5 ms·

I'd say the contrary: isn't this a prime example of how law enforcement can work around encryption without weakening encryption in general by law?

soulofmischief 6y ago
It's a shaky argument, because ideally these systems would be so secure that they wouldn't be able to have done what they did. They relied on human error and that seems like a bad excuse to penetrate a system.
- moomin 6y ago
  Yes, but I'm not sure we should be giving up real rights to imagined threats. In practice, what encryption systems do is make it sufficiently inconvenient to steam open our letters that the authorities only do it with motivation. The only real case for some of these proposed laws is "we don't want to employ specialists in this field" not "these systems are uncrackable".
  - red_admiral 6y ago
    Or: we want the full firehose of data, and then we want to employ Machine Learning specialists. ML is apparently magic.
  - treis 6y ago
    The motivation driving these laws is E2E encryption that if implemented correctly are uncrackable. Today, pretty much everything is encrypted but since the provider has the keys they can access the messages. E2E encryption shifts the keys to the user which means that the provider has no access to the content of the message. They are theoretically uncrackable without the user's secret and when it's Apple, Google, Facebook, et.al. implementing the system and not some 2 bit criminal operation it will be uncrackable in practice.
    - moomin 6y ago
      To quote Monty Python "This isn't an argument, this is just contradiction!"
      - treis 6y ago
        I don't know what this means.
        moomin 6y ago
        First off, you definitely should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ But the point is the post just literally contradicted the previous post. There's not a lot of places to go from there.
- spzb 6y ago
  I'm sure that if a bunch of criminals found a way to make a perfectly secure mobile phone they wouldn't be too bothered with a law that says they're not allowed to do that.
- gspr 6y ago
  But doesn't that also mean one can plausible defend strong crypto by saying "look how easily police broke into this system's weak crypto, how would you feel if criminals could break into your bank this easily?"
- nopeNopeNooope 6y ago
  They had the fact they'd broken the system leak to the criminals before they finished their operation. Seems like they can't be trusted with proper secrets, doesn't it?

soulofmischief 6y ago

It's a shaky argument, because ideally these systems would be so secure that they wouldn't be able to have done what they did. They relied on human error and that seems like a bad excuse to penetrate a system.

moomin 6y ago
Yes, but I'm not sure we should be giving up real rights to imagined threats. In practice, what encryption systems do is make it sufficiently inconvenient to steam open our letters that the authorities only do it with motivation. The only real case for some of these proposed laws is "we don't want to employ specialists in this field" not "these systems are uncrackable".
- red_admiral 6y ago
  Or: we want the full firehose of data, and then we want to employ Machine Learning specialists. ML is apparently magic.
- treis 6y ago
  The motivation driving these laws is E2E encryption that if implemented correctly are uncrackable. Today, pretty much everything is encrypted but since the provider has the keys they can access the messages. E2E encryption shifts the keys to the user which means that the provider has no access to the content of the message. They are theoretically uncrackable without the user's secret and when it's Apple, Google, Facebook, et.al. implementing the system and not some 2 bit criminal operation it will be uncrackable in practice.
  - moomin 6y ago
    To quote Monty Python "This isn't an argument, this is just contradiction!"
    - treis 6y ago
      I don't know what this means.
      - moomin 6y ago
        First off, you definitely should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ But the point is the post just literally contradicted the previous post. There's not a lot of places to go from there.
spzb 6y ago
I'm sure that if a bunch of criminals found a way to make a perfectly secure mobile phone they wouldn't be too bothered with a law that says they're not allowed to do that.
gspr 6y ago
But doesn't that also mean one can plausible defend strong crypto by saying "look how easily police broke into this system's weak crypto, how would you feel if criminals could break into your bank this easily?"
nopeNopeNooope 6y ago
They had the fact they'd broken the system leak to the criminals before they finished their operation. Seems like they can't be trusted with proper secrets, doesn't it?