7 ms·

I feel like they missed the primary point which is that E2E encryption is the primary thing protecting everyone from hackers/criminals/other-governments. Withou

I feel like they missed the primary point which is that E2E encryption is the primary thing protecting everyone from hackers/criminals/other-governments. Without it the criminals WILL have access to your systems and data and then you can basically say goodbye to anything being valuable at all. Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. A criminal can literally infiltrate and search through every unsecured computer connected to the internet in a matter of minutes and using almost no resources and with little risk. This drastically diverges from physical assets. Making encryption illegal will ensure that only criminals use it, thus making only criminals safe online.

raxxorrax 5y ago
That and I think it is pretty safe to say that the reasons most constitutions specifically prohibit governments to access these kind of private correspondance are quite obvious too.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I am starting to wonder if this bill is why CNN published an article on FB allowing some violence posts, but not others riling up people like me, who likes rules applied consistently and without favoritism.
boredumb 5y ago
"Making encryption illegal will ensure that only criminals use it, thus making only criminals safe online." Uptown NYC has a tragically similar problem with fire arms.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  "Making dealing drugs illegal will ensure that only criminals can profit off dealing drugs, thus making only criminals rich." We can play this game all day with many forms of abolition for any good or service that has a relatively inelastic demand and/or is impossible to effectively enforce.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
    Ok, lets do that. "War on Drugs" has been disastrous.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      100% agree.
butivene 5y ago
> I feel like they missed the primary point which is that E2E encryption is the primary thing protecting everyone from hackers/criminals/other-governments. Implementing a backdoor securely which only allows some government agencies to snoop in the decrypted data could technically be possible but I never happened to see a secure implementation of such a scheme – probably every cryptographer of name would refrain from contributing to insecurity. So, IF a backdoor would be implemented securely, that would increase the power of the current government over all the people, including the opposition. If the US would go ahead with such legislation, countries like Hungary and Poland would follow soon, in which the new tool would be welcomed to suppress opinions diverting from the governments ideology, undermining freedom of speech further and increasing the "chilling effect". In the mean-time, terrorists (etc.) would switch to steganography and add an undetectable layer of encryption on top.
wesapien 5y ago
Missing the point is part of their strategy in passing this. They don't make these decisions without input from people who actually understand these things. They will play the tech illiterate boomer as part of the strategy. They're creating "rules for thee not for me". They will selectively choose who can and can't use things they see as a threat to their hegemony.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Without it the criminals WILL have access to your systems and data Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient. Our encryption debate came of age after the Cold War. The boogeymen of that era have been surpassed. We have new ones, and they're more sinister than thieves and more tangible than a your government turning on you.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  On what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone? I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government, rather than ghosts with foreign names.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    The sheer amount of Chinese and Russian IPs showing up in my SSH logs indicate the answer is 'plenty'.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone? One of them is invading its neighbor. > I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government That's fine and these are things to worry about. But if the argument wants staying power, it needs to be adaptable.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    Uh, Colonial Pipeline? HSE Ireland? Stuxnet? Take your pick, it isn't like there's a shortage!
- adastra22 5y ago
  > Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient. For you and me, certainly. For the members of Congress you need to convince of this? They ARE the state. Outside of a few ideological libertarians, protecting the people from the state is not on their agenda.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Our security doesn't matter to them, the only security they value is their security from the rest of us. This bill grants them just that.
- godelski 5y ago
  Which is strange because our security is their security. If we don't have security then we are more vulnerable to foreign influences. We are more vulnerable to foreign attacks. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either everyone has security or no one does, including politicians and elites.
  - minton 5y ago
    I don’t know if that’s entirely true. There are politicians against the second amendment but yet they have armed security guards.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    You underestimate the unrelenting desire of people in power to have their cake and eat it too.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Completely agree. Encryption is subversive. It has the power to defeat governments, judges, armies. They can't tolerate mere citizens being in possession of such technology. They are tempted by the complete visibility and control afforded by the digital world of the 21st century, but encryption is already denying them information and they can't stand it.
parineum 5y ago
>Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. It is a poor metaphor because locks prevent invasion not enable privacy. Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. Encryption is the fundamental unit of network privacy.
- delusional 5y ago
  I think that's a pretty good metaphor. I have been stuck on the parallels between locks and encryption for a while. This kinda cleared that up.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
  - docmars 5y ago
    The right to privacy, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after all!
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      Yes, and the government has created convenient carve outs for its self. For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. For searches of your vehicle, all the police need is probable cause. The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Throughout US history, there is a march towards ignoring citizens rights, through political, judicial, and bureaucratic maneuvering. The constitution is a piece of paper. There are people who’s full time job is to separate your understanding of your rights from what is written in that document. When they’re clever enough, they will allow state violence to be imposed on you with no repercussions.
seanw444 5y ago
> Making crypto illegal will ensure that only criminals have the ability to use it. The right to bear digital arms.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  We already have it. The first amendment. > Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... Cryptographic communication is speech.
  - epicide 5y ago
    This makes me wonder how one would even prove that something were encrypted. Do encrypted files/data universally follow any sort of pattern? If not, then how would they be discernible from transmitting random bits? Will that be illegal, too? Note that I'm not talking about any specific existing encryption algorithms or protocols. I am positing that someone could devise a new one that outputs data that is indistinguishable from noise (without breaking the cipher/keys).
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      You could encode encrypted data in cat pictures and post them on Instagram. It's likely completely impossible to actually ban encryption in a world overwhelmed with information flow. Therefore, an encryption ban will only effect law abiding citizens and will give criminals a massively asymmetric weapon of power and influence.
- indigochill 5y ago
  This is an interesting angle I´d not heard before, as cryptography had at least at some point been classified as munitions (maybe still is, I haven't been watching that). "Okay, in that case, the constitution says you can't infringe my right to it." Although I would fear going down that path would lead to them saying, "Well, we already infringe on access to certain kinds of munitions, so you can still have encryption, but only the stuff we have a backdoor to." which has been on the agenda before.
roenxi 5y ago
The FSF isn't the EFF. The FSF is supposed to advocate why the stupid law is an affront to user freedom and the EFF is meant to be advocating why the stupid law makes people vulnerable to criminals. The FSF has a complicated and niche advocacy position, they should stay focused. If they don't advocate software user freedom, nobody will. In this case, there are already lots of people against encryption restrictions.
- strofcon 5y ago
  Seems to me that banning encryption would thoroughly limit software freedoms. Ie:can't use anything secure, thus can't freely choose your toolset.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
    Exactly. Per the famous https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
  - roenxi 5y ago
    That is probably why the FSF has published an article with the title "EARN-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom". But the point that the FSF needs to focus on is that EARN-IT is bad because it limits user freedom. The fact that users may choose to use that freedom to protect themselves from criminals isn't the issue. There might be an obvious and compelling reason users need freedom or there might not be. The FSF doesn't need to care and should be against the bill regardless. Much like how the FSF doesn't care about whether the GPL is economic or not - they think software projects should all be licensed under it (or an equivalently free license). The point isn't whether freedom is good or necessary. That is taken as a priori truth. The point the FSF advocates is whether users have it.
tyler33 5y ago
You are right, in fact EARN-IT is very good for criminals
Beltiras 5y ago
In that case everyone should become a criminal.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >In that case everyone should become a criminal. While it is somewhat hyperbolic, *Three Felonies a Day"[0][1] seems relevant here. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?289272-1/three-felonies-day https://www.c-span.org/video/?289272-1/three-felonies-day
  - Beltiras 5y ago
    In my opinion it's the duty of an enlightened citizen to break unjust laws. Civil disobedience is the only thing that will right a wrong like that.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >In my opinion it's the duty of an enlightened citizen to break unjust laws. Civil disobedience is the only thing that will right a wrong like that. You won't get an argument about that from me. I was merely pointing out that the legal landscape is already filled with land mines. Which is why (among other things) you should never talk to the police[0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpUx-WFXT9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpUx-WFXT9k

raxxorrax 5y ago

That and I think it is pretty safe to say that the reasons most constitutions specifically prohibit governments to access these kind of private correspondance are quite obvious too.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

I am starting to wonder if this bill is why CNN published an article on FB allowing some violence posts, but not others riling up people like me, who likes rules applied consistently and without favoritism.

boredumb 5y ago

"Making encryption illegal will ensure that only criminals use it, thus making only criminals safe online." Uptown NYC has a tragically similar problem with fire arms.

anonporridge 5y ago
"Making dealing drugs illegal will ensure that only criminals can profit off dealing drugs, thus making only criminals rich." We can play this game all day with many forms of abolition for any good or service that has a relatively inelastic demand and/or is impossible to effectively enforce.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  Ok, lets do that. "War on Drugs" has been disastrous.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    100% agree.

butivene 5y ago

> I feel like they missed the primary point which is that E2E encryption is the primary thing protecting everyone from hackers/criminals/other-governments. Implementing a backdoor securely which only allows some government agencies to snoop in the decrypted data could technically be possible but I never happened to see a secure implementation of such a scheme – probably every cryptographer of name would refrain from contributing to insecurity. So, IF a backdoor would be implemented securely, that would increase the power of the current government over all the people, including the opposition. If the US would go ahead with such legislation, countries like Hungary and Poland would follow soon, in which the new tool would be welcomed to suppress opinions diverting from the governments ideology, undermining freedom of speech further and increasing the "chilling effect". In the mean-time, terrorists (etc.) would switch to steganography and add an undetectable layer of encryption on top.

wesapien 5y ago

Missing the point is part of their strategy in passing this. They don't make these decisions without input from people who actually understand these things. They will play the tech illiterate boomer as part of the strategy. They're creating "rules for thee not for me". They will selectively choose who can and can't use things they see as a threat to their hegemony.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Without it the criminals WILL have access to your systems and data Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient. Our encryption debate came of age after the Cold War. The boogeymen of that era have been surpassed. We have new ones, and they're more sinister than thieves and more tangible than a your government turning on you.

pessimizer 5y ago
On what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone? I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government, rather than ghosts with foreign names.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  The sheer amount of Chinese and Russian IPs showing up in my SSH logs indicate the answer is 'plenty'.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone? One of them is invading its neighbor. > I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government That's fine and these are things to worry about. But if the argument wants staying power, it needs to be adaptable.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  Uh, Colonial Pipeline? HSE Ireland? Stuxnet? Take your pick, it isn't like there's a shortage!
adastra22 5y ago
> Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient. For you and me, certainly. For the members of Congress you need to convince of this? They ARE the state. Outside of a few ideological libertarians, protecting the people from the state is not on their agenda.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Our security doesn't matter to them, the only security they value is their security from the rest of us. This bill grants them just that.

godelski 5y ago
Which is strange because our security is their security. If we don't have security then we are more vulnerable to foreign influences. We are more vulnerable to foreign attacks. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either everyone has security or no one does, including politicians and elites.
- minton 5y ago
  I don’t know if that’s entirely true. There are politicians against the second amendment but yet they have armed security guards.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  You underestimate the unrelenting desire of people in power to have their cake and eat it too.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Completely agree. Encryption is subversive. It has the power to defeat governments, judges, armies. They can't tolerate mere citizens being in possession of such technology. They are tempted by the complete visibility and control afforded by the digital world of the 21st century, but encryption is already denying them information and they can't stand it.

parineum 5y ago

>Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. It is a poor metaphor because locks prevent invasion not enable privacy. Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. Encryption is the fundamental unit of network privacy.

delusional 5y ago
I think that's a pretty good metaphor. I have been stuck on the parallels between locks and encryption for a while. This kinda cleared that up.
fsflover 5y ago
> Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
- docmars 5y ago
  The right to privacy, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after all!
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    Yes, and the government has created convenient carve outs for its self. For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. For searches of your vehicle, all the police need is probable cause. The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Throughout US history, there is a march towards ignoring citizens rights, through political, judicial, and bureaucratic maneuvering. The constitution is a piece of paper. There are people who’s full time job is to separate your understanding of your rights from what is written in that document. When they’re clever enough, they will allow state violence to be imposed on you with no repercussions.

seanw444 5y ago

> Making crypto illegal will ensure that only criminals have the ability to use it. The right to bear digital arms.

anonporridge 5y ago
We already have it. The first amendment. > Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... Cryptographic communication is speech.
- epicide 5y ago
  This makes me wonder how one would even prove that something were encrypted. Do encrypted files/data universally follow any sort of pattern? If not, then how would they be discernible from transmitting random bits? Will that be illegal, too? Note that I'm not talking about any specific existing encryption algorithms or protocols. I am positing that someone could devise a new one that outputs data that is indistinguishable from noise (without breaking the cipher/keys).
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    You could encode encrypted data in cat pictures and post them on Instagram. It's likely completely impossible to actually ban encryption in a world overwhelmed with information flow. Therefore, an encryption ban will only effect law abiding citizens and will give criminals a massively asymmetric weapon of power and influence.
indigochill 5y ago
This is an interesting angle I´d not heard before, as cryptography had at least at some point been classified as munitions (maybe still is, I haven't been watching that). "Okay, in that case, the constitution says you can't infringe my right to it." Although I would fear going down that path would lead to them saying, "Well, we already infringe on access to certain kinds of munitions, so you can still have encryption, but only the stuff we have a backdoor to." which has been on the agenda before.

roenxi 5y ago

The FSF isn't the EFF. The FSF is supposed to advocate why the stupid law is an affront to user freedom and the EFF is meant to be advocating why the stupid law makes people vulnerable to criminals. The FSF has a complicated and niche advocacy position, they should stay focused. If they don't advocate software user freedom, nobody will. In this case, there are already lots of people against encryption restrictions.

strofcon 5y ago
Seems to me that banning encryption would thoroughly limit software freedoms. Ie:can't use anything secure, thus can't freely choose your toolset.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  Exactly. Per the famous https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- roenxi 5y ago
  That is probably why the FSF has published an article with the title "EARN-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom". But the point that the FSF needs to focus on is that EARN-IT is bad because it limits user freedom. The fact that users may choose to use that freedom to protect themselves from criminals isn't the issue. There might be an obvious and compelling reason users need freedom or there might not be. The FSF doesn't need to care and should be against the bill regardless. Much like how the FSF doesn't care about whether the GPL is economic or not - they think software projects should all be licensed under it (or an equivalently free license). The point isn't whether freedom is good or necessary. That is taken as a priori truth. The point the FSF advocates is whether users have it.

tyler33 5y ago

You are right, in fact EARN-IT is very good for criminals

Beltiras 5y ago

In that case everyone should become a criminal.

nobody9999 5y ago
>In that case everyone should become a criminal. While it is somewhat hyperbolic, *Three Felonies a Day"[0][1] seems relevant here. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?289272-1/three-felonies-day https://www.c-span.org/video/?289272-1/three-felonies-day
- Beltiras 5y ago
  In my opinion it's the duty of an enlightened citizen to break unjust laws. Civil disobedience is the only thing that will right a wrong like that.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >In my opinion it's the duty of an enlightened citizen to break unjust laws. Civil disobedience is the only thing that will right a wrong like that. You won't get an argument about that from me. I was merely pointing out that the legal landscape is already filled with land mines. Which is why (among other things) you should never talk to the police[0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpUx-WFXT9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpUx-WFXT9k