5 ms·

You're speaking as if this will help you. If you go to the prosecution/trial phase, you will be found guilty since you probably hadn't the best opsec and forens

by quazar 3y ago

You're speaking as if this will help you. If you go to the prosecution/trial phase, you will be found guilty since you probably hadn't the best opsec and forensic analysis of your computer found the encryption/steganography software you used, or you left something in the system logs (e.g. timestamps of accessing files), or you left something in the thumbnail cache, or you did not rename the file before deleting it, or the timestamp analysis of e.g. you browser data and logs will show clear behavioral patterns pointing to you hiding data. If you use VMs, their ram is stored in a plaintext file unless you configure it otherwise, on your ssd it never goes away due to wear protection. Even if you had an encrypted drive you will be forced to give them the key, then they will rederive the master key and analyze parts of the disk free space to find something on you, again on ssd this is a certainty and on for example Bitlocker you can never change the master key, ensuring you going to jail. Even if all of this did not incriminate you, you're in trouble for something in the first place, since you're on trial, right? So probably other people you communicated with lead them to you. And in this case, the judge applies common sense, there is this traffic cell of 6 people and on 5 computers we have clear evidence but on 6th nothing, therefore you're still probably 95+% guilty? Judges aren't stupid. People making comments like yours annoy me since you seem to be calming people down that we could endure total strong encryption ban, while we absolutely could not.

FredPret 3y ago
I am, of course, familiar with the wrench decryption method (https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/). I am saying no ban on encryption can be logically consistent since you can’t absolutely prove that something is encrypted. Even if it is a file called encrypted_drive.imencrypted. I’m not a lawyer but this kind of ban should be wide open to legal attack. Especially if the country also has freedom of speech. And if it doesn’t have that, it should. And if all else fails and this insane law passes, the illiterates who pushed it through will cause a national economic and security disaster. Online crime will skyrocket. The KGB/FSB will have a feeding frenzy. Voters will quickly learn to love encryption again.
Prickle 3y ago
What are you smoking? The parent comment has nothing to do with anything you just spouted. It's about random transmissions being labeled as "encrypted" when that is not the intention. Encryption is not limited to the more modern systems. They have existed for a long time. These are politicians. We cannot trust them to have any knowledge or nuance.
- quazar 3y ago
  So what's the point of sending random static over the network and looking for trouble like that then? Complying in a way that you find slightly less humiliating but still complying?
  - Prickle 3y ago
    It's called being an amateur radio or ham radio operator. "Oops, sent a funky signal with the wrong configuration, let's try again." Or "I messed up the modulation so the message is illegible." Or "I just found a funky NASA satellite that is no longer operational. Let me slap it with some messages and see if I get a return." https://www.science.org/content/article/amateur-astronomer-discovers-revived-nasa-satellite https://www.science.org/content/article/amateur-astronomer-d... Or maybe you are an amateur radio astronomer. Built your own radio telescope.
    - quazar 3y ago
      Well yes, if you're not using encryption and it's a one off thing, the judge will probably find you not guilty. The OP seemed to suggest that when you ban encryption, random people will randomly get in trouble, therefore banning encryption is a bad idea. But judges have common sense and law enforcement has limited resources (prioritization) therefore random people will probably not randomly get in trouble. Therefore strong encryption ban is very realistic and very easy to sell to the population, and not like the OP claimed something that will backfire. This is why his comment is naive. He likes encryption and doesn't want for it to be banned therefore he deludes himself with some alternative reality where doing something he doesn't like backfires and is reversed. Strong encryption ban will not backfire.
ragnot 3y ago
The type of person you are replying to has most likely never lived in any sort of authoritarian regime. People like them play these games...almost like the equivalent of a child saying "I'm not touching you". What happens in authoritarian regimes is that the law is used to justify the actions of the ruling body, not the other way around. So if you just so happen to blast random static and act suspicious, you'll be taken, beaten and either admit to a crime or a law will be made or amended to justify it. And then you'll admit to it. The price of freedom is constant vigilance. You are correct in saying we could not endure a total strong encryption ban.

by quazar 3y ago

FredPret 3y ago

I am, of course, familiar with the wrench decryption method (https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/). I am saying no ban on encryption can be logically consistent since you can’t absolutely prove that something is encrypted. Even if it is a file called encrypted_drive.imencrypted. I’m not a lawyer but this kind of ban should be wide open to legal attack. Especially if the country also has freedom of speech. And if it doesn’t have that, it should. And if all else fails and this insane law passes, the illiterates who pushed it through will cause a national economic and security disaster. Online crime will skyrocket. The KGB/FSB will have a feeding frenzy. Voters will quickly learn to love encryption again.

Prickle 3y ago

What are you smoking? The parent comment has nothing to do with anything you just spouted. It's about random transmissions being labeled as "encrypted" when that is not the intention. Encryption is not limited to the more modern systems. They have existed for a long time. These are politicians. We cannot trust them to have any knowledge or nuance.

quazar 3y ago
So what's the point of sending random static over the network and looking for trouble like that then? Complying in a way that you find slightly less humiliating but still complying?
- Prickle 3y ago
  It's called being an amateur radio or ham radio operator. "Oops, sent a funky signal with the wrong configuration, let's try again." Or "I messed up the modulation so the message is illegible." Or "I just found a funky NASA satellite that is no longer operational. Let me slap it with some messages and see if I get a return." https://www.science.org/content/article/amateur-astronomer-discovers-revived-nasa-satellite https://www.science.org/content/article/amateur-astronomer-d... Or maybe you are an amateur radio astronomer. Built your own radio telescope.
  - quazar 3y ago
    Well yes, if you're not using encryption and it's a one off thing, the judge will probably find you not guilty. The OP seemed to suggest that when you ban encryption, random people will randomly get in trouble, therefore banning encryption is a bad idea. But judges have common sense and law enforcement has limited resources (prioritization) therefore random people will probably not randomly get in trouble. Therefore strong encryption ban is very realistic and very easy to sell to the population, and not like the OP claimed something that will backfire. This is why his comment is naive. He likes encryption and doesn't want for it to be banned therefore he deludes himself with some alternative reality where doing something he doesn't like backfires and is reversed. Strong encryption ban will not backfire.

ragnot 3y ago

The type of person you are replying to has most likely never lived in any sort of authoritarian regime. People like them play these games...almost like the equivalent of a child saying "I'm not touching you". What happens in authoritarian regimes is that the law is used to justify the actions of the ruling body, not the other way around. So if you just so happen to blast random static and act suspicious, you'll be taken, beaten and either admit to a crime or a law will be made or amended to justify it. And then you'll admit to it. The price of freedom is constant vigilance. You are correct in saying we could not endure a total strong encryption ban.