4 ms·

Which high security vault can the government not gain access to under any circumstances? I expect you'll find decent explosives or a bulldozer will get them in

by 9rx 2y ago

Which high security vault can the government not gain access to under any circumstances? I expect you'll find decent explosives or a bulldozer will get them in just fine.

like_any_other 2y ago
So will a hardware backdoor planted by your maid, or a telescopic lens pointed at your screen, or laser microphone on your window, get them into your e2e encrypted chats.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 9rx 2y ago
  Huh? The encrypted data is at rest and the only person who knew the key is dead. Your plan makes no sense.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Is encrypted data at rest belonging to dead people such a problem, that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy?
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy? Is the appeal to emotion really necessary? Surely we can discuss the facts without devolving into some kind of "But I want that!!!" toddler behaviour?
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        There was no emotion, only an accurate description of the consequences of the proposed policy.
        9rx 2y ago
        I said appeal to emotion. There is no logical foundation for the question. It can only be asked in the context of how one arbitrarily feels about the subject, serving no purpose, and derailing was taking place for no good reason. How you one feels about the subject has no impact on what we are talking about and trying to draw a link between them is completely nonsensical.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Generally the set of people who are relevant in the debate of the balance of privacy rights and criminal prosecution, are living. Dead people are distinctly immune to prosecution, and generally granted fewer rights.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      If you intended to reply to a different thread and accidentally ended up here instead, there is truth to what you say, but it has nothing to do with this one. As it pertains to this thread, where the sole key holder is dead and took the knowledge with him, how do you anticipate to carry out gaining access to the data using live attacks? There are plenty of reasons why the government wants access to data even where prosecution isn't necessary.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 2y ago
        The overlap between data that was never shared and data that is relevant after the person was dead is excruciatingly small.
        9rx 2y ago
        It is excruciatingly small in all cases, which is why laws haven't been crafted yet. But if that changes...
kube-system 2y ago
With physical access, global superpowers can break both vaults and strong encryption.
15155 2y ago
The issue isn't "gain access to" - it's "gain access to without destroying the contents." Explosives and bulldozers are likely to harm whatever was motivating the entry in the first place. The vault system can be engineered to ensure this conclusion, as well.
- 9rx 2y ago
  The question specifically asked which one(s) you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which high security value is the government not able to gain access to? And, sure, if enough perfectly engineered vaults were impeding the government from carrying out the activities it wants to carry out, there would be calls to make building/using such a vault illegal too. In the real world, such vaults, if they exist at all, don't meaningfully get in the way. Thus there is no reason to think about it. We don't create laws on what theoretically might be a problem in some magical imagined world. We only create laws after something is identified as an actual problem.
  - 15155 2y ago
    > The question specifically asked which one you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which one is like that? After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up: Glass relocker mechanisms have existed (in reality) on safe doors for decades and will often result in the destruction of contents if triggered and opening is still required. Governments are normally seeking evidence: a stack of cash or a quantity of bulk substances are substantially harder to rig to destroy (obviating evidence gathering) than documents or data.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up No need to reply within the first second. Take your time. In fact, consider taking a lot more time as you still haven't named the specific vault, or set of vaults, that is causing such a big problem for the government. If we don't know what vault it is, even if your description is vague, how would anyone come to think of it as a problem? Laws are not created by some all-knowing deity. It is just people. That such a vault might be theoretically possible to build is irrelevant.

by 9rx 2y ago

Which high security vault can the government not gain access to under any circumstances? I expect you'll find decent explosives or a bulldozer will get them in just fine.

like_any_other 2y ago

So will a hardware backdoor planted by your maid, or a telescopic lens pointed at your screen, or laser microphone on your window, get them into your e2e encrypted chats.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
9rx 2y ago
Huh? The encrypted data is at rest and the only person who knew the key is dead. Your plan makes no sense.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  Is encrypted data at rest belonging to dead people such a problem, that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy? Is the appeal to emotion really necessary? Surely we can discuss the facts without devolving into some kind of "But I want that!!!" toddler behaviour?
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      There was no emotion, only an accurate description of the consequences of the proposed policy.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        I said appeal to emotion. There is no logical foundation for the question. It can only be asked in the context of how one arbitrarily feels about the subject, serving no purpose, and derailing was taking place for no good reason. How you one feels about the subject has no impact on what we are talking about and trying to draw a link between them is completely nonsensical.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Generally the set of people who are relevant in the debate of the balance of privacy rights and criminal prosecution, are living. Dead people are distinctly immune to prosecution, and generally granted fewer rights.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    If you intended to reply to a different thread and accidentally ended up here instead, there is truth to what you say, but it has nothing to do with this one. As it pertains to this thread, where the sole key holder is dead and took the knowledge with him, how do you anticipate to carry out gaining access to the data using live attacks? There are plenty of reasons why the government wants access to data even where prosecution isn't necessary.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 2y ago
      The overlap between data that was never shared and data that is relevant after the person was dead is excruciatingly small.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        It is excruciatingly small in all cases, which is why laws haven't been crafted yet. But if that changes...

kube-system 2y ago

With physical access, global superpowers can break both vaults and strong encryption.

15155 2y ago

The issue isn't "gain access to" - it's "gain access to without destroying the contents." Explosives and bulldozers are likely to harm whatever was motivating the entry in the first place. The vault system can be engineered to ensure this conclusion, as well.

9rx 2y ago
The question specifically asked which one(s) you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which high security value is the government not able to gain access to? And, sure, if enough perfectly engineered vaults were impeding the government from carrying out the activities it wants to carry out, there would be calls to make building/using such a vault illegal too. In the real world, such vaults, if they exist at all, don't meaningfully get in the way. Thus there is no reason to think about it. We don't create laws on what theoretically might be a problem in some magical imagined world. We only create laws after something is identified as an actual problem.
- 15155 2y ago
  > The question specifically asked which one you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which one is like that? After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up: Glass relocker mechanisms have existed (in reality) on safe doors for decades and will often result in the destruction of contents if triggered and opening is still required. Governments are normally seeking evidence: a stack of cash or a quantity of bulk substances are substantially harder to rig to destroy (obviating evidence gathering) than documents or data.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up No need to reply within the first second. Take your time. In fact, consider taking a lot more time as you still haven't named the specific vault, or set of vaults, that is causing such a big problem for the government. If we don't know what vault it is, even if your description is vague, how would anyone come to think of it as a problem? Laws are not created by some all-knowing deity. It is just people. That such a vault might be theoretically possible to build is irrelevant.