5 ms·

"This security scheme wouldn't work because of these social factors" _is_ a technical argument. Security is very specifically about making sure the right people

"This security scheme wouldn't work because of these social factors" _is_ a technical argument. Security is very specifically about making sure the right people have access to a resource and the wrong people don't. Social aspects are inherent in this. Therefore, in the context of security, social arguments are technical arguments. Arguing that the myriad local police departments of the United States in particular do not have the security posture required to keep access to a data portal secure is a technical argument against government-backdoor encryption.

josephg 3y ago
The article describes “type 3” bad ideas like demands to work out new mathematics: > “Work it out” is generally a demand to invent new mathematics, but sadly, mathematics doesn’t work like that. E2E + a backdoor for a particular police department isn’t the sort of bad idea that requires new mathematics.
- ranger207 3y ago
  The example is > For the last 25 years, engineers have said ‘we can make it secure, or we can let law enforcement have access, but that means the Chinese can get in too” and politicians reply “no, make secure but not for people we like”. Insecure police departments will inevitably leak the backdoor keys. It's not possible to limit who can use decryption keys based on who they are and not just possession of the keys under our current understanding of how encryption works. If you assume that the police will never leak keys then sure it's easy. But arguing about whether or not social factors like police department computer security is good enough to safely store keys is a technical argument about this technical problem.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Thanks for trying so hard here. It's quite depressing how many people here don't seem able to deconflate "I don't believe police can be trusted with this power" from "it is mathematically impossible to give it to them". This is a nice clear example of how experts talk themselves into lying to the public for the greater good, as we saw so often in the past :(

josephg 3y ago

The article describes “type 3” bad ideas like demands to work out new mathematics: > “Work it out” is generally a demand to invent new mathematics, but sadly, mathematics doesn’t work like that. E2E + a backdoor for a particular police department isn’t the sort of bad idea that requires new mathematics.

ranger207 3y ago
The example is > For the last 25 years, engineers have said ‘we can make it secure, or we can let law enforcement have access, but that means the Chinese can get in too” and politicians reply “no, make secure but not for people we like”. Insecure police departments will inevitably leak the backdoor keys. It's not possible to limit who can use decryption keys based on who they are and not just possession of the keys under our current understanding of how encryption works. If you assume that the police will never leak keys then sure it's easy. But arguing about whether or not social factors like police department computer security is good enough to safely store keys is a technical argument about this technical problem.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Thanks for trying so hard here. It's quite depressing how many people here don't seem able to deconflate "I don't believe police can be trusted with this power" from "it is mathematically impossible to give it to them". This is a nice clear example of how experts talk themselves into lying to the public for the greater good, as we saw so often in the past :(