4 ms·

I'm skeptical whether E2EE is the right lever here. We've seen that a sufficiently motivated government will figure out a way - exploiting security holes, backd

I'm skeptical whether E2EE is the right lever here. We've seen that a sufficiently motivated government will figure out a way - exploiting security holes, backdooring personal devices, all the way to physically tapping fiber cables. E2EE is the software engineer knee jerk technical solution, but you need to keep in mind you're dealing with an entity that has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources, long term motivation, the ability to force co-opt more or less everyone, and can amortize the cost over many cases. Which is to say: in the long run I'd bet on E2EE not working out. And that's not to speak of all the technical disadvantages and complexity of E2EE, e.g. around searchability. The right tool to solve this problem is (constitutional) law. We need to enshrine appropriate rights, and in a way that cannot be worked around with legal tricks. Also, maybe controversially, there are cases where I believe it's entirely legit for the government to seize communications (some subset of severe criminal cases), once approved by a proper judge, with due process. I'd rather live in a society where there's a defined process for this, with appropriate legal scrutiny over both process and the targets, then in a society where we attempt to fight the government and it's a constant arms race. Not having a process means certain motivated actors get to cry "somebody think of the children" and then throw all legal protections over board.

xvector 5y ago
I am speaking from the perspective that all governments are corrupt, and as history shows, all governments can and one day will betray the trust of their citizens. If we want to preserve our privacy, then solid cryptography is our best bet. On the software side we are eliminating entire classes of vulnerabilities with advancements like memory-safe languages and strong containerization. The government would end up burning all their zero days if they attempted surveillance on anywhere near the dystopian scale of today. I agree that these rights should be enshrined in law, but practical reality means that we have to take our privacy into our own hands.
- Nitramp 5y ago
  > I am speaking from the perspective that all governments are corrupt, and as history shows, all governments can and one day will betray the trust of their citizens. I think it's worth being carefully about not falling into absolutes. Yes, some governments, or rather some sub-parts of some governments, are corrupt. Yes, over centuries expect things to go south. But existence proof that some government somewhere sometime was corrupt does not mean all are, and doesn't mean you can never trust rule of the law. > The government would end up burning all their zero days if they attempted surveillance [...] The government will buy a $5 wrench, https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/. The only thing that keeps the government from doing that already is the rule of law. Cryptography is a good protection from illegal actors, or from foreign powers etc; if you're fighting something that has immediate physical power over you, I believe the best bet is enforcing limits for the government in a democratic society.
atatatat 5y ago
The Fourth Amendment exists in US. Find someone to enforce it.
- Nitramp 5y ago
  Right, but it's not that black and white. There are exceptions for law enforcement, and details as to where it is applicable. My point is that the solution is in politics and law making, to regulate these details. Case in point: in my continental European home country, cloud emails are protected the same way as all your other communications, where in the US it appears they are not (?). Which is to say: similar basic rules may yield pretty different outcomes, and the difference I believe is in politics.
  - xvector 5y ago
    The point is that in the US, there are not exceptions to our constitutional rights, but the government itself routinely engages in unconstitutional and illegal covert surveillance of citizens. We already have the rights you discuss enshrined in our founding document, but the government just... ignores it. At this point the only real solution is well-applied cryptography.
    - Nitramp 5y ago
      > the government itself routinely engages in unconstitutional and illegal covert surveillance of citizens. This must be the subject of legal and political debate, right? Otherwise people would sue in the Supreme Court (or have already done that)? > At this point the only real solution is well-applied cryptography. See the other comment about the $5 wrench. I believe cryptography at best can attempt to patch some failures temporarily. The only long term fix is fixing the government.
denton-scratch 5y ago
"an entity that has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources" When discussing cryptography, it makes a difference whether your adversary has "unlimited" resources, or just a lot of resources. There are challenges in cryptanalysis that cannot be solved even if you throw a planet-load of resources at them; but given literally unlimited resources, are simple. "I'd bet on E2EE not working out" You mean, you'll bet money that a government can eventually technically defeat any cryptography? Or do you mean that a government will do an end-run around E2EE? If you mean the former, I'll take your bet; one beer-voucher says you're wrong. It's easier to devise strong ciphers than to crack them. If you mean the latter, then I'm not playing. Political and social developments "in the long run" are too chaotic for me to want to wager.
- Nitramp 5y ago
  > You mean, you'll bet money that a government can eventually technically defeat any cryptography? Or do you mean that a government will do an end-run around E2EE? Hard crypto is hard, no debate there. My point is that the government will find a way around, e.g. by coercing you to give up keys, coercing an intermediate to backdoor your device(s), hacking your device etc. You're facing an APT that also has physical power of you. The only winning move is getting control over the APT/your government through the rule of law.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I've never been much of a fan of legislation that touches the internet, because it's invariably bad law, drafted by people who are afraid of the internet because they don't understand it. You're right, cryptography isn't a solution to all privacy problems; you also need to conceal from your government/APT the very fact that you are communicating. OPSEC in general, really.
    - Nitramp 5y ago
      Concealing doesn't work if you communicate in public or semi-public settings (e.g. a WhatsApp group). I think that's a deal breaker for many if not most people.

xvector 5y ago

I am speaking from the perspective that all governments are corrupt, and as history shows, all governments can and one day will betray the trust of their citizens. If we want to preserve our privacy, then solid cryptography is our best bet. On the software side we are eliminating entire classes of vulnerabilities with advancements like memory-safe languages and strong containerization. The government would end up burning all their zero days if they attempted surveillance on anywhere near the dystopian scale of today. I agree that these rights should be enshrined in law, but practical reality means that we have to take our privacy into our own hands.

Nitramp 5y ago
> I am speaking from the perspective that all governments are corrupt, and as history shows, all governments can and one day will betray the trust of their citizens. I think it's worth being carefully about not falling into absolutes. Yes, some governments, or rather some sub-parts of some governments, are corrupt. Yes, over centuries expect things to go south. But existence proof that some government somewhere sometime was corrupt does not mean all are, and doesn't mean you can never trust rule of the law. > The government would end up burning all their zero days if they attempted surveillance [...] The government will buy a $5 wrench, https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/. The only thing that keeps the government from doing that already is the rule of law. Cryptography is a good protection from illegal actors, or from foreign powers etc; if you're fighting something that has immediate physical power over you, I believe the best bet is enforcing limits for the government in a democratic society.

atatatat 5y ago

The Fourth Amendment exists in US. Find someone to enforce it.

Nitramp 5y ago
Right, but it's not that black and white. There are exceptions for law enforcement, and details as to where it is applicable. My point is that the solution is in politics and law making, to regulate these details. Case in point: in my continental European home country, cloud emails are protected the same way as all your other communications, where in the US it appears they are not (?). Which is to say: similar basic rules may yield pretty different outcomes, and the difference I believe is in politics.
- xvector 5y ago
  The point is that in the US, there are not exceptions to our constitutional rights, but the government itself routinely engages in unconstitutional and illegal covert surveillance of citizens. We already have the rights you discuss enshrined in our founding document, but the government just... ignores it. At this point the only real solution is well-applied cryptography.
  - Nitramp 5y ago
    > the government itself routinely engages in unconstitutional and illegal covert surveillance of citizens. This must be the subject of legal and political debate, right? Otherwise people would sue in the Supreme Court (or have already done that)? > At this point the only real solution is well-applied cryptography. See the other comment about the $5 wrench. I believe cryptography at best can attempt to patch some failures temporarily. The only long term fix is fixing the government.

denton-scratch 5y ago

"an entity that has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources" When discussing cryptography, it makes a difference whether your adversary has "unlimited" resources, or just a lot of resources. There are challenges in cryptanalysis that cannot be solved even if you throw a planet-load of resources at them; but given literally unlimited resources, are simple. "I'd bet on E2EE not working out" You mean, you'll bet money that a government can eventually technically defeat any cryptography? Or do you mean that a government will do an end-run around E2EE? If you mean the former, I'll take your bet; one beer-voucher says you're wrong. It's easier to devise strong ciphers than to crack them. If you mean the latter, then I'm not playing. Political and social developments "in the long run" are too chaotic for me to want to wager.

Nitramp 5y ago
> You mean, you'll bet money that a government can eventually technically defeat any cryptography? Or do you mean that a government will do an end-run around E2EE? Hard crypto is hard, no debate there. My point is that the government will find a way around, e.g. by coercing you to give up keys, coercing an intermediate to backdoor your device(s), hacking your device etc. You're facing an APT that also has physical power of you. The only winning move is getting control over the APT/your government through the rule of law.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I've never been much of a fan of legislation that touches the internet, because it's invariably bad law, drafted by people who are afraid of the internet because they don't understand it. You're right, cryptography isn't a solution to all privacy problems; you also need to conceal from your government/APT the very fact that you are communicating. OPSEC in general, really.
  - Nitramp 5y ago
    Concealing doesn't work if you communicate in public or semi-public settings (e.g. a WhatsApp group). I think that's a deal breaker for many if not most people.