful for those planning to engage in combat. It also allows governments to advance the argument that if it useful for our soldiers then it should be denied to enemy soldiers and thus it should be tightly controlled (see night vision googles[0] or cryptography as a weapon[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
  - nitemice 7y ago
    If they make that argument, it shouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the 2nd amendment should apply to this technology then.
    - EthanHeilman 7y ago
      Well they made that argument about cryptography being a munition and I don't see anyone advancing a 2nd Amendment challenge against those laws.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      There's certainly a case here. If Barr goes forward with his nutty anti-encryption push, I hope the opposition uses this argument. Google lists definition #1 for "arms" as "weapons", and definition #2 of "weapons" as "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." I doubt any would argue that un-breakable (at least, theoretically) comms would provide no tactical advantage. If anyone would, I'd refer him to the second world war as a prominent example. This argument could help built a bi-partisan pro-cryptography group by pulling in support from the 2A crowd. I support cryptography remaining fully legal (even if classified as a munition or armament) for the same reason I support the 2A, practical security considerations aside.
- corndoge 7y ago
  It is sarcasm
nexuist 7y ago
Privacy for me, not for thee....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
phil_folrida 7y ago
eh, the book Team of Teams is pretty good for that https://www.amazon.ca/Team-Teams-Rules-Engagement-Complex/dp/1591847486?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duc12-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1591847486 https://www.amazon.ca/Team-Teams-Rules-Engagement-Complex/dp... when the best of the best is beaten by people that barely know to use guns.
tomphoolery 7y ago
To me it's a relief. Finally the information warmongers can't argue that it has no benefit to national security.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  I think it was sarcasm? Or am I completely missing the point?
  - mattrp 7y ago
    It’s just for this sort of turn of events that hn should allow a limited number of memes and emojis.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      memes here? .'''''``---... / \ .'------..........:. '|-. ```---........:. || `-. | __|| `. | / |\ `-. ___ .|\ .'\ | `-. / \_ / | | \ ###' / --.'. .'.: \|..+`. `-._ ### / /-.-- \ .' `-. | `. `-..-' ' .' \ .' `-`. `. / .' \ | \ `. .' / | | `. `..' .:' | | `--...__ .' | | ``.' | wait, that's illegal
      - LoSboccacc 7y ago
        for a community taking pride on appreciating novelty and creativity and interesting use of technology sure y'all hate modern solutions ,----------. ,-' ++ / ,---------++-+ / ,' \ ; ,' \ +--' _ \ | / | ______ ---- |. / / (#) \ (#) ; \/ / | \ : ; | \ | \; +-,-.,-. / __| | ; / / ,-. ; | ' : `~---- / | | / | ; / ,- / ------'--. ,--' \ ; `--. ,' \ ; `-. ,' \ / `. / ,--+--. / \ | ; | ++ | +-----------+---+---++------------------------+
johnchristopher 7y ago
Well, maybe they finally got their backdoor baked in and they now want to spy on their own people?
- rvnx 7y ago
  Signal protocol, partially adopted by Facebook, Skype, Google, weren't all of them caught red handed collaborating with government on spying citizens ? If the DoD approved, the DoD must have good reasons that it will increase its own control on its own troops.
sachinag 7y ago
You really need an /s on this one
- xvector 7y ago
  Kind of sad people can’t distinguish obvious sarcasm these days without an “/s”. Ruins the beauty of sarcasm.
  - anderspitman 7y ago
    To be fair, I think language barriers often make this much more difficult for folks.
  - arcticfox 7y ago
    Recognizing sarcasm generally requires context on the author. You can make assumptions that lead to this looking like sarcasm or you can take it on face value; both are fairly likely to have some users that would write the comment. I think it's kind of silly to use for that reason.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Timing is everything; the narrower the bandwidth of the communications channel, the more important context becomes if you want to avoid falling victim to Poe's law. It's not obvious that intent is sarcastic when it expresses a commonly held position, unless the sarcastic person is well known to have different views - not so easy to discern on a site like HN. To be obvious to the casual reader, you need to articulate a position which goes to absurd extremes, eg A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering that it impede economic growth in our identity-theft and espionage industries. Of course, that might not be recognizable as sarcasm in some countries where such activities are of greater strategic importance.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Sarcasm in text never worked well though. You also have to remember that a large percentage of HN readership are not native English speakers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Seenso 7y ago
> A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering both the head of the FBI and the CIA have confirmed that the lack of a back door would impede the fight against ISIS. Why is it alarming? I don't think the FBI and CIA are advocating backdoors for government encryption. The fact that the military endorses it for their own operational security is weak evidence that Signal is more secure than other apps.
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
E2E encryption and perfect forward secrecy doesn't matter if the protocol is leaking copious amounts of metadata about who you're talking to and when.
- dmix 7y ago
  That's what OPSEC is for. A bit hard in enemey territory but def less noisy than using w/e else they were currently using.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  The Signal server doesn't even know who the sender of a message is, just the recipient.
  - bradenb 7y ago
    Even just traffic analysis makes any kind of communication potentially leaky. Encryption matters, but it doesn't protect against everything. Even the lack of communication leaks information.
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    What data is known exactly? Phone number? IP?
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Just the IP, IIRC, but it doesn't know who you are. There are more details on their blog in one of the latest blog posts.
    - frayesto 7y ago
      https://signal.org/bigbrother/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/ You can see exactly what Signal is able to provide to a legal request. Time of last connection related to a phone number
      - sillysaurusx 7y ago
noobermin 7y ago
This might not count as much, but the DoD is a different organization than the FBI or the CIA.
- godelski 7y ago
  It should count. The DoD has different interests than FBI and CIA. It should make sense that DoD wants encryption, it makes their jobs easier. It should also make sense that the FBI and CIA don't want encryption, lack of makes their jobs easier. Just because they're both government agencies doesn't mean they are colluding against the people. Different agencies have different agendas and prerogatives. It's also well known that agencies often fight over things and don't exactly work together well.
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    > The DoD has different interests than FBI and CIA. Mildly off-topic, but every time I read this, it makes me ill.
    - godelski 7y ago
      Why? Here's an analogy. People that are in charge of defending kings are pro castles (it helps them defend their kings). People that are in charge of killing kings are anti castles (it is easier to kill a king if they aren't in a castle). Why is this a difficult concept to grasp? All agencies are pro "agenda that makes my agency's job easier".
      - ta999999171 7y ago
        > Why is this a difficult concept to grasp? I wasn't disagreeing with you, and grasp the concept better than most. > All agencies are pro "agenda that makes my agency's job easier". They didn't used to be. These agencies used to work, with pride, for country and people. Not their own sorry selfish fucking asses.
craftinator 7y ago
I wonder what Barr thinks of this...

yonaguska 7y ago

Why is that alarming? The FBI and CIA requests for backdoors are alarming. Unless you're positing that these apps may have secretly complied with CIA and FBI requests? If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this.

danso 7y ago
I think nimbius was being sarcastic?
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  Pointing out a contradiction of policy and interest between civilian and military who each have independent concerns and capability doesn't necessary imply sarcasm. I took nimbius to mean that it will be interesting (as in get your popcorn) to see who's influence in the halls of power win out when such a contradiction exists.
  - Shivetya 7y ago
    I see little conflict, there is little reason the military would observe restrictions in the battlefield. now they could limits its use only while deployed or simply run it under an exception only policy, as in you get to use it for this period of time and not otherwise. there has always been separate rules applied to the people and government, the issue comes down to the simple matter elected officials should always be considered public while in office.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
9dev 7y ago
My interpretation is that he meant it's alarming to see the government suddenly openly suggesting an e2e messenger because it might hint to the agencies having discovered a hole in the Signal protocol. I highly doubt that personally, but that's what I read from nimbius comment.
- azinman2 7y ago
  So then why would they want the military to use it for internal discussion? If the govt is aware of a hole, then other nations might be aware of the same or a different issue.
  - peteradio 7y ago
    Because its only crackable by the 1kqb quantum computer located in Mt rushmore under Lincolns invisible top hat.
    - retbull 7y ago
      I need me some of this invisible top hat quantum computer.
  - stevehawk 7y ago
    they aren't using it for classified conversations so it doesn't really matter
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      It does matter. Soldiers talk about sensitive stuff all the time. You don’t want schedules, personnel, whatever, leaking through inane conversations to people we’re at war with.
    - erikbye 7y ago
      Unfortunately, classified comms of various classification levels spill over into publicly available channels all the time, both accidental and out of laziness, but also sometimes an immediate necessity.
EthanHeilman 7y ago
>If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this. I largely agree with you but a more cynical take would be that it allows the following argument to be advanced: "If the 82nd Airborne uses it, then it is a weapon of war. Why should civilians have access to the same communication equipment as a soldier needs in a time of war." That is, they associate the technology with combat and the military. Then, they use that association as a way to argue the technology is only inherently useful for those planning to engage in combat. It also allows governments to advance the argument that if it useful for our soldiers then it should be denied to enemy soldiers and thus it should be tightly controlled (see night vision googles[0] or cryptography as a weapon[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- nitemice 7y ago
  If they make that argument, it shouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the 2nd amendment should apply to this technology then.
  - EthanHeilman 7y ago
    Well they made that argument about cryptography being a munition and I don't see anyone advancing a 2nd Amendment challenge against those laws.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    There's certainly a case here. If Barr goes forward with his nutty anti-encryption push, I hope the opposition uses this argument. Google lists definition #1 for "arms" as "weapons", and definition #2 of "weapons" as "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." I doubt any would argue that un-breakable (at least, theoretically) comms would provide no tactical advantage. If anyone would, I'd refer him to the second world war as a prominent example. This argument could help built a bi-partisan pro-cryptography group by pulling in support from the 2A crowd. I support cryptography remaining fully legal (even if classified as a munition or armament) for the same reason I support the 2A, practical security considerations aside.
corndoge 7y ago
It is sarcasm

nexuist 7y ago

Privacy for me, not for thee....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

phil_folrida 7y ago

eh, the book Team of Teams is pretty good for that https://www.amazon.ca/Team-Teams-Rules-Engagement-Complex/dp/1591847486?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duc12-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1591847486 https://www.amazon.ca/Team-Teams-Rules-Engagement-Complex/dp... when the best of the best is beaten by people that barely know to use guns.

tomphoolery 7y ago

To me it's a relief. Finally the information warmongers can't argue that it has no benefit to national security.

nothrabannosir 7y ago
I think it was sarcasm? Or am I completely missing the point?
- mattrp 7y ago
  It’s just for this sort of turn of events that hn should allow a limited number of memes and emojis.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    memes here? .'''''``---... / \ .'------..........:. '|-. ```---........:. || `-. | __|| `. | / |\ `-. ___ .|\ .'\ | `-. / \_ / | | \ ###' / --.'. .'.: \|..+`. `-._ ### / /-.-- \ .' `-. | `. `-..-' ' .' \ .' `-`. `. / .' \ | \ `. .' / | | `. `..' .:' | | `--...__ .' | | ``.' | wait, that's illegal
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      for a community taking pride on appreciating novelty and creativity and interesting use of technology sure y'all hate modern solutions ,----------. ,-' ++ / ,---------++-+ / ,' \ ; ,' \ +--' _ \ | / | ______ ---- |. / / (#) \ (#) ; \/ / | \ : ; | \ | \; +-,-.,-. / __| | ; / / ,-. ; | ' : `~---- / | | / | ; / ,- / ------'--. ,--' \ ; `--. ,' \ ; `-. ,' \ / `. / ,--+--. / \ | ; | ++ | +-----------+---+---++------------------------+

johnchristopher 7y ago

Well, maybe they finally got their backdoor baked in and they now want to spy on their own people?

rvnx 7y ago
Signal protocol, partially adopted by Facebook, Skype, Google, weren't all of them caught red handed collaborating with government on spying citizens ? If the DoD approved, the DoD must have good reasons that it will increase its own control on its own troops.

sachinag 7y ago

You really need an /s on this one

xvector 7y ago
Kind of sad people can’t distinguish obvious sarcasm these days without an “/s”. Ruins the beauty of sarcasm.
- anderspitman 7y ago
  To be fair, I think language barriers often make this much more difficult for folks.
- arcticfox 7y ago
  Recognizing sarcasm generally requires context on the author. You can make assumptions that lead to this looking like sarcasm or you can take it on face value; both are fairly likely to have some users that would write the comment. I think it's kind of silly to use for that reason.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Timing is everything; the narrower the bandwidth of the communications channel, the more important context becomes if you want to avoid falling victim to Poe's law. It's not obvious that intent is sarcastic when it expresses a commonly held position, unless the sarcastic person is well known to have different views - not so easy to discern on a site like HN. To be obvious to the casual reader, you need to articulate a position which goes to absurd extremes, eg A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering that it impede economic growth in our identity-theft and espionage industries. Of course, that might not be recognizable as sarcasm in some countries where such activities are of greater strategic importance.
- dkersten 7y ago
  Sarcasm in text never worked well though. You also have to remember that a large percentage of HN readership are not native English speakers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Seenso 7y ago

> A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering both the head of the FBI and the CIA have confirmed that the lack of a back door would impede the fight against ISIS. Why is it alarming? I don't think the FBI and CIA are advocating backdoors for government encryption. The fact that the military endorses it for their own operational security is weak evidence that Signal is more secure than other apps.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

E2E encryption and perfect forward secrecy doesn't matter if the protocol is leaking copious amounts of metadata about who you're talking to and when.

dmix 7y ago
That's what OPSEC is for. A bit hard in enemey territory but def less noisy than using w/e else they were currently using.
StavrosK 7y ago
The Signal server doesn't even know who the sender of a message is, just the recipient.
- bradenb 7y ago
  Even just traffic analysis makes any kind of communication potentially leaky. Encryption matters, but it doesn't protect against everything. Even the lack of communication leaks information.
- Thriptic 7y ago
  What data is known exactly? Phone number? IP?
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Just the IP, IIRC, but it doesn't know who you are. There are more details on their blog in one of the latest blog posts.
  - frayesto 7y ago
    https://signal.org/bigbrother/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/ You can see exactly what Signal is able to provide to a legal request. Time of last connection related to a phone number
    - sillysaurusx 7y ago

noobermin 7y ago

This might not count as much, but the DoD is a different organization than the FBI or the CIA.

godelski 7y ago
It should count. The DoD has different interests than FBI and CIA. It should make sense that DoD wants encryption, it makes their jobs easier. It should also make sense that the FBI and CIA don't want encryption, lack of makes their jobs easier. Just because they're both government agencies doesn't mean they are colluding against the people. Different agencies have different agendas and prerogatives. It's also well known that agencies often fight over things and don't exactly work together well.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  > The DoD has different interests than FBI and CIA. Mildly off-topic, but every time I read this, it makes me ill.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Why? Here's an analogy. People that are in charge of defending kings are pro castles (it helps them defend their kings). People that are in charge of killing kings are anti castles (it is easier to kill a king if they aren't in a castle). Why is this a difficult concept to grasp? All agencies are pro "agenda that makes my agency's job easier".
    - ta999999171 7y ago
      > Why is this a difficult concept to grasp? I wasn't disagreeing with you, and grasp the concept better than most. > All agencies are pro "agenda that makes my agency's job easier". They didn't used to be. These agencies used to work, with pride, for country and people. Not their own sorry selfish fucking asses.

craftinator 7y ago

I wonder what Barr thinks of this...