5 ms·

Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't

Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical object or something that needs to be manufactured. It's math and algorithms. It can be copied infinitely. So, if the law takes that away, law abiding people will no longer have access to the benefits, while criminals will just ... well, as criminals by definition do, ignore the law, and still use encryption.

shabier 5y ago
Spot on. Criminals will not be affected by these new laws. Perhaps this one is just a precursor of another law
rhn_mk1 5y ago
That's oversimplifying it. Banning encryption is a form of censorship (because words don't need to be manufactured), and censorship, as far, as I can tell, does have an effect. For example, criminals who abuse children to produce pornography aren't going to follow laws against having child pornography. Does it follow that laws against the posession of child pornography have no effect in curbing abuse? I think they do. Being seen with child pornography is a huge red flag indicating that you might be an abuser. Plus, the demand is lower. I see no reason this couldn't apply to encryption too.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  Difference: There are perfectly legal reasons to generate encrypted traffic; All payment processing (ATMs, credit cards, online shops) generate encrypted traffic. Sending legal documents, technical data, company internals, contracts, etc. generated encrypted traffic. Sending sensible personal information like medical, indurance or financial records generates encrypted traffic. Most of these cannot be sent unencrypted, without breaking fundamental processes in our society. And there simply is no reliable way to differentiate between encryption used for legal or illegal reasons.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I'm not seeing there is no difference, I'm saying that the methds to curb it are the same. Pretending that you don't understand the argument of the other side ("it won't work because only criminals") won't get you any closer to a dialogue with those who say it.
  - CJefferson 5y ago
    I don't see why, hypothetically, they can't all be sent with encryption that the government has a secret key to decrypt. The world worked using mail, then phones, for many decades. These were treated as "mostly secure", but could be tapped. The world basically worked fine.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      > I don't see why, hypothetically, they can't all be sent with encryption that the government has a secret key to decrypt. Because it's too risky, simple as that. Let's say there is a single, super-secret-key, for government use only, that can decrypt any encrypted message on the planet. What happens if this key is leaked? What if it's found out? What if the implementation of that key turns out to be buggy and is cracked? Remember, once there is such a key, it won't just be some criminals in godknowswherecountry trying to get it, it will be state-level actors with unlimited funds, resources and manpower. If a single one of them gets their hands on this key, even ONCE, it's game over. Our modern society relies on encryption. If this key gets out, the results could be catastrophic; eg. Airplane navigational data manipulated in flight, stock market data manipulated in transit, financial transfers wide open for everyone to read and manipulate at will, control data for electrical grids, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants out in the open...it would be anarchy.
      - CJefferson 5y ago
        I feel there is already a similar problem with the internet in general -- there exist keys which could be used to sign a HTTPS certificate for any website. If you work your way up the heirachy there are some very high-value keys, and the same kind of problems you describe would occur. However, we all just seem to live with that. Something similar could be set up with, with a collection of keys. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we already base the security of the internet on a small number of top-level encryption keys.
CJefferson 5y ago
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people). I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet. And how shall "goverment sanctioned encryption" be distinguished from "non sanctioned encryption"? The point of (good) encryption is to make the result look like stochastically random bytes.
  - CJefferson 5y ago
    If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. You could claim you are sending packets of random bytes for no reason to a friend, but I doubt any jury would believe you.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      > If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. The question isn't how its decrypted, the question is how to determine WHICH traffic to decrypt in order to inspect it.
- dchftcs 5y ago
  Poor analogy. Stealing is the actual bad behaviour, stealing itself is bad for society, anyone who steals should be punished. Substitute "encryption" for "stealing" then you know why you're wrong.
cobbzilla 5y ago
“..because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works.” Sorry but it doesn’t even work for physical objects. Guns are completely illegal in some cities (NYC, SF and Chicago, unless you have connections), so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? Or, research compliance rates when states have retroactively made certain firearms illegal and asked for citizens to turn them in or face the risk of criminal charges. The War on Drugs has also been highly ineffective at preventing motivated individuals from obtaining certain physical objects.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... It works when implemented country-wide. Countries like Germany have much stricter gun laws, and as a result lower gun violence. Obviously, the method doesn't work, when someone who wants a gun can just drive a couple hours and get one at some gun show without even leaving the country.
- ipnon 5y ago
  Good point, but guns are legal in NYC. If you have a dangerous job like a security guard, you can get an open carry permit. If you have no special circumstances, you can own a gun in your home. The gun can be transported to other destinations like a shooting range, your business, or other homes, as long as the gun is locked in a container during transit. Until recently you could only carry the gun between your home and a shooting ranges within the city, but the law was expanded due to a current lawsuit against the City. edit: Most gun crimes in the city are done with illegal guns, 74% of which come from out of state. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/...

shabier 5y ago

Spot on. Criminals will not be affected by these new laws. Perhaps this one is just a precursor of another law

rhn_mk1 5y ago

That's oversimplifying it. Banning encryption is a form of censorship (because words don't need to be manufactured), and censorship, as far, as I can tell, does have an effect. For example, criminals who abuse children to produce pornography aren't going to follow laws against having child pornography. Does it follow that laws against the posession of child pornography have no effect in curbing abuse? I think they do. Being seen with child pornography is a huge red flag indicating that you might be an abuser. Plus, the demand is lower. I see no reason this couldn't apply to encryption too.

usrbinbash 5y ago
Difference: There are perfectly legal reasons to generate encrypted traffic; All payment processing (ATMs, credit cards, online shops) generate encrypted traffic. Sending legal documents, technical data, company internals, contracts, etc. generated encrypted traffic. Sending sensible personal information like medical, indurance or financial records generates encrypted traffic. Most of these cannot be sent unencrypted, without breaking fundamental processes in our society. And there simply is no reliable way to differentiate between encryption used for legal or illegal reasons.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I'm not seeing there is no difference, I'm saying that the methds to curb it are the same. Pretending that you don't understand the argument of the other side ("it won't work because only criminals") won't get you any closer to a dialogue with those who say it.
- CJefferson 5y ago
  I don't see why, hypothetically, they can't all be sent with encryption that the government has a secret key to decrypt. The world worked using mail, then phones, for many decades. These were treated as "mostly secure", but could be tapped. The world basically worked fine.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > I don't see why, hypothetically, they can't all be sent with encryption that the government has a secret key to decrypt. Because it's too risky, simple as that. Let's say there is a single, super-secret-key, for government use only, that can decrypt any encrypted message on the planet. What happens if this key is leaked? What if it's found out? What if the implementation of that key turns out to be buggy and is cracked? Remember, once there is such a key, it won't just be some criminals in godknowswherecountry trying to get it, it will be state-level actors with unlimited funds, resources and manpower. If a single one of them gets their hands on this key, even ONCE, it's game over. Our modern society relies on encryption. If this key gets out, the results could be catastrophic; eg. Airplane navigational data manipulated in flight, stock market data manipulated in transit, financial transfers wide open for everyone to read and manipulate at will, control data for electrical grids, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants out in the open...it would be anarchy.
    - CJefferson 5y ago
      I feel there is already a similar problem with the internet in general -- there exist keys which could be used to sign a HTTPS certificate for any website. If you work your way up the heirachy there are some very high-value keys, and the same kind of problems you describe would occur. However, we all just seem to live with that. Something similar could be set up with, with a collection of keys. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we already base the security of the internet on a small number of top-level encryption keys.

CJefferson 5y ago

By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people). I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet. And how shall "goverment sanctioned encryption" be distinguished from "non sanctioned encryption"? The point of (good) encryption is to make the result look like stochastically random bytes.
- CJefferson 5y ago
  If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. You could claim you are sending packets of random bytes for no reason to a friend, but I doubt any jury would believe you.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. The question isn't how its decrypted, the question is how to determine WHICH traffic to decrypt in order to inspect it.
dchftcs 5y ago
Poor analogy. Stealing is the actual bad behaviour, stealing itself is bad for society, anyone who steals should be punished. Substitute "encryption" for "stealing" then you know why you're wrong.

cobbzilla 5y ago

“..because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works.” Sorry but it doesn’t even work for physical objects. Guns are completely illegal in some cities (NYC, SF and Chicago, unless you have connections), so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? Or, research compliance rates when states have retroactively made certain firearms illegal and asked for citizens to turn them in or face the risk of criminal charges. The War on Drugs has also been highly ineffective at preventing motivated individuals from obtaining certain physical objects.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... It works when implemented country-wide. Countries like Germany have much stricter gun laws, and as a result lower gun violence. Obviously, the method doesn't work, when someone who wants a gun can just drive a couple hours and get one at some gun show without even leaving the country.
ipnon 5y ago
Good point, but guns are legal in NYC. If you have a dangerous job like a security guard, you can get an open carry permit. If you have no special circumstances, you can own a gun in your home. The gun can be transported to other destinations like a shooting range, your business, or other homes, as long as the gun is locked in a container during transit. Until recently you could only carry the gun between your home and a shooting ranges within the city, but the law was expanded due to a current lawsuit against the City. edit: Most gun crimes in the city are done with illegal guns, 74% of which come from out of state. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/...