6 ms·

I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true. Perhaps this is a

I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true. Perhaps this is a cultural top-down tribal mentality borne of an adversarial arrangement between the billionaire oligarchs behind the startup scene and the government which serves to offer counterbalance against unchecked power. I personally find it reprehensible that large trillion dollar tech corps wash their hands of responsibility for the safety of citizens by offering strong encryption to the masses. I’m personally okay with secret police, but such things work better in secret. The calculus has indeed changed. Checks and balances within such secret societies do need to exist. I’m hopeful that tech geniuses will help to solve the problems regarding technical and social trade offs and risks behind exceptional access, instead of conforming to the often strict libertarian mentality of the sv community.

isthisserious 7y ago
> I’m personally okay with secret police What? Why are you ok with secret police? Where has this idea ever worked? > I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true. Which trade-offs are you suggesting aren't true? The base claim is that back door access makes security weaker. Do you disagree?
- dropoutcoder 7y ago
  Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. I’ve been downvoted to oblivion simply for stating my view; also not necessary. Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. (This being borne of limitations with the anachronistic constitutional notions of civil liberties in the rapidly evolving digital age). I’m all for reducing abuses of surveillance systems, but frankly it’s tech oligarchs who own us, not as much the nsa. “You can’t stop math.” Not true, strictly anyway. You can ban tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE which slows it down and reduces the proliferation of digital entropy. Backdoors are an antiquated way of implementing exceptional access. The proper way is to provide third party access that is truly exceptional (living up to the name), and not based on flaws that a malicious actor or rogue nation can break. Instead of E2EE, how about building E2E2EE. Doesn’t need to be measurably weaker. Sorry on my phone, response isn’t nuanced.
  - isthisserious 7y ago
    > Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. Not a throwaway. I'm a lurker who was stunned into commenting. As for E2E2EE, this doesn't solve the bad actors problem. Here is exactly why this wont work: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/technology/twitter-saudi-arabia-spies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/technology/twitter-saudi-...
    - dropoutcoder 7y ago
      The article you linked is an example of why offering access to employees who aren’t properly vetted, don’t have security clearances is a bad idea. Further, a proper exceptional access system, in my view, will aim to reduce abuses as described in the article you’ve linked, perhaps even using a design that offers technologically enforced checks and balances against abuses.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > I’ve been downvoted to oblivion simply for stating my view; also not necessary. I personally downvoted because I believe your statement is wrong in fact and problematic in opinion. > Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. Parallel construction is a morally dubious method of hiding illegal and unconstitutional activity on law enforcement's part. What crime was truly committed to warrant law enforcement's action is therefore hidden. Using the idea of parallel construction to support secret police is likewise dubious. > “You can’t stop math.” Not true, strictly anyway. You can ban tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE which slows it down and reduces the proliferation of digital entropy. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. It's illegal for citizens to download and distribute music and movies too, but illegality doesn't stop them from doing it. You might block tech oligarchs from using it, but you won't be able to block citizens from using it. Likewise when you outlaw math, only outlaws will have math. Banning tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE won't undo the fact that that encryption has already been created and disseminated in open source repositories. > The proper way is to provide third party access that is truly exceptional (living up to the name), and not based on flaws that a malicious actor or rogue nation can break. Instead of E2EE, how about building E2E2EE. Doesn’t need to be measurably weaker. I have yet to see even a single idea which isn't open to abuse by someone, whether it's law enforcement or citizens. And, frankly, the constitution's goals are fairly clear: citizens have rights and law enforcement is prohibited.

isthisserious 7y ago

> I’m personally okay with secret police What? Why are you ok with secret police? Where has this idea ever worked? > I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true. Which trade-offs are you suggesting aren't true? The base claim is that back door access makes security weaker. Do you disagree?

dropoutcoder 7y ago
Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. I’ve been downvoted to oblivion simply for stating my view; also not necessary. Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. (This being borne of limitations with the anachronistic constitutional notions of civil liberties in the rapidly evolving digital age). I’m all for reducing abuses of surveillance systems, but frankly it’s tech oligarchs who own us, not as much the nsa. “You can’t stop math.” Not true, strictly anyway. You can ban tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE which slows it down and reduces the proliferation of digital entropy. Backdoors are an antiquated way of implementing exceptional access. The proper way is to provide third party access that is truly exceptional (living up to the name), and not based on flaws that a malicious actor or rogue nation can break. Instead of E2EE, how about building E2E2EE. Doesn’t need to be measurably weaker. Sorry on my phone, response isn’t nuanced.
- isthisserious 7y ago
  > Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. Not a throwaway. I'm a lurker who was stunned into commenting. As for E2E2EE, this doesn't solve the bad actors problem. Here is exactly why this wont work: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/technology/twitter-saudi-arabia-spies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/technology/twitter-saudi-...
  - dropoutcoder 7y ago
    The article you linked is an example of why offering access to employees who aren’t properly vetted, don’t have security clearances is a bad idea. Further, a proper exceptional access system, in my view, will aim to reduce abuses as described in the article you’ve linked, perhaps even using a design that offers technologically enforced checks and balances against abuses.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- inetknght 7y ago
  > I’ve been downvoted to oblivion simply for stating my view; also not necessary. I personally downvoted because I believe your statement is wrong in fact and problematic in opinion. > Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. Parallel construction is a morally dubious method of hiding illegal and unconstitutional activity on law enforcement's part. What crime was truly committed to warrant law enforcement's action is therefore hidden. Using the idea of parallel construction to support secret police is likewise dubious. > “You can’t stop math.” Not true, strictly anyway. You can ban tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE which slows it down and reduces the proliferation of digital entropy. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. It's illegal for citizens to download and distribute music and movies too, but illegality doesn't stop them from doing it. You might block tech oligarchs from using it, but you won't be able to block citizens from using it. Likewise when you outlaw math, only outlaws will have math. Banning tech oligarchs from using unbreakable E2EE won't undo the fact that that encryption has already been created and disseminated in open source repositories. > The proper way is to provide third party access that is truly exceptional (living up to the name), and not based on flaws that a malicious actor or rogue nation can break. Instead of E2EE, how about building E2E2EE. Doesn’t need to be measurably weaker. I have yet to see even a single idea which isn't open to abuse by someone, whether it's law enforcement or citizens. And, frankly, the constitution's goals are fairly clear: citizens have rights and law enforcement is prohibited.