5 ms·

Although E2EE is great I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. Yes, it's easy to implement E2EE on top of an plain communication channel, but why is

by gizmo 3y ago

Although E2EE is great I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. Yes, it's easy to implement E2EE on top of an plain communication channel, but why is that relevant? It's also easy to make a machete from plate steel from your local hardware store. It's easy to create chlorine gas by mixing cleaning supplies. You can even make a perfectly functional rifle from the junk in your garage. And yet, you're not allowed to. (Substitute other examples if you live in a freedom loving country.) We should oppose an E2EE ban (or backdoor mandates) because E2EE is good technology that protects regular citizens from being spied on. Not because it's technologically easy to circumvent a ban.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
The real danger comes when using your own encryption becomes illegal; that is, anyone using encryption within a weakened encryption thing will be an immediate target because obviously they have something to hide. Dystopian but there you have it.
- jack_pp 3y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Even though you can encrypt on top of existing messaging services if it becomes the norm that they can watch all traffic anyone who uses such an extra layer will be immediately flagged and put under more surveillance. So for the surveillance state it would be much easier to deal with people who try to live outside the system / norm and simply criminalize privacy of any kind. I don't agree with it but you can't say it's stupid or they have no incentive to pass this.
  - jusssi 3y ago
    And criminals will just send selfies of themselves, with their encrypted message hiding in least-significant-bit noise. Good luck proving there's a hidden message.
chrismorgan 3y ago
This was something people largely missed at one point around Australia’s Assistance and Access Bill five years ago: the Prime Minister was widely derided for saying (as reported) “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”. Government is all about forbidding things that are physically possible. Maths says you can do these things. Governments can say you’re not allowed to do these things. (A&A Bill was the rather-dubiously-handled piece of legislation that, in part, makes first-party end-to-end encryption not an acceptable defence for declining to fulfil legal warrants.)
- rekoil 3y ago
  I understand what you mean, the problem is that when you unpack what the result of the government saying "you're not allowed to do these things" is, you're left with a plan that takes away law-abiding citizens privacy without actually accomplishing anything. (I'm assuming here that the end goal is to circumvent proving criminal actions by giving the government a way to prosecute people for simply hiding communication) I respect the government saying some things are not allowed, but when it comes to E2EE, even if there's a law saying you can't build your own E2EE, there's actually no way for the government to prove that a communications channel was using illegal E2EE. The person accused of using illegal E2EE can just say they were simply typing gibberish into the program and weren't actually trying to communicate. Yeah that's obviously bullshit, but without the key you can't prove it, which is exactly the situation they are in now anyway...
moribvndvs 3y ago
I think you’re answering your own question. Sure, we know it’s bad for “us” (the general public), but the author is also casting doubt on its effectiveness against “them” (criminal networks) and setting us up for an easy own goal.
globular-toast 3y ago
I agree. Although I did throw in futility in my arguments I sent to my MP, my main argument was one of principle: people should be allowed to keep secrets. Obviously said arguments were not read by said MP and merely dropped into a bucket with all the other adorable little concerns from the public. The argument posted here is even less likely to convince anyone that matters. It's mostly preaching to the choir.
FabHK 3y ago
Exactly. The fact that it is still relatively easy to do X even after X has been banned does not imply that banning X is stupid. The argument made in the article is fundamentally flawed.

by gizmo 3y ago

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

The real danger comes when using your own encryption becomes illegal; that is, anyone using encryption within a weakened encryption thing will be an immediate target because obviously they have something to hide. Dystopian but there you have it.

jack_pp 3y ago
I was thinking the same thing. Even though you can encrypt on top of existing messaging services if it becomes the norm that they can watch all traffic anyone who uses such an extra layer will be immediately flagged and put under more surveillance. So for the surveillance state it would be much easier to deal with people who try to live outside the system / norm and simply criminalize privacy of any kind. I don't agree with it but you can't say it's stupid or they have no incentive to pass this.
- jusssi 3y ago
  And criminals will just send selfies of themselves, with their encrypted message hiding in least-significant-bit noise. Good luck proving there's a hidden message.

chrismorgan 3y ago

This was something people largely missed at one point around Australia’s Assistance and Access Bill five years ago: the Prime Minister was widely derided for saying (as reported) “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”. Government is all about forbidding things that are physically possible. Maths says you can do these things. Governments can say you’re not allowed to do these things. (A&A Bill was the rather-dubiously-handled piece of legislation that, in part, makes first-party end-to-end encryption not an acceptable defence for declining to fulfil legal warrants.)

rekoil 3y ago
I understand what you mean, the problem is that when you unpack what the result of the government saying "you're not allowed to do these things" is, you're left with a plan that takes away law-abiding citizens privacy without actually accomplishing anything. (I'm assuming here that the end goal is to circumvent proving criminal actions by giving the government a way to prosecute people for simply hiding communication) I respect the government saying some things are not allowed, but when it comes to E2EE, even if there's a law saying you can't build your own E2EE, there's actually no way for the government to prove that a communications channel was using illegal E2EE. The person accused of using illegal E2EE can just say they were simply typing gibberish into the program and weren't actually trying to communicate. Yeah that's obviously bullshit, but without the key you can't prove it, which is exactly the situation they are in now anyway...

moribvndvs 3y ago

I think you’re answering your own question. Sure, we know it’s bad for “us” (the general public), but the author is also casting doubt on its effectiveness against “them” (criminal networks) and setting us up for an easy own goal.

globular-toast 3y ago

I agree. Although I did throw in futility in my arguments I sent to my MP, my main argument was one of principle: people should be allowed to keep secrets. Obviously said arguments were not read by said MP and merely dropped into a bucket with all the other adorable little concerns from the public. The argument posted here is even less likely to convince anyone that matters. It's mostly preaching to the choir.

FabHK 3y ago

Exactly. The fact that it is still relatively easy to do X even after X has been banned does not imply that banning X is stupid. The argument made in the article is fundamentally flawed.