9 ms·

US Government Continues Encryption War

242 points by freddyym 6y ago

pizzazzaro 6y ago
Perhaps we're using the wrong metaphor - lock your doors. Congress wants to ban door locks to your home, your car, your gun safe?
shakna 6y ago
> Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. I am very confused by this statement from Barr. Protecting consumer data is protecting a business' operations. If user data is properly encrypted, then a dataleak is necessarily less of a liability. You cannot lose what you do not have access to. Protecting the customer, protects the business.
- fedreserved 6y ago
  Don't worry big business we don't mind you guys keeps your secrets secret. It's the plebs that the fourth amendment shouldnt apply to. Their wet dream is the current state of affairs on the fourth amendment. Even though all of our communications are are captured on some servers in Utah, it's not a search and seizure unless we "look at the communcation". Wink wink
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Protecting consumer data is protecting a business' operations. Not really. The article was trying to create a distinction between internal business uses and consumer Internet use. An example might be branch-branch bank communications. You could probably argue either way about whether that is more valuable or not than tweets. You're only viewing it from an end-user Internet privacy viewpoint. Using SSL on HN is not in the same league as banking. For younger HN readers who weren't around during the PGP war in the 80's/90's, it's expected that governments will keep reviving bills like this until they win, so eternal vigilance is needed. Also, LEO will always push for the laziest method of getting their job done, hence stingers and cell phone tower dumps.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Allow me to put some words in Barr's mouth for you: "I work in law enforcement, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that the public might have effective tools to communicate privately. But I can't say that directly because then people who aren't paying attention will be upset. So instead I'll be a bit confused about what my point is and draw some distinctions that don't make sense" There is a very compelling case that law enforcement should be denied some powers even at the risk of criminals escaping justice. That case is complicated and takes several pages to explain. It is rare that law enforcement officials will make that case, and rare that the public understands when law enforcement is too powerful.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    > That case is complicated and takes several pages to explain Then we've reached a crisis point in our moral development, because that statement had been axiomatic since the founding of this country. "That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law." [1] [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/courses/cs5436/warren-brandeis.pdf https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/courses/cs5436/warren-bran...
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Totally agree, this is a corner stone of any democracy. It’s hard to think one can exist without good protections for citizens.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    IDK if it's rare that they make this case. It depends on what the are promoting or defending. Or rather, it's rare that anyone (including people against this war on encryption) makes a blunt argument that criminals will escape because the police are constrained. The blunt tradeoffs argument is from a classroom or bar. It's not the kind of argument that will be made (bluntly) in a legal, policy or legislative setting. In any case... I don't think "denied some powers" should be assessed against "risk of criminals escaping justice." One is abstract and the other concrete. The actual tradeoff is between criminals escaping and actual abuse of power by law enforcement. Some amount of both is guaranteed. This tips the scale.
rbecker 6y ago
> “warrant-proof” encryption Like “warrant-proof” rooms and houses that, even with a valid warrant, won't record conversations and send them to the police. And just like encryption, those “warrant-proof” protections can be circumvented by planting physical or software bugs on target houses or computers. They're not complaining that law enforcement can't subvert privacy protections - they're complaining that they're not already subverted, ahead of time, for everyone.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  After we get rid of warrant-proof window shades, we'll get to the real problem. We all know what it is: Thought Crime.
  - Normille 6y ago
    >...We all know what it is: Thought Crime... Scotland's proposed new Hate Crime Bill would pretty much take care of that angle.[0] >Scotland’s proposed hate crime bill will penalise anyone whipping up hatred against “protected groups.” That includes people making “insulting” remarks within their own home, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has revealed. [0]https://www.rt.com/uk/504813-scotland-hate-crime-at-home/ https://www.rt.com/uk/504813-scotland-hate-crime-at-home/ [Many other sources are available, if RT's line is not to your liking]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - nostromo 6y ago
      Laws like that make me want to kiss the Bill of Rights every morning here in the US.
      - Normille 6y ago
        It really is positively Orwellian. We've already seen many examples of how pwople's phone data has been used in prosecutions. How long before someone is taken to court for an un-PC remark which they made in the [supposed] privacy of their own home, but which was then picked up by their Alexa, transcribed at Amazon HQ and then reported to the authorities as a "hate crime"? I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" tends to merit a bucket load of downvotes here on HN. But I really do think we've arrived at a farcical situation in the West [especially in Europe] where legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy. With, ironically, the consequence that these same laws are actually making society less free and more controlled, as people are becoming too frightened to express opinions that don't conform, for fear of being branded a bigot / racist / sexist/ <alphabetti-spaghetti>phobe Ironic that so few people in the West can see that we're mirroring exactly the same kind of 'dissenting viewpoint not tolerated' society that we used to deride the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for and continue to condemn China for today.
rmrfstar 6y ago
I wonder if they've done any polling to figure out the level of surveillance they can impose without triggering a brain drain. I expect there is a phase-change somewhere before "all my communications are monitored in real time".
- ENGNR 6y ago
  My working assumption is that it's standard government reactionary stuff, hurr durr need more data to make my job easy
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  I wouldn't bet on it. This is entirely anedotal. But the vast majority of my co-workers I've spoken to don't seem to care about too much about things like privacy, free speech, open specs, source code availability and think I am a wacko for self hosting and running (mostly) applications and operating systems. However I am a .NET dev and the fact I am decent with a command line is seen as a bit odd. The general attitude I've encountered is well "it only happens to the bad people and nobody cares about what I do, so I don't need to worry about it and you must be a weirdo for worrying about it"
dagurp 6y ago
The right to bear arms should cover encryption.
- tyingq 6y ago
  Just for fun, a guy bearing a genuine once-export-restricted encryption arm: http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/ http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/
- tzs 6y ago
  Bearing arms is regulated in much of the US, so I'm not sure you'd actually gain anything if you got encryption to count as arms.
- nostromo 6y ago
  The Roe v Wade decision was based on an implied, if not explicit, right to privacy in the constitution. If the court is basing decisions like abortion access on a right to privacy, then they should also start enforcing an actual right to privacy, including access to encryption.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    Carpenter v. United States was 5-4, with Ginsburg in the majority. The textualists stacked up firmly against it. I wouldn't expect any help from SCOTUS for the next... ever. The textualist theory on privacy is basically: "no trespass, no problem". The trespass theory of privacy is why Scalia was in the majority on United States v. Jones (cant attach a GPS tracker to a car without a warrant) and Kyllo v. United States (cant invade the house with an IR camera without a warrant). The lack of a physical trespass explains why his intellectual bedfellows dissented in Carpenter.
  - bladegash 6y ago
    If you are going to cite a central argument to Roe v. Wade related to privacy, then you might as well mention the other argument in Roe v. Wade regarding the government’s interests in protecting an individual’s (in this case, the woman and fetuses’) health. The court balanced their decision between those two interests, hence why states are able to impose some restrictions against abortion after the first trimester. Given that, what does the balance here look like?
m0zg 6y ago
Speaking of spying on the populace, does anyone know why Palantir stock is on a tear for the past couple of days? There's nothing publicly known that would cause this. Is the new administration planning to tighten the bolts / expand the police state?
- _red 6y ago
  >Is the new administration planning to tighten the bolts / expand the police state? I wouldn't worry, any of his actions will be backed up by the required votes.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > I wouldn't worry I would. Spying and warmongering are those very few things that both major party establishments readily agree on, and I hate to pay for either of those things, or being spied upon even more than I already am.
- rzz3 6y ago
  Biden is a very pro-war, tough on crime politician. He voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, and drafted and sponsored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, the largest crime bill in American history. Biden’s win is a great signal for defense and law enforcement companies that spending will increase, so it makes sense. It’s likely a really great time to invest in these companies now that Trump has no chance of winning.
- jand 6y ago
  > There's nothing publicly known that would cause this. I cannot tell if [1] meets the requirements for being a reasonable cause in your (or anybody else's) opinion. Decide for yourself. [1] https://www.palantir.com/pt_media/palantir-is-providing-coronavirus-monitoring-to-the-cdc/ https://www.palantir.com/pt_media/palantir-is-providing-coro... Edit: [1] just contains a link to Forbes, so you can go directly to: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/03/31/palantir-the-20-billion-peter-thiel-backed-big-data-giant-is-providing-a-coronavirus-monitoring-tool-to-the-cdc https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/03/31/palan...
ohazi 6y ago
I wonder whether we're going to get a temporary break from this encryption surveillance ratchet with Biden as president, or if it'll continue regardless. This seems to be one of Barr's pet issues, and he's about to be shown the door. Still, opposition to encryption rights has historically not been partisan, so I'm not optimistic.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Under Biden will probably be similar to under Obama. In other words no.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    It depends. Biden is from an older generation and likely doesn’t view digital communication as an extension of “real life”. It’s just a convenient toy and when the “think of the children” arguments come out he’ll roll over like the rest of the boomers. Source: the many debates I got into with a bunch of old people angry that Apple wouldn’t unlock “a terrorist’s iPhone”.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- newyorker2 6y ago
  If there's anything Biden will do, is to enable the cause further.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I agree. Biden is old-school, firmly entrenched in the military-intelligence industrial complex. He's fully on board with backdoors. I guarantee it.
kebman 6y ago
As a matter of strategy, I doubt that developers aren't already downloading key cryptographic libraries out there in order to host them outside the USA. I think news like this might also encourage more people to program encrypted messaging and file transfer applications. I mean, who in here hasn't at least made a small cryptographic test with widely known libraries? The irony is that the more technology like this is outlawed, the more valuable it becomes to those who might find it useful, the flipside being that the less encrypted traffic there is, the easier it becomes to find those who use it. The only antidote to that, is more encrytped traffic.
- suifbwish 6y ago
  I don’t understand how they could ban strong encryption when everyone is gearing up for quantum resistance for blockchain technology. Once you have a distributed quantum resistant system good luck on that. There are so many ways this isn’t practical. If everyone just traded back and forth weakly encrypted garbage data chunks it would be indistinguishable from strong encryption. Also you can encrypt something with weak encryption, chunk the file then send them out in two directions and unless you have both or the chunking mechanism is really shitty that would be just as good as one single strong encryption stream. There’s just too many factors to cover for this to be practical. It’s fighting with mathematics and it’s a losing battle
  - tjoff 6y ago
    How is any of that relevant? If anything strong encryption gives better support of outlawing it, from a governments perspective. The fact that you can be a lawless individual and ignore it and obfuscate everything has no bearing on the legality of it. But it does mean that if they suspect you are doing anything illegal they don't have to figure out if you and what you are doing, since your obfuscation is enough to send you to jail.
    - suifbwish 6y ago
      I think you missed my point. Unless they make it illegal to transmit garbage data then there is no legal leg to stand on for prosecuting the use of encryption
rStar 6y ago
encryption for me but not for thee
dandanua 6y ago
Humans are mortal. It doesn't matter if you are a dictator or a janitor - you will die anyway. But the institutions, the system, the culture - will stay for much much longer. Those who build a centralized system that can control every aspect of humans life just don't realize they are building Hell on Earth. Decentralization and fairfull consensus between every acting party, no matter how much power they have - this is the only way to build a great culture and a system. Unfortunately, we are still too far from this. Too much people are still trying to build this ugly human pyramid of subordination, just like in a primal tribe or mafia organization.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. But it is possible to simultaneously have hierarchy and autonomy at the lowest level. Subsidiarity and distributism are the only things I am convinced will work. Every other endeavour ends up being a free-for-all (that ultimately is self destructive) or a dictorship (that eventually implodes).
  - justforyou 6y ago
    The entire spectrum of human behavior is natural, as is any conceivable action no matter how immoral. The observation of a behavior or inclanation in the wild is not a good basis for the structuring of a civilization.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      Like I replied elsewhere, I think because nature selects for survival, there is something to be learned from the fact that human societies always tend towards hierarchy. I am not saying we should there have as much hierarchy as possible, but I am certainly opposed to any form of anarchism (which I don't believe would last long anyway). Give anarchy a month at most, and you'll have leaders with followers popping up everywhere, which will eventually combine into a smaller number of large hierarchies.
  - leto_ii 6y ago
feanaro 6y ago
The US constitution should be amended with a right to encryption, making laws such as this one impossible. This is the only long-term way out of this mess.
- coolspot 6y ago
  It didn’t work with right to bear arms. You can’t bear arms in NY or CA because local law says so.
tinkywinky 6y ago
Interesting read thanks for bringing the topic to attention. I seriously doubt governments lack the surveillance tools and require more access with backdoors or breaking encryption. For example AES encryption calls CPU instructions to hardware that exists only by a few companies. DNS is either through a handful of public cache servers or captured at the OS level. The network backbone is by a handful of companies world wide. Of course the US is world leader of breaking privacy but this is theater
aborsy 6y ago
You can’t ban algorithms and ideas in practice. The output of an algorithm doesn’t prove that a particular algorithm has been used. Even then, anyone can modify and code algorithms. You can force companies to put backdoors in their encryption products, but the governments already do that (even though using them may not be convenient for them). Further, this will push crypto in the hands of people, and to outside US, to outside cloud, push for decentralization, which the US government doesn’t like. The security by and large lies in end points. Back-door in hardware, operating systems etc for access to key material seems to be the focus of the governments. It’s a golden age for intelligence agencies; they probably want a handle on the cloud.
zoobab 6y ago
You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  You can make deals with the companies that run app stores, however, and that’s the only tool the government needs in order to crush mass-adoption of encryption. I wish that Google and Apple would both recognize the threat that their business model poses to our freedom.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It’s not their business model that’s the problem. It’s the fact that the rest of us haven’t solved the problems of creating an open but also trustable and usable alternative.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics. Reminiscent of the 'bargaining' stage of grief. IOW, can't make 'deals' with death, either.
- cramexam 6y ago
  The widespread deployment of some math can be regulated, and this would have the same effect. Most consumers won't know the difference whether their Whatsapp encryption has a lawful access mechanism. For a small percentage of users with the means and motivation, this may be true, but "making a deal with math/science" likely isn't the goal.
cesarb 6y ago
> Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. Do "large business enterprises" use exclusively "customized encryption", or do they use the same encryption "consumer products" use? In my experience, it's the later. The biggest example is TLS: for instance, every business which uses Microsoft Office 365 relies on the same TLS used by "consumer products". The same applies to full disk encryption (BitLocker and/or LUKS), smart phones (large business do use smart phones, and they are the same smart phones everyone else uses), email, and so on. As a personal example, the software we develop at work is used by "large business enterprises". When we added encryption to it, we didn't use "customized encryption"; we used standard TLS.
cute_boi 6y ago
I am amused by the fact the country where guns are legal and used by many bad people doesn't ban it. But they are trying to ban encryption used by every people that used internet. What a time!
- xeyownt 6y ago
  One billion time this!
- glitcher 6y ago
  Good comparison! One is viewed as a tool for people to protect themselves and their families, while the other is viewed as a tool for bad people to hurt other people and their families.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    To expound on that distinction, I think it is easy for people to imagine a scary armed criminal, perhaps breaking into their house, and imagine being able to stop them by brandishing or shooting a gun at them. It is comparatively harder for people to build a mental model of how encryption stops an unseen hacker accessing their data, and obviously most people value their life more than their data. The difference in threat models applicable to end-to-end encryption versus hop-by-hop encryption is even more subtle, allowing disingenuous politicians to claim to support encryption while simultaneously weakening it.
BearsAreCool 6y ago
If anyone is curious why some senator called Graham seems to be popping up in every bill that poses a threat to the internet, its because he sponsors or co-sponsors most of them. On congress.gov you can get a nice listing of everything he's done recently [1]. In summary, he either sponsored or co-sponsored this encryption act, the EARN-IT act (more anti-encryption), the OCPA (make websites liable for moderation errors), and another seperate law to amend section 230. He has also co-sponsored legislation in support of privacy of personal identifiable information, but not for the general population or anything just US Federal judges [2]. [1] https://www.congress.gov/member/lindsey-graham/G000359 https://www.congress.gov/member/lindsey-graham/G000359 [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4711?s=4&r=2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/471...
foolzcrow 6y ago
Our leaders truly want us subjugated for life in digital hell. Now they can steal elections and news will cover for them even with video evidence and confessions.
specialist 6y ago
I find three things about the encryption debate really weird. #1 Split brain The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. So at least some of the players understand the practical need for encryption. I'd rather those pro and con insiders fight it out, instead of fighting by proxy thru us citizens and consumers. #2 Fishing expeditions What possible value does unlocking, decryption have after the fact? Does the FBI really need to unlock a spree shooter's iPhone? Why? What could they possibly learn? They already have all the meta data like FOAF, location, purchases. What more are they looking for? To better establish guilt? And any one already under surveillance has already had their entire life rootkitted. So again no need for after the fact unlocking. #3 Trusting trust, time boxed secrecy I've had many, many fruitless conversations about computer security (wrt election integrity) with non-tech policy makers. I have yet to figure out how to convey the understanding that backdoors and security thru obscurity is no security at all. The best policy compromise proposal that I can imagine, and I'm spitballing here, is formalizing some kind of temporal privacy. Using voting and secret ballots as an example: I absolutely do not want any one any where to know anyone's votes during an election. I don't even want precounts, so that pols and admins can preview tabulations. But I also don't care at all if someone knows how I voted after the election is certified. (Sure, there's still some risk of coercion and vote buying. But there are easier attack vectors for which we have no mitigation, so it's comparatively minor.) So instead of trying to protect all secrets for all time, I think all the players might be able to chill a bit if we time boxed most secrets. (I have other proposals for protecting personal privacy, like with medical records.)
- judge2020 6y ago
  > The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. This is probably why "same" is in quotes, but it's clear that this is higher-up political players wanting more power to spy on the people in the name law enforcement - tor came from the military who made the tech to fix an actual problem they had (encrypted communication).
- cramexam 6y ago
  > decryption after the fact For example, the cleartext has evidence of a crime, and law enforcement needs a way to access that info. > backdoors Responsibly built lawful access doesn't necessarily use backdoors or flaws, but rather 3rd party access.
kordlessagain 6y ago
> Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) today introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act Lindsey Graham is a turtle.
- ayemiller 6y ago
  I think you've got the wrong guy.
doc_gunthrop 6y ago
It's a real shame that far too many people's opinions can be made by simply arguing the four horsemen of the infocalypse[0]. These are the same types of arguments used by certain groups to promulgate their own agendas at the cost of individual liberties. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
mttddd 6y ago
I dont feel particularly strongly one way or another on the encryption debate but everyone always points at the fact that crimes like child exploitation have existed for forever or that bad actors will just move to encrypted platforms. That ignores the fact that 1. things like Facebook are still relatively new and greatly enable these bad actors and 2. as the times article presents these platforms report a shit ton of this stuff so while I am sure there are plenty of bad actors moving to say signal there are plenty of others who aren't. It will be interesting to see how things play out though since section 230 reform seems pretty bi partisan. While that doesnt necessarily mean the reform needs to address encryption I would be surprised if it doesn't

242 points by freddyym 6y ago

Perhaps we're using the wrong metaphor - lock your doors. Congress wants to ban door locks to your home, your car, your gun safe?

shakna 6y ago

fedreserved 6y ago
Don't worry big business we don't mind you guys keeps your secrets secret. It's the plebs that the fourth amendment shouldnt apply to. Their wet dream is the current state of affairs on the fourth amendment. Even though all of our communications are are captured on some servers in Utah, it's not a search and seizure unless we "look at the communcation". Wink wink
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Protecting consumer data is protecting a business' operations. Not really. The article was trying to create a distinction between internal business uses and consumer Internet use. An example might be branch-branch bank communications. You could probably argue either way about whether that is more valuable or not than tweets. You're only viewing it from an end-user Internet privacy viewpoint. Using SSL on HN is not in the same league as banking. For younger HN readers who weren't around during the PGP war in the 80's/90's, it's expected that governments will keep reviving bills like this until they win, so eternal vigilance is needed. Also, LEO will always push for the laziest method of getting their job done, hence stingers and cell phone tower dumps.
roenxi 6y ago
Allow me to put some words in Barr's mouth for you: "I work in law enforcement, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that the public might have effective tools to communicate privately. But I can't say that directly because then people who aren't paying attention will be upset. So instead I'll be a bit confused about what my point is and draw some distinctions that don't make sense" There is a very compelling case that law enforcement should be denied some powers even at the risk of criminals escaping justice. That case is complicated and takes several pages to explain. It is rare that law enforcement officials will make that case, and rare that the public understands when law enforcement is too powerful.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  > That case is complicated and takes several pages to explain Then we've reached a crisis point in our moral development, because that statement had been axiomatic since the founding of this country. "That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law." [1] [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/courses/cs5436/warren-brandeis.pdf https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/courses/cs5436/warren-bran...
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Totally agree, this is a corner stone of any democracy. It’s hard to think one can exist without good protections for citizens.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  IDK if it's rare that they make this case. It depends on what the are promoting or defending. Or rather, it's rare that anyone (including people against this war on encryption) makes a blunt argument that criminals will escape because the police are constrained. The blunt tradeoffs argument is from a classroom or bar. It's not the kind of argument that will be made (bluntly) in a legal, policy or legislative setting. In any case... I don't think "denied some powers" should be assessed against "risk of criminals escaping justice." One is abstract and the other concrete. The actual tradeoff is between criminals escaping and actual abuse of power by law enforcement. Some amount of both is guaranteed. This tips the scale.

rbecker 6y ago

> “warrant-proof” encryption Like “warrant-proof” rooms and houses that, even with a valid warrant, won't record conversations and send them to the police. And just like encryption, those “warrant-proof” protections can be circumvented by planting physical or software bugs on target houses or computers. They're not complaining that law enforcement can't subvert privacy protections - they're complaining that they're not already subverted, ahead of time, for everyone.

rmrfstar 6y ago
After we get rid of warrant-proof window shades, we'll get to the real problem. We all know what it is: Thought Crime.
- Normille 6y ago
  >...We all know what it is: Thought Crime... Scotland's proposed new Hate Crime Bill would pretty much take care of that angle.[0] >Scotland’s proposed hate crime bill will penalise anyone whipping up hatred against “protected groups.” That includes people making “insulting” remarks within their own home, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has revealed. [0]https://www.rt.com/uk/504813-scotland-hate-crime-at-home/ https://www.rt.com/uk/504813-scotland-hate-crime-at-home/ [Many other sources are available, if RT's line is not to your liking]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Laws like that make me want to kiss the Bill of Rights every morning here in the US.
    - Normille 6y ago
      It really is positively Orwellian. We've already seen many examples of how pwople's phone data has been used in prosecutions. How long before someone is taken to court for an un-PC remark which they made in the [supposed] privacy of their own home, but which was then picked up by their Alexa, transcribed at Amazon HQ and then reported to the authorities as a "hate crime"? I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" tends to merit a bucket load of downvotes here on HN. But I really do think we've arrived at a farcical situation in the West [especially in Europe] where legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy. With, ironically, the consequence that these same laws are actually making society less free and more controlled, as people are becoming too frightened to express opinions that don't conform, for fear of being branded a bigot / racist / sexist/ <alphabetti-spaghetti>phobe Ironic that so few people in the West can see that we're mirroring exactly the same kind of 'dissenting viewpoint not tolerated' society that we used to deride the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for and continue to condemn China for today.

rmrfstar 6y ago

I wonder if they've done any polling to figure out the level of surveillance they can impose without triggering a brain drain. I expect there is a phase-change somewhere before "all my communications are monitored in real time".

ENGNR 6y ago
My working assumption is that it's standard government reactionary stuff, hurr durr need more data to make my job easy
forest_dweller 6y ago
I wouldn't bet on it. This is entirely anedotal. But the vast majority of my co-workers I've spoken to don't seem to care about too much about things like privacy, free speech, open specs, source code availability and think I am a wacko for self hosting and running (mostly) applications and operating systems. However I am a .NET dev and the fact I am decent with a command line is seen as a bit odd. The general attitude I've encountered is well "it only happens to the bad people and nobody cares about what I do, so I don't need to worry about it and you must be a weirdo for worrying about it"

dagurp 6y ago

The right to bear arms should cover encryption.

tyingq 6y ago
Just for fun, a guy bearing a genuine once-export-restricted encryption arm: http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/ http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/
tzs 6y ago
Bearing arms is regulated in much of the US, so I'm not sure you'd actually gain anything if you got encryption to count as arms.
nostromo 6y ago
The Roe v Wade decision was based on an implied, if not explicit, right to privacy in the constitution. If the court is basing decisions like abortion access on a right to privacy, then they should also start enforcing an actual right to privacy, including access to encryption.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Carpenter v. United States was 5-4, with Ginsburg in the majority. The textualists stacked up firmly against it. I wouldn't expect any help from SCOTUS for the next... ever. The textualist theory on privacy is basically: "no trespass, no problem". The trespass theory of privacy is why Scalia was in the majority on United States v. Jones (cant attach a GPS tracker to a car without a warrant) and Kyllo v. United States (cant invade the house with an IR camera without a warrant). The lack of a physical trespass explains why his intellectual bedfellows dissented in Carpenter.
- bladegash 6y ago
  If you are going to cite a central argument to Roe v. Wade related to privacy, then you might as well mention the other argument in Roe v. Wade regarding the government’s interests in protecting an individual’s (in this case, the woman and fetuses’) health. The court balanced their decision between those two interests, hence why states are able to impose some restrictions against abortion after the first trimester. Given that, what does the balance here look like?

m0zg 6y ago

Speaking of spying on the populace, does anyone know why Palantir stock is on a tear for the past couple of days? There's nothing publicly known that would cause this. Is the new administration planning to tighten the bolts / expand the police state?

_red 6y ago
>Is the new administration planning to tighten the bolts / expand the police state? I wouldn't worry, any of his actions will be backed up by the required votes.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > I wouldn't worry I would. Spying and warmongering are those very few things that both major party establishments readily agree on, and I hate to pay for either of those things, or being spied upon even more than I already am.
rzz3 6y ago
Biden is a very pro-war, tough on crime politician. He voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, and drafted and sponsored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, the largest crime bill in American history. Biden’s win is a great signal for defense and law enforcement companies that spending will increase, so it makes sense. It’s likely a really great time to invest in these companies now that Trump has no chance of winning.
jand 6y ago
> There's nothing publicly known that would cause this. I cannot tell if [1] meets the requirements for being a reasonable cause in your (or anybody else's) opinion. Decide for yourself. [1] https://www.palantir.com/pt_media/palantir-is-providing-coronavirus-monitoring-to-the-cdc/ https://www.palantir.com/pt_media/palantir-is-providing-coro... Edit: [1] just contains a link to Forbes, so you can go directly to: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/03/31/palantir-the-20-billion-peter-thiel-backed-big-data-giant-is-providing-a-coronavirus-monitoring-tool-to-the-cdc https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/03/31/palan...

ohazi 6y ago

I wonder whether we're going to get a temporary break from this encryption surveillance ratchet with Biden as president, or if it'll continue regardless. This seems to be one of Barr's pet issues, and he's about to be shown the door. Still, opposition to encryption rights has historically not been partisan, so I'm not optimistic.

mythrwy 6y ago
Under Biden will probably be similar to under Obama. In other words no.
- kortilla 6y ago
  It depends. Biden is from an older generation and likely doesn’t view digital communication as an extension of “real life”. It’s just a convenient toy and when the “think of the children” arguments come out he’ll roll over like the rest of the boomers. Source: the many debates I got into with a bunch of old people angry that Apple wouldn’t unlock “a terrorist’s iPhone”.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
newyorker2 6y ago
If there's anything Biden will do, is to enable the cause further.
- refurb 6y ago
  I agree. Biden is old-school, firmly entrenched in the military-intelligence industrial complex. He's fully on board with backdoors. I guarantee it.

kebman 6y ago

As a matter of strategy, I doubt that developers aren't already downloading key cryptographic libraries out there in order to host them outside the USA. I think news like this might also encourage more people to program encrypted messaging and file transfer applications. I mean, who in here hasn't at least made a small cryptographic test with widely known libraries? The irony is that the more technology like this is outlawed, the more valuable it becomes to those who might find it useful, the flipside being that the less encrypted traffic there is, the easier it becomes to find those who use it. The only antidote to that, is more encrytped traffic.

suifbwish 6y ago
I don’t understand how they could ban strong encryption when everyone is gearing up for quantum resistance for blockchain technology. Once you have a distributed quantum resistant system good luck on that. There are so many ways this isn’t practical. If everyone just traded back and forth weakly encrypted garbage data chunks it would be indistinguishable from strong encryption. Also you can encrypt something with weak encryption, chunk the file then send them out in two directions and unless you have both or the chunking mechanism is really shitty that would be just as good as one single strong encryption stream. There’s just too many factors to cover for this to be practical. It’s fighting with mathematics and it’s a losing battle
- tjoff 6y ago
  How is any of that relevant? If anything strong encryption gives better support of outlawing it, from a governments perspective. The fact that you can be a lawless individual and ignore it and obfuscate everything has no bearing on the legality of it. But it does mean that if they suspect you are doing anything illegal they don't have to figure out if you and what you are doing, since your obfuscation is enough to send you to jail.
  - suifbwish 6y ago
    I think you missed my point. Unless they make it illegal to transmit garbage data then there is no legal leg to stand on for prosecuting the use of encryption

rStar 6y ago

encryption for me but not for thee

dandanua 6y ago

Humans are mortal. It doesn't matter if you are a dictator or a janitor - you will die anyway. But the institutions, the system, the culture - will stay for much much longer. Those who build a centralized system that can control every aspect of humans life just don't realize they are building Hell on Earth. Decentralization and fairfull consensus between every acting party, no matter how much power they have - this is the only way to build a great culture and a system. Unfortunately, we are still too far from this. Too much people are still trying to build this ugly human pyramid of subordination, just like in a primal tribe or mafia organization.

Thorentis 6y ago
I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. But it is possible to simultaneously have hierarchy and autonomy at the lowest level. Subsidiarity and distributism are the only things I am convinced will work. Every other endeavour ends up being a free-for-all (that ultimately is self destructive) or a dictorship (that eventually implodes).
- justforyou 6y ago
  The entire spectrum of human behavior is natural, as is any conceivable action no matter how immoral. The observation of a behavior or inclanation in the wild is not a good basis for the structuring of a civilization.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Like I replied elsewhere, I think because nature selects for survival, there is something to be learned from the fact that human societies always tend towards hierarchy. I am not saying we should there have as much hierarchy as possible, but I am certainly opposed to any form of anarchism (which I don't believe would last long anyway). Give anarchy a month at most, and you'll have leaders with followers popping up everywhere, which will eventually combine into a smaller number of large hierarchies.
- leto_ii 6y ago

feanaro 6y ago

The US constitution should be amended with a right to encryption, making laws such as this one impossible. This is the only long-term way out of this mess.

coolspot 6y ago
It didn’t work with right to bear arms. You can’t bear arms in NY or CA because local law says so.

tinkywinky 6y ago

Interesting read thanks for bringing the topic to attention. I seriously doubt governments lack the surveillance tools and require more access with backdoors or breaking encryption. For example AES encryption calls CPU instructions to hardware that exists only by a few companies. DNS is either through a handful of public cache servers or captured at the OS level. The network backbone is by a handful of companies world wide. Of course the US is world leader of breaking privacy but this is theater

aborsy 6y ago

You can’t ban algorithms and ideas in practice. The output of an algorithm doesn’t prove that a particular algorithm has been used. Even then, anyone can modify and code algorithms. You can force companies to put backdoors in their encryption products, but the governments already do that (even though using them may not be convenient for them). Further, this will push crypto in the hands of people, and to outside US, to outside cloud, push for decentralization, which the US government doesn’t like. The security by and large lies in end points. Back-door in hardware, operating systems etc for access to key material seems to be the focus of the governments. It’s a golden age for intelligence agencies; they probably want a handle on the cloud.

zoobab 6y ago

You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
You can make deals with the companies that run app stores, however, and that’s the only tool the government needs in order to crush mass-adoption of encryption. I wish that Google and Apple would both recognize the threat that their business model poses to our freedom.
- zepto 6y ago
  It’s not their business model that’s the problem. It’s the fact that the rest of us haven’t solved the problems of creating an open but also trustable and usable alternative.
webmaven 6y ago
> You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics. Reminiscent of the 'bargaining' stage of grief. IOW, can't make 'deals' with death, either.
cramexam 6y ago
The widespread deployment of some math can be regulated, and this would have the same effect. Most consumers won't know the difference whether their Whatsapp encryption has a lawful access mechanism. For a small percentage of users with the means and motivation, this may be true, but "making a deal with math/science" likely isn't the goal.

cesarb 6y ago

> Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. Do "large business enterprises" use exclusively "customized encryption", or do they use the same encryption "consumer products" use? In my experience, it's the later. The biggest example is TLS: for instance, every business which uses Microsoft Office 365 relies on the same TLS used by "consumer products". The same applies to full disk encryption (BitLocker and/or LUKS), smart phones (large business do use smart phones, and they are the same smart phones everyone else uses), email, and so on. As a personal example, the software we develop at work is used by "large business enterprises". When we added encryption to it, we didn't use "customized encryption"; we used standard TLS.

cute_boi 6y ago

I am amused by the fact the country where guns are legal and used by many bad people doesn't ban it. But they are trying to ban encryption used by every people that used internet. What a time!

xeyownt 6y ago
One billion time this!
glitcher 6y ago
Good comparison! One is viewed as a tool for people to protect themselves and their families, while the other is viewed as a tool for bad people to hurt other people and their families.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  To expound on that distinction, I think it is easy for people to imagine a scary armed criminal, perhaps breaking into their house, and imagine being able to stop them by brandishing or shooting a gun at them. It is comparatively harder for people to build a mental model of how encryption stops an unseen hacker accessing their data, and obviously most people value their life more than their data. The difference in threat models applicable to end-to-end encryption versus hop-by-hop encryption is even more subtle, allowing disingenuous politicians to claim to support encryption while simultaneously weakening it.

BearsAreCool 6y ago

If anyone is curious why some senator called Graham seems to be popping up in every bill that poses a threat to the internet, its because he sponsors or co-sponsors most of them. On congress.gov you can get a nice listing of everything he's done recently [1]. In summary, he either sponsored or co-sponsored this encryption act, the EARN-IT act (more anti-encryption), the OCPA (make websites liable for moderation errors), and another seperate law to amend section 230. He has also co-sponsored legislation in support of privacy of personal identifiable information, but not for the general population or anything just US Federal judges [2]. [1] https://www.congress.gov/member/lindsey-graham/G000359 https://www.congress.gov/member/lindsey-graham/G000359 [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4711?s=4&r=2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/471...

foolzcrow 6y ago

Our leaders truly want us subjugated for life in digital hell. Now they can steal elections and news will cover for them even with video evidence and confessions.

specialist 6y ago

I find three things about the encryption debate really weird. #1 Split brain The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. So at least some of the players understand the practical need for encryption. I'd rather those pro and con insiders fight it out, instead of fighting by proxy thru us citizens and consumers. #2 Fishing expeditions What possible value does unlocking, decryption have after the fact? Does the FBI really need to unlock a spree shooter's iPhone? Why? What could they possibly learn? They already have all the meta data like FOAF, location, purchases. What more are they looking for? To better establish guilt? And any one already under surveillance has already had their entire life rootkitted. So again no need for after the fact unlocking. #3 Trusting trust, time boxed secrecy I've had many, many fruitless conversations about computer security (wrt election integrity) with non-tech policy makers. I have yet to figure out how to convey the understanding that backdoors and security thru obscurity is no security at all. The best policy compromise proposal that I can imagine, and I'm spitballing here, is formalizing some kind of temporal privacy. Using voting and secret ballots as an example: I absolutely do not want any one any where to know anyone's votes during an election. I don't even want precounts, so that pols and admins can preview tabulations. But I also don't care at all if someone knows how I voted after the election is certified. (Sure, there's still some risk of coercion and vote buying. But there are easier attack vectors for which we have no mitigation, so it's comparatively minor.) So instead of trying to protect all secrets for all time, I think all the players might be able to chill a bit if we time boxed most secrets. (I have other proposals for protecting personal privacy, like with medical records.)

judge2020 6y ago
> The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. This is probably why "same" is in quotes, but it's clear that this is higher-up political players wanting more power to spy on the people in the name law enforcement - tor came from the military who made the tech to fix an actual problem they had (encrypted communication).
cramexam 6y ago
> decryption after the fact For example, the cleartext has evidence of a crime, and law enforcement needs a way to access that info. > backdoors Responsibly built lawful access doesn't necessarily use backdoors or flaws, but rather 3rd party access.

kordlessagain 6y ago

> Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) today introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act Lindsey Graham is a turtle.

ayemiller 6y ago
I think you've got the wrong guy.

doc_gunthrop 6y ago

It's a real shame that far too many people's opinions can be made by simply arguing the four horsemen of the infocalypse[0]. These are the same types of arguments used by certain groups to promulgate their own agendas at the cost of individual liberties. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

mttddd 6y ago

I dont feel particularly strongly one way or another on the encryption debate but everyone always points at the fact that crimes like child exploitation have existed for forever or that bad actors will just move to encrypted platforms. That ignores the fact that 1. things like Facebook are still relatively new and greatly enable these bad actors and 2. as the times article presents these platforms report a shit ton of this stuff so while I am sure there are plenty of bad actors moving to say signal there are plenty of others who aren't. It will be interesting to see how things play out though since section 230 reform seems pretty bi partisan. While that doesnt necessarily mean the reform needs to address encryption I would be surprised if it doesn't