4 ms·
I dont understand why the US people still trust these agencies. FBI, CIA, NSA have all shown to act against the democracy in many cases. If they could be truste
by cies 6y ago
I dont understand why the US people still trust these agencies. FBI, CIA, NSA have all shown to act against the democracy in many cases. If they could be trusted, they could be trusted with a backdoor. Since they cannot be trusted, the backdoor only makes them a more dangerous enemy of the people.
- Deestan 6y agoNobody can be "trusted" with a backdoor, because it isn't really a valid concept. A backdoor is a vulnerability that doesn't care who you are or what your purpose is or who pays you. If you found the backdoor it is open to you. However hard the backdoor's security is, an insider recruited by Swedish intelligence (or Russia whatever the bogeyman du jour is) will leak the key at some point. Now all your "secure" shit can be accessed invisibly by Swedish hackers. By its very nature, the backdoor cannot easily be changed and its use cannot be detected. A mundane example is the TSA keys. In addition to being leaked by greedy insiders making a quick buck, they've been leaked by accident several times. E.g. https://hackaday.com/2015/09/18/dear-tsa-this-is-why-you-shouldnt-post-pictures-of-your-keys-online/ https://hackaday.com/2015/09/18/dear-tsa-this-is-why-you-sho... They are now public knowledge, and a backdoor into your luggage from anyone who cares enough to file up a key.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThe TSA masterkey case is an interesting analogue example. I don't know much about locks, but I wonder how it could ever be secure, even if they never leaked photos of the masterkeys. In principle, it should be possible to reverse-engineer the shape of the masterkey from any masterkey-compatible lock. Would it be practical to do this?
- formerly_proven 6y ago- It is not secure - You can make/buy them - Luggage locks are all garbage anyway Most mechanical locks are garbage and neither resistant to practical physical attacks nor at all pick resistant. Many are vulnerable to super-generic low-skill attacks like bump keys and comb picks. Many electronic locks are garbage. Smart locks are complete garbage. See https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ for many practical examples.
- topkeks 6y agoI don't understand why Americans always use those garbage locks even in their homes. You never see such shitty locks in Northern Europe. Literally everyone is using Abloys.
- leetcrew 6y agophysical locks are meant only to deter casual/opportunistic attacks. LPL essentially makes this point in the video on his home security setup. it's pointless to spend a lot of money on a front door lock that takes more effort to pick than it takes to force open the door or smash a window.
- lallysingh 6y agoThis is the same TSA that's shown those keys in photo ops?
- poundofshrimp 6y agoJust give the government a copy of the private key. What could go wrong? It’s not like anyone is hacking into the government these days.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y agoWhat about hardware backdoors where you would need physical access to the device?
- peteretep 6y agoWhat’s the alternative?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- KMag 6y agoThe alternative is to design systems, structures, and procedures more robust against infiltration by selfish actors or actors loyal to foreign governments. "Defense in depth" instead of assuming you can ring fence the good guys, etc. Law enforcement ends up having to rely more on undercover work and informants, as it used to in the past. The CIA and NSA end up getting less intelligence for the same budget, but conversely, spies who infiltrate the CIA, NSA, etc. get less bang for their buck, as well.
- DocTomoe 6y agoThis is a wrong premise. The US people don't have to trust them, ultimately, their opinion is not important. What is important is that whoever currently is in power considers them useful - which is easy to achieve. And no political candidate who is likely to take office will take a stand against what in the end will be the tools they use once they are elected. For the citizenry, the only way to deal with this situation is to avoid storing data, and hardening their devices.
- cies 6y agoOr fix the demoncracy back into a democracy.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoI disagree that the elected officials are the ones that ultimately hold the power here. Part of both the CIA and NSA's job is to control elections, any candidate truly opposing them would have to overcome that.
- garmaine 6y agoWhy do you think we have any control or say over the situation?
- cies 6y agoWell, you shout really loud yr a democracy. Basically saying you have no control is saying that the US is no democracy.
- sneak 6y agoThe US does not have equal protection under the law, and the laws are enforced arbitrarily to carry out the will of the military and the ownership class. The thing you reference is just a cover story. It's plain as day to anyone paying attention who runs that country. There is no party you can vote for that will stop the perpetual war or perpetual ubiquitous surveillance, despite a vast majority of people in the country being against both war and surveillance.
- cies 6y agoWholeheartedly agree. Hence it is about trust (my first point) and/or absence of democracy. And this is a bigger issue than encryption, IMHO.
- sneak 6y agoSure, but life continues in the absence of democracy, and encryption is useful in the short term in that life. Building a democracy where none exists is a multigenerational task.
- mannerheim 6y agoIs there a vast majority against surveillance? > A majority of voters say they are satisfied with the authority given to U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor Americans suspected of committing a crime, according to a poll released Thursday. > Fifty-one percent of respondents in a recent Hill-HarrisX survey said the intelligence community has the "right amount of power" in determining who should be subject to government surveillance. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433071-poll-most-americans-are-satisfied-with-intelligence-agencies https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433071-pol...
- scruffyherder 6y agoI voted with my feet. Life outside the five eyes has been... interesting
- gibspaulding 6y agoI would love to hear more about this. Have you written about the process anywhere? Would you be comfortable saying where you moved?
- yownie 6y agoAll governments (potentially) being (the deadliest) enemies of the general public used to be generally understood in all democratic circles. Most people seem to have forgotten, and/or don't read their histories.
- alkonaut 6y agoWhat's the alternative to having law enforcement agencies at any level (whether that is on a regional or national level doesn't really matter?) with democratic oversight? If the democratic oversight fails and transparency suffers, then the outcome will be less than ideal. But the answer is hardly "remove law enforcement authorities from level x", surely it must be improved transparency and oversight? Also, no agency can be trusted with a back door. Back doors are available for all actors or no actor. An NSA back door to encryption is also a back door used by an authoritarian regime. There are no "exclusive" back doors.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>But the answer is hardly "remove law enforcement authorities from level x", surely it must be improved transparency and oversight? You can use this to argue that the FBI and parts of the DHS should still exist in some form, but the CIA, NSA and military intelligence agencies are not law enforcement.
- clipradiowallet 6y ago> I dont understand why the US people still trust these agencies We DON'T trust them. We have about as much say in what those agencies do as a random shop keeper in 1980's USSR does with the KGB.
- judge2020 6y agoWe don't trust them, but we do expect them to stop exceedingly violent crime, ie. terrorism and csam - and they do that well. A lot of americans don't care at all, though, and trust them regardless because they 'have nothing to hide'.