4 ms·

Shamir secret sharing allows for that on paper. The problem is that to be useful for law enforcement, any local police department has to be able to go to any l

by btilly 7y ago

Shamir secret sharing allows for that on paper. The problem is that to be useful for law enforcement, any local police department has to be able to go to any local judge and get a warrant and then get access. There are approximately 30,000 state judges with fairly high turnover in that list. If you can compromise one, or successfully get yourself added to that list, you can then get access to whatever you want. That's way too many people to trust. This is not a hypothetical weakness. I personally know someone whose physical location was compromised through a court order obtained by bribing a judge. How many cases are there where similar access was gained but the victim doesn't know how it happened? And the better the access that you can get, the more incentive there is to get it. (There is no shortage of reasons why a motivated party would want such access.)

skybrian 7y ago
This is basically what happens when law enforcement uses a search warrant to get access to user data from a tech company. While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight. Note that strong network encryption is essential for ensuring that they have to get a warrant. I don't think anyone has come up with a better system than judicial oversight that still allows law enforcement to do their job?
- mindslight 7y ago
  > that still allows law enforcement to do their job? Do libraries not keeping records of who has read what books not allow law enforcement to do their job? Do prohibitions against arbitrary searches not allow law enforcement to do their job? Does having to make a plausible argument in front of a judge not allow law enforcement to do their job? Do individuals not having a number tattooed on their forehead not allow law enforcement to do their job? Law enforcement continually frames any pereceived difficulty as if it is prevents them, which is utterly disingenuous. Law enforcement's "job" is to operate within the constraints of a free society composed of innocent people, in spite of the extra work from not being able to just shoot the bad guy like in the movies. When they don't respect this, they're merely another criminal element.
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    While I agree with your point, if you're going to critique law enforcement this only goes halfway: In the US, the idea of the publicly funded law enforcement officer can trace its lineage back to antebellum slave catchers. Much like they now (and forever) frame any perceived difficulty as preventing them from doing their job, they've successfully re-framed their role in society as protecting and serving (people) instead of protecting and serving (property rights), despite that obviously not being the case.
    - heartbeats 7y ago
      How is that a good thing though? American police are not very popular, to put it bluntly. Even among the Americans I know who support their efforts, they still do not have any affinity towards individual police officers. Compare this to the situation in Europe and Asia (or at least the civilized parts like Japan), where it's perfectly acceptable and normal to ask a policeman for directions. And where their role is indeed to protect and serve people (not property). "Police have the role of protecting and serving people" really does not feel like such a controversial viewpoint to me.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    You're being too binary about this. Yes, we should be skeptical of law enforcement. Judicial oversight is essential. But we should still care about police effectiveness at catching law breakers. Why have laws if they can't be enforced?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      It is you and law enforcement who are being binary. Plenty of laws are currently being enforced in the presence of strong encryption. The sky hasn't fallen. In fact, these high profile cases the FBI et al attempt to use as wedges generally involve someone who has already been caught with plenty of evidence, but the authoritarian impulse still demands more. As far as laws that can only be enforced/observed by reading people's private thoughts and communications, then yes indeed, why have those at all?
- adisinom 7y ago
  Part of it is how we scope law enforcement's job. Thanks to technology there's tremendous growth in the amount of information about people. Traditionally law enforcement needs to find evidence that a person may have committed a crime, not necessarily prove a crime. Limited availability of data makes it less likely that law enforcement finds evidence on innocent people. My take is that even with a warrant, law enforcement's reach into private data should be limited for a free society.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  A computer is like an extension of your mind. for centuries, law enforcement has been unable to search your mind, by court order or otherwise. I see no reason to change that.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    I've heard this argument a few times, and I don't think it passes legal muster. A computer is much more analogous to a fancy paper notebook than a part of your brain.
    - heartbeats 7y ago
      With how some people use smartphones, you really do start to wonder. Just try to get someone to leave their smartphone at home when they're going outside - they look at you like you're crazy.
      - dahfizz 7y ago
        I don't disagree with you, but I would be absolutely shocked if that matters one bit to a court.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And you trust the courts not to rubber stamp police requests?
  - mokus 7y ago
    For that matter, do you trust the courts not to misuse that access themselves? Or sell government keys for hundreds of millions plus free emigration for their entire family to wherever they want? Because I have a feeling the going rate would be on that order of magnitude.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Not entirely, but the judicial system's power to oversee law enforcement is an essential underpinning of the rule of law. Without that, laws don't have any power anymore and the executive does whatever it wants. I guess if you're preparing for the apocalypse you don't count on that, though?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The judicial branch and law enforcement are two sides of the same coin. The executive branch (FBI, police, etc) statistically target the poor and minorities when choosing what laws to enforce and the judicial branch sentences them more harshly. The Supreme Court just ruled that you can’t sue law enforcement for civil rights violation - including killing people unjustly.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > This is basically what happens when law enforcement uses a search warrant to get access to user data from a tech company. Which is another reason why consolidating everyone's data into a few centralized locations is also problematic. > While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight. But that's not what we're talking about here. The question isn't whether the police should need to get a warrant, it's whether the government should be able to prohibit technology that preserves privacy because some criminals might use it alongside all the law abiding citizens. And encryption doesn't "prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs" -- that's just a trope. What it does is make their jobs more expensive. Even if they can't just get a copy of all your communications from a megacorp by filing some papers, they can still get a warrant and then plant bugs or guess your password or plant bugs that allow them to observe you entering your password etc. It's not impossible, it just takes more resources to do it -- which prevents it from happening at a massive scale. That's a feature, not a bug. It still lets them solve murders, because murders are serious and uncommon and can justify the expense of a real investigation. It may make it inexpedient to spend those resources to catch every last hooker and pothead, but so what? Sometimes it's not worth the candle. If you think it really is, give them more money instead of giving everyone else less privacy. But sometimes it just isn't. Sometimes it costs more to solve a crime than to not solve it. Meanwhile (this is the feature) it doesn't make it too easy for them to identify all the people in group X and give the list to Joe McCarthy or round them all up and put them in internment camps. Law enforcement should have some friction, because when it happens too fast at too large a scale, history shows this to be Bad.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    > whether the government should be able to prohibit technology There is no principle that says governments (as representatives of the people) can't regulate what technologies people can have. Sometimes we decide that yes, the government should do this. Consider how the FCC regulates electronic devices to prevent radio interference. Enforcement is lax and as a hobbyist you aren't likely to get caught, but devices aren't commonly found in retail stores that don't have FCC approval. There are many practical issues, of course, including making sure there is a balance of power and that law enforcement powers aren't abused. I agree with that part.

by btilly 7y ago

skybrian 7y ago

This is basically what happens when law enforcement uses a search warrant to get access to user data from a tech company. While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight. Note that strong network encryption is essential for ensuring that they have to get a warrant. I don't think anyone has come up with a better system than judicial oversight that still allows law enforcement to do their job?

mindslight 7y ago
> that still allows law enforcement to do their job? Do libraries not keeping records of who has read what books not allow law enforcement to do their job? Do prohibitions against arbitrary searches not allow law enforcement to do their job? Does having to make a plausible argument in front of a judge not allow law enforcement to do their job? Do individuals not having a number tattooed on their forehead not allow law enforcement to do their job? Law enforcement continually frames any pereceived difficulty as if it is prevents them, which is utterly disingenuous. Law enforcement's "job" is to operate within the constraints of a free society composed of innocent people, in spite of the extra work from not being able to just shoot the bad guy like in the movies. When they don't respect this, they're merely another criminal element.
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  While I agree with your point, if you're going to critique law enforcement this only goes halfway: In the US, the idea of the publicly funded law enforcement officer can trace its lineage back to antebellum slave catchers. Much like they now (and forever) frame any perceived difficulty as preventing them from doing their job, they've successfully re-framed their role in society as protecting and serving (people) instead of protecting and serving (property rights), despite that obviously not being the case.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    How is that a good thing though? American police are not very popular, to put it bluntly. Even among the Americans I know who support their efforts, they still do not have any affinity towards individual police officers. Compare this to the situation in Europe and Asia (or at least the civilized parts like Japan), where it's perfectly acceptable and normal to ask a policeman for directions. And where their role is indeed to protect and serve people (not property). "Police have the role of protecting and serving people" really does not feel like such a controversial viewpoint to me.
- skybrian 7y ago
  You're being too binary about this. Yes, we should be skeptical of law enforcement. Judicial oversight is essential. But we should still care about police effectiveness at catching law breakers. Why have laws if they can't be enforced?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    It is you and law enforcement who are being binary. Plenty of laws are currently being enforced in the presence of strong encryption. The sky hasn't fallen. In fact, these high profile cases the FBI et al attempt to use as wedges generally involve someone who has already been caught with plenty of evidence, but the authoritarian impulse still demands more. As far as laws that can only be enforced/observed by reading people's private thoughts and communications, then yes indeed, why have those at all?
adisinom 7y ago
Part of it is how we scope law enforcement's job. Thanks to technology there's tremendous growth in the amount of information about people. Traditionally law enforcement needs to find evidence that a person may have committed a crime, not necessarily prove a crime. Limited availability of data makes it less likely that law enforcement finds evidence on innocent people. My take is that even with a warrant, law enforcement's reach into private data should be limited for a free society.
dmitrygr 7y ago
A computer is like an extension of your mind. for centuries, law enforcement has been unable to search your mind, by court order or otherwise. I see no reason to change that.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  I've heard this argument a few times, and I don't think it passes legal muster. A computer is much more analogous to a fancy paper notebook than a part of your brain.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    With how some people use smartphones, you really do start to wonder. Just try to get someone to leave their smartphone at home when they're going outside - they look at you like you're crazy.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      I don't disagree with you, but I would be absolutely shocked if that matters one bit to a court.
scarface74 7y ago
And you trust the courts not to rubber stamp police requests?
- mokus 7y ago
  For that matter, do you trust the courts not to misuse that access themselves? Or sell government keys for hundreds of millions plus free emigration for their entire family to wherever they want? Because I have a feeling the going rate would be on that order of magnitude.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Not entirely, but the judicial system's power to oversee law enforcement is an essential underpinning of the rule of law. Without that, laws don't have any power anymore and the executive does whatever it wants. I guess if you're preparing for the apocalypse you don't count on that, though?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The judicial branch and law enforcement are two sides of the same coin. The executive branch (FBI, police, etc) statistically target the poor and minorities when choosing what laws to enforce and the judicial branch sentences them more harshly. The Supreme Court just ruled that you can’t sue law enforcement for civil rights violation - including killing people unjustly.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> This is basically what happens when law enforcement uses a search warrant to get access to user data from a tech company. Which is another reason why consolidating everyone's data into a few centralized locations is also problematic. > While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight. But that's not what we're talking about here. The question isn't whether the police should need to get a warrant, it's whether the government should be able to prohibit technology that preserves privacy because some criminals might use it alongside all the law abiding citizens. And encryption doesn't "prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs" -- that's just a trope. What it does is make their jobs more expensive. Even if they can't just get a copy of all your communications from a megacorp by filing some papers, they can still get a warrant and then plant bugs or guess your password or plant bugs that allow them to observe you entering your password etc. It's not impossible, it just takes more resources to do it -- which prevents it from happening at a massive scale. That's a feature, not a bug. It still lets them solve murders, because murders are serious and uncommon and can justify the expense of a real investigation. It may make it inexpedient to spend those resources to catch every last hooker and pothead, but so what? Sometimes it's not worth the candle. If you think it really is, give them more money instead of giving everyone else less privacy. But sometimes it just isn't. Sometimes it costs more to solve a crime than to not solve it. Meanwhile (this is the feature) it doesn't make it too easy for them to identify all the people in group X and give the list to Joe McCarthy or round them all up and put them in internment camps. Law enforcement should have some friction, because when it happens too fast at too large a scale, history shows this to be Bad.
- skybrian 7y ago
  > whether the government should be able to prohibit technology There is no principle that says governments (as representatives of the people) can't regulate what technologies people can have. Sometimes we decide that yes, the government should do this. Consider how the FCC regulates electronic devices to prevent radio interference. Enforcement is lax and as a hobbyist you aren't likely to get caught, but devices aren't commonly found in retail stores that don't have FCC approval. There are many practical issues, of course, including making sure there is a balance of power and that law enforcement powers aren't abused. I agree with that part.