5 ms·

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. It is obvi

by smeeth 6y ago

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. It is obvious that the right to privacy is not a right to perfect forward secrecy. If there is a tool that achieves this I'm not convinced it should be legal to use. On the other hand I trip up over the whole "lawful warrant" thing because of the long history of abuse. Someone smarter than me should tell me what to think.

smitty1e 6y ago
The individual and the society are always in tension. The truly nefarious are going to use things like one-time pads and couriers anyway. I'd fall short of calling this "security theater" (like the TSA) but flawed crypto seems more along the lines of keeping honest people honest. Once the flaws are inserted in the crypto, then it's only a matter of time until Bad Actors figure out how to exploit the flaws. It's not the first time that harm has been done in the name of good. But the technically savvy need to get the word out: this is not a "solvable" problem, and the optimal choice is to let crypto be crypto, if the individual citizen matters at all.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  It's not Bad Actors you need to worry about, it's the NSA (but i suppose, they are potentially bad actors depending on your threat model).
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    Stipulate that the current crop at No Such Agency are all cool ladies and gentlemen. There are no guarantees about the people going forward, and the data live on.
djoldman 6y ago
> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Supposing there was a method to read thoughts or memories without physical contact, would you allow police to do so as long as they had a warrant? edit: typo
- shrimp_emoji 6y ago
  What if everyone in the world, right now, could produce supersmallpox or craft a nuke (or, given sufficiently-advanced technology, do something else for which the same technology offers a poor defense compared to the offense)? Wouldn't the only chance for survival entail a daily, warranted scan by the thought reader of everyone to ensure nobody was tempted to do it? (Or, better, omniscient surveillance.) The point here being that the "1984" route is a valid (if not ultimately preferable) choice in this philosophical fork in the road. (Also, rest unassured, I hate having this opinion.)
- smeeth 6y ago
  Interesting question. I think this would probably be protected against by the fifth amendment, would it not?
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    What if the communication were stored on a digital device, embedded in a person's skull, which they were able to interface their brain with? That may sound like an unrealistic scenario, but there are already people with medical implants that record digital data, and there has been a case of using Fitbit data to help convict someone: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.h...
  - krapp 6y ago
    It might also be allowed by the fourth amendment, provided the warrant was legitimate, depending on the interpretation of "in their persons."
  - djoldman 6y ago
    Interesting question yourself. I am not a lawyer, but: I think this would hinge on the definitions of "compelled" and "witness" in the fifth amendment. I think the courts would rule that being "a witness against himself" would require synthesizing thoughts into a statement then made under oath. I think searching thoughts would be considered a search. It would be interesting to see how the courts would handle the fact that many thoughts are fleeting and not indicative of belief or intent.
drexlspivey 6y ago
> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Seriously? Should the government have the right to know what I whisper into someone's ear?
- smeeth 6y ago
  Don't they already do that? Mics at long range, informants wearing wires, bugs in peoples houses, etc. Its not like whispering is a legally protected class of talking.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    So then why do they need weak encryption? Just do the same thing to capture the data at the endpoints, or use those methods to get the user's passphrase.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    You cannot rewind your speech to hear what you wispered two years ago or do a quick search to see everyone you have ever wispered to. Without secure encryption the collection and storage of data by the NSA will give them those capabilities on data. So in your scenario it would be like always having a mic pointed at you, always being followed by wired informants and having everything around you bugged.
  - sliken 6y ago
    Sure, if there's serious interest in you, there might well be high tech listening devices, lasers watching vibrations on glass windows, bugs, etc. But that's expensive, equipment, people in white vans, etc. But what if the government can listen to every whisper in every ear? Dragnet surveillance could serious damage society. If this was available decades ago it might well be used to criminalize things like being gay.
mtgx 6y ago
you should not be. the us gov has plenty of ways to catch bad people. they don't need this.
claudeganon 6y ago
Criminals will keep using real crypto, even if it’s illegal, because they’re criminals. The public will get bad crypto and fall further victim to crime and mass surveillance. It’s a terrible idea and it’s pretty much as simple as that.
- _martamoreno_ 6y ago
  That's a real oversimplification and self-serving... It's true that this is a horrible idea, but for different reasons. Criminals first of all don't necessarily use encryption, because apparently even these days they get the drop on terrorists because they don't use proper encryption. But also if, as you say, ONLY criminals are using true encryption, that makes it a hell of a lot easier to identify and survail them. The NSA's biggest problem is that they have so much data that they can't find anything useful anymore, and its not getting any better. It would help them A LOT if they knew that people who have something to hide, break the law and use encryption. On the flip side, this opens the door to mass hacking by criminals and foreign entities, which is why this is a fucking terrible idea. Not to mention that it basically destroys privacy and fosters mind censorship, because people will be afraid to search for what they are looking for.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
A warrant allows law enforcement to bypass laws against trespass and theft in order to get information. I has never allowed them to bypass the laws of physics. If you say something to someone before they get a warrant, the warrant can't give it to them because you didn't write it down. If you write it down but then destroy it before the warrant is executed, the warrant can't give it to them because it no longer exists. If you write it down but keep it somewhere they don't know where it is, the warrant can't give it to them because they can't find it. If you write it down but it's encrypted, a warrant can't give it to them because they can't decrypt it. These are not different scenarios. People like to make out as if encryption has changed things to make it harder, because now more things will be encrypted! But the things that are now being encrypted were historically never written down to begin with. If you made a phone call in 1970, your ordinary phone didn't automatically record it in case the government wanted to execute a warrant later. If you send a text message today and your phone records it but the record is encrypted, that isn't any worse for them than if it didn't keep a record -- it's better for them, because if they can get your passphrase then they can get access to it. Historically they had nothing. Now they want even more, even if it it allows criminals and corrupt officials to ravage everybody and sets a profoundly dangerous precedent for totalitarian regimes, with the corresponding technical changes to popular infrastructure.
jusssi 6y ago
If the only physical evidence of a crime are a bunch of encrypted bits on someone's iPhone, was there any actual crime?
- Dahoon 6y ago
  If someone takes nude photos of your 6 year old daughter and encrypt them, is it not still a crime?
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    It is debatable if it is a crime (at least in the US - there were cases that said that upskirt photos, even of children, are protected by the 1st amendment) but even if it is then it is an instance of a victimless one.
dragonwriter 6y ago
The power of the government to issue warrants has never (in the US constitutional system) implied a limit on freedom so that people may only possess things (including forms of communication) that are practically amenable to discovery of meaning by way of search via a warrant. It just means government can, with legally sufficient justification, seize something. It's their job, if they want to understand it, to find a way to do it. Restricting communication to means which are easily subject to correct interpretation when seized is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and also exposes people to security risks from threats other than the lawful government, since if it can be compromised by a lawful seizure by government it can be compromised by an unlawful seizure by any other party.
kittiepryde 6y ago
I don't think you should have been downvoted so much. It's smart to recognize an internal-to-self conflict and ask questions. I don't think 'Someone smarter than me should tell me what to think.' is a good endpoint though. Expert opinions are very important to the decision making process, but, I would suggest to never give blanket access to another over your own thoughts. It sucks to be wrong sometimes, but, just keep thinking and trying, and I think the journey will be beneficial. ( Sorry for how weird that all sounds, I wanted to respond, but I'm not sure how to best phrase my thoughts here )
gmantg 6y ago
All these lawful warrants are pretty cool until the administration issuing them gets compromised. The thing is this has already happened and criminals at the top are now looking for ways to cement their power and prevent any competition. I believe the anti encryption laws will be used against politicians who dare to change things. All these laws are rarely good faith laws, but mostly are "rules" set by your older brother: he wants you to behave a certain way, but obviously has no intent to follow the same rules. So if we look at the proposed "law" thru this prism, we see "some senators deliver a message from the bigger players that those don't like that common folks can hide their communications and want to end this practice."

by smeeth 6y ago

smitty1e 6y ago

The individual and the society are always in tension. The truly nefarious are going to use things like one-time pads and couriers anyway. I'd fall short of calling this "security theater" (like the TSA) but flawed crypto seems more along the lines of keeping honest people honest. Once the flaws are inserted in the crypto, then it's only a matter of time until Bad Actors figure out how to exploit the flaws. It's not the first time that harm has been done in the name of good. But the technically savvy need to get the word out: this is not a "solvable" problem, and the optimal choice is to let crypto be crypto, if the individual citizen matters at all.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
It's not Bad Actors you need to worry about, it's the NSA (but i suppose, they are potentially bad actors depending on your threat model).
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Stipulate that the current crop at No Such Agency are all cool ladies and gentlemen. There are no guarantees about the people going forward, and the data live on.

djoldman 6y ago

> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Supposing there was a method to read thoughts or memories without physical contact, would you allow police to do so as long as they had a warrant? edit: typo

shrimp_emoji 6y ago
What if everyone in the world, right now, could produce supersmallpox or craft a nuke (or, given sufficiently-advanced technology, do something else for which the same technology offers a poor defense compared to the offense)? Wouldn't the only chance for survival entail a daily, warranted scan by the thought reader of everyone to ensure nobody was tempted to do it? (Or, better, omniscient surveillance.) The point here being that the "1984" route is a valid (if not ultimately preferable) choice in this philosophical fork in the road. (Also, rest unassured, I hate having this opinion.)
smeeth 6y ago
Interesting question. I think this would probably be protected against by the fifth amendment, would it not?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  What if the communication were stored on a digital device, embedded in a person's skull, which they were able to interface their brain with? That may sound like an unrealistic scenario, but there are already people with medical implants that record digital data, and there has been a case of using Fitbit data to help convict someone: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.h...
- krapp 6y ago
  It might also be allowed by the fourth amendment, provided the warrant was legitimate, depending on the interpretation of "in their persons."
- djoldman 6y ago
  Interesting question yourself. I am not a lawyer, but: I think this would hinge on the definitions of "compelled" and "witness" in the fifth amendment. I think the courts would rule that being "a witness against himself" would require synthesizing thoughts into a statement then made under oath. I think searching thoughts would be considered a search. It would be interesting to see how the courts would handle the fact that many thoughts are fleeting and not indicative of belief or intent.

drexlspivey 6y ago

> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Seriously? Should the government have the right to know what I whisper into someone's ear?

smeeth 6y ago
Don't they already do that? Mics at long range, informants wearing wires, bugs in peoples houses, etc. Its not like whispering is a legally protected class of talking.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  So then why do they need weak encryption? Just do the same thing to capture the data at the endpoints, or use those methods to get the user's passphrase.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  You cannot rewind your speech to hear what you wispered two years ago or do a quick search to see everyone you have ever wispered to. Without secure encryption the collection and storage of data by the NSA will give them those capabilities on data. So in your scenario it would be like always having a mic pointed at you, always being followed by wired informants and having everything around you bugged.
- sliken 6y ago
  Sure, if there's serious interest in you, there might well be high tech listening devices, lasers watching vibrations on glass windows, bugs, etc. But that's expensive, equipment, people in white vans, etc. But what if the government can listen to every whisper in every ear? Dragnet surveillance could serious damage society. If this was available decades ago it might well be used to criminalize things like being gay.

mtgx 6y ago

you should not be. the us gov has plenty of ways to catch bad people. they don't need this.

claudeganon 6y ago

Criminals will keep using real crypto, even if it’s illegal, because they’re criminals. The public will get bad crypto and fall further victim to crime and mass surveillance. It’s a terrible idea and it’s pretty much as simple as that.

_martamoreno_ 6y ago
That's a real oversimplification and self-serving... It's true that this is a horrible idea, but for different reasons. Criminals first of all don't necessarily use encryption, because apparently even these days they get the drop on terrorists because they don't use proper encryption. But also if, as you say, ONLY criminals are using true encryption, that makes it a hell of a lot easier to identify and survail them. The NSA's biggest problem is that they have so much data that they can't find anything useful anymore, and its not getting any better. It would help them A LOT if they knew that people who have something to hide, break the law and use encryption. On the flip side, this opens the door to mass hacking by criminals and foreign entities, which is why this is a fucking terrible idea. Not to mention that it basically destroys privacy and fosters mind censorship, because people will be afraid to search for what they are looking for.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

A warrant allows law enforcement to bypass laws against trespass and theft in order to get information. I has never allowed them to bypass the laws of physics. If you say something to someone before they get a warrant, the warrant can't give it to them because you didn't write it down. If you write it down but then destroy it before the warrant is executed, the warrant can't give it to them because it no longer exists. If you write it down but keep it somewhere they don't know where it is, the warrant can't give it to them because they can't find it. If you write it down but it's encrypted, a warrant can't give it to them because they can't decrypt it. These are not different scenarios. People like to make out as if encryption has changed things to make it harder, because now more things will be encrypted! But the things that are now being encrypted were historically never written down to begin with. If you made a phone call in 1970, your ordinary phone didn't automatically record it in case the government wanted to execute a warrant later. If you send a text message today and your phone records it but the record is encrypted, that isn't any worse for them than if it didn't keep a record -- it's better for them, because if they can get your passphrase then they can get access to it. Historically they had nothing. Now they want even more, even if it it allows criminals and corrupt officials to ravage everybody and sets a profoundly dangerous precedent for totalitarian regimes, with the corresponding technical changes to popular infrastructure.

jusssi 6y ago

If the only physical evidence of a crime are a bunch of encrypted bits on someone's iPhone, was there any actual crime?

Dahoon 6y ago
If someone takes nude photos of your 6 year old daughter and encrypt them, is it not still a crime?
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  It is debatable if it is a crime (at least in the US - there were cases that said that upskirt photos, even of children, are protected by the 1st amendment) but even if it is then it is an instance of a victimless one.

dragonwriter 6y ago

The power of the government to issue warrants has never (in the US constitutional system) implied a limit on freedom so that people may only possess things (including forms of communication) that are practically amenable to discovery of meaning by way of search via a warrant. It just means government can, with legally sufficient justification, seize something. It's their job, if they want to understand it, to find a way to do it. Restricting communication to means which are easily subject to correct interpretation when seized is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and also exposes people to security risks from threats other than the lawful government, since if it can be compromised by a lawful seizure by government it can be compromised by an unlawful seizure by any other party.

kittiepryde 6y ago

I don't think you should have been downvoted so much. It's smart to recognize an internal-to-self conflict and ask questions. I don't think 'Someone smarter than me should tell me what to think.' is a good endpoint though. Expert opinions are very important to the decision making process, but, I would suggest to never give blanket access to another over your own thoughts. It sucks to be wrong sometimes, but, just keep thinking and trying, and I think the journey will be beneficial. ( Sorry for how weird that all sounds, I wanted to respond, but I'm not sure how to best phrase my thoughts here )

gmantg 6y ago

All these lawful warrants are pretty cool until the administration issuing them gets compromised. The thing is this has already happened and criminals at the top are now looking for ways to cement their power and prevent any competition. I believe the anti encryption laws will be used against politicians who dare to change things. All these laws are rarely good faith laws, but mostly are "rules" set by your older brother: he wants you to behave a certain way, but obviously has no intent to follow the same rules. So if we look at the proposed "law" thru this prism, we see "some senators deliver a message from the bigger players that those don't like that common folks can hide their communications and want to end this practice."