3 ms·

> Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer p

by 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.

by 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.