4 ms·

I take issue with these arguments. I respect the author but this doesn't read well reasoned. Firstly CAs not being equipped to scale and the inevitable mistak

by jpgvm 12y ago

I take issue with these arguments. I respect the author but this doesn't read well reasoned. Firstly CAs not being equipped to scale and the inevitable mistakes that will happen in a highly manual process. Thankfully this has already been resolved, we have DNS - if you are in control of DNS you are authenticated. This is is the system to be used in the EFF automated certificate issuing protocol. As for CPU cycles we have Moore's law (which is still in full effect for things like SSL decryption). That and many many motivated engineers. The next bit is where things get sour. It seems the argument is because law enforcement has the "right" to read your traffic that anything you do to dissuade them will only result in further systematic destruction of privacy, i.e MITM attacks on SSL. The final points around complexity do make some sense but those are against SSL, not against encryption IMO. SSL and TLS are both hugely complicated but this need not be the case. As for my point of view. We need encryption. Why? Because communication has changed. Communication used to be manual and as such the attacks against it were manual and unable to be orchestrated at scale. Government surveillance was better understood because communication was simpler so lawmakers couldn't destroy all privacy accidentally. Now almost all communication is digital, it's become economical to simply subvert -everyones- privacy. Lawmakers are at a loss to understand even basic computer science let alone what motivated and technically sophisticated "law enforcement" agencies can do with such massive amounts of information. We need encryption to save privacy before it's lost forever.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
> We need encryption. Why? Because communication has changed. I never said that we don't need encryption, far form it. I said we do not need to encrypt everything and I firmly stand by that. If we do want to encrypt the entirety of the internet traffic then I believe we need to consider all the consequences this causes. That was my point, not more, not less.
- jpgvm 12y ago
  I understand. I maybe should have been more specific in my point that I think encrypting everything is the only reasonable defence against such pervasive invasion of privacy. The long term solution is to get to the point where lawmakers talk about encryption, authentication and integrity as things they actually understand. Rather than having people with ulterior motives explain these things to them with snail mail analogies. However, that is many decades off. For now we have encryption and the means to ensure MITM attacks are ineffective.
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  There appears to be near-unanimous consensus: the consequences of encrypting everything are less than the consequences of not encrypting everything.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    Among the informed. The government will try to push that idea that encrypting everything means that you get drug lords, child molesters, and terrorist running wild while not encrypting will mean all the former will be caught and society will be safe and happy.
- fche 12y ago
  "I said we do not need to encrypt everything" ... as justified by many arguments from ignorance, like "I don't think everyone ...", and "There is no technical reason..." over and over. Even one counterexample for those (some helpfully supplied in comments hereabouts) makes the arguments invalid.
  - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    > ... as justified by many arguments from ignorance, like "I don't think everyone ...", and "There is no technical reason..." over and over. Even one counterexample for those (some helpfully supplied in comments hereabouts) makes the arguments invalid. I gave one very practical example of encryption being applied to file transfers without a technical reason why that has to be. The same applies to the majority of resources fetched from CDNs. The only reason we use SSL for that is because there is no other method that browsers currently support for guaranteeing the integrity of the loaded information.
    - Nursie 12y ago
      Authentication and Integrity are just as much part of SSL/TLS as secrecy is. For code I'm going to run on my system, I quite like the idea that I can tell where it comes from and if it's correct. When it comes down to it, it's nobody else's business what python code-modules I'm downloading, it might give them enough information to attack my servers, so secrecy isn't a bad thing either.
      - aidos 12y ago
        To be fair, Armin presented the solution to the first argument in the form of checksums. Your 2nd argument is valid though. I also think it's a bit of a shame that we're having to do all this encryption these days. Think of all that wonderful caching capability we're losing. Still, I come down on the side of "necessary evil", given the increasingly malicious attacks on parties that aren't using it.
      - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
        > When it comes down to it, it's nobody else's business what python code-modules I'm downloading, it might give them enough information to attack my servers, so secrecy isn't a bad thing either. There is much bigger issue there: nobody verifies package signatures. Most packages do not even have ones. So you fundamentally have no way to verify that what you downloaded is what you wanted. Someone could have stolen my PyPI access credentials and uploaded a broken package under one of my releases. Or I'm just a bad person and would ship you bad code. SSL does not solve that problem.
- nine_k 12y ago
  See, there's an argument that women should not wear short skirts and tank tops, because this provokes potential rapists. Better safe than sorry, no? While this may make short-term practical sense, it's fundamentally wrong. Nobody should be raped, short skirt or not. It's the law enforcement that needs to change and prevent such things, not women. Women, if anything, should carry pepper spray. Same thing applies to the privacy of communication. Nobody should be a subject to an unreasonable search. Yes, having your communication open provokes any number of three-letter agencies to want to snoop on it, just in case. And if they find it encrypted, they want to crack it — again, just in case. Why not yield? Again, this is fundamentally wrong, it goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of it. It's the law enforcement that needs to change, not citizens. First have a probable case, preferably a court order, etc. Citizens, id anything, should use encryption more.
  - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    > See, there's an argument that women should not wear short skirts and tank tops, because this provokes potential rapists. Better safe than sorry, no? This discussion went emotional very quickly. > It's the law enforcement that needs to change, not citizens. Last time I was looking there was no world government. What a country has to do and does not have to do is fundamentally decided by it's lawmakers. In some countries those are elected, in others they are not. I'm a programmer and as such I limit my general impact on technical things. I might have the opportunity to shape legislation but I do not claim that I know what every country should do.
    - nine_k 12y ago
      This argument was not intended to be emotional; it's just a bit less technical and more down-to-earth. Unfortunately, when we're looking at what is right or wrong thing to do, some emotions inevitably wake up. Still, the same point can be made using strictly rational arguments, both from first principles or from practice and history. Also please note that nobody is forced to wear revealing skirts or use concealing encryption. You are free to do what you think is right. I very much appreciate what you do, and wish you to continue unhindered. I hope we can disagree on the point of usefulness of encryption in certain cases without affecting everything else.

by jpgvm 12y ago

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

> We need encryption. Why? Because communication has changed. I never said that we don't need encryption, far form it. I said we do not need to encrypt everything and I firmly stand by that. If we do want to encrypt the entirety of the internet traffic then I believe we need to consider all the consequences this causes. That was my point, not more, not less.

jpgvm 12y ago
I understand. I maybe should have been more specific in my point that I think encrypting everything is the only reasonable defence against such pervasive invasion of privacy. The long term solution is to get to the point where lawmakers talk about encryption, authentication and integrity as things they actually understand. Rather than having people with ulterior motives explain these things to them with snail mail analogies. However, that is many decades off. For now we have encryption and the means to ensure MITM attacks are ineffective.
theandrewbailey 12y ago
There appears to be near-unanimous consensus: the consequences of encrypting everything are less than the consequences of not encrypting everything.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Among the informed. The government will try to push that idea that encrypting everything means that you get drug lords, child molesters, and terrorist running wild while not encrypting will mean all the former will be caught and society will be safe and happy.
fche 12y ago
"I said we do not need to encrypt everything" ... as justified by many arguments from ignorance, like "I don't think everyone ...", and "There is no technical reason..." over and over. Even one counterexample for those (some helpfully supplied in comments hereabouts) makes the arguments invalid.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  > ... as justified by many arguments from ignorance, like "I don't think everyone ...", and "There is no technical reason..." over and over. Even one counterexample for those (some helpfully supplied in comments hereabouts) makes the arguments invalid. I gave one very practical example of encryption being applied to file transfers without a technical reason why that has to be. The same applies to the majority of resources fetched from CDNs. The only reason we use SSL for that is because there is no other method that browsers currently support for guaranteeing the integrity of the loaded information.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Authentication and Integrity are just as much part of SSL/TLS as secrecy is. For code I'm going to run on my system, I quite like the idea that I can tell where it comes from and if it's correct. When it comes down to it, it's nobody else's business what python code-modules I'm downloading, it might give them enough information to attack my servers, so secrecy isn't a bad thing either.
    - aidos 12y ago
      To be fair, Armin presented the solution to the first argument in the form of checksums. Your 2nd argument is valid though. I also think it's a bit of a shame that we're having to do all this encryption these days. Think of all that wonderful caching capability we're losing. Still, I come down on the side of "necessary evil", given the increasingly malicious attacks on parties that aren't using it.
    - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
      > When it comes down to it, it's nobody else's business what python code-modules I'm downloading, it might give them enough information to attack my servers, so secrecy isn't a bad thing either. There is much bigger issue there: nobody verifies package signatures. Most packages do not even have ones. So you fundamentally have no way to verify that what you downloaded is what you wanted. Someone could have stolen my PyPI access credentials and uploaded a broken package under one of my releases. Or I'm just a bad person and would ship you bad code. SSL does not solve that problem.
nine_k 12y ago
See, there's an argument that women should not wear short skirts and tank tops, because this provokes potential rapists. Better safe than sorry, no? While this may make short-term practical sense, it's fundamentally wrong. Nobody should be raped, short skirt or not. It's the law enforcement that needs to change and prevent such things, not women. Women, if anything, should carry pepper spray. Same thing applies to the privacy of communication. Nobody should be a subject to an unreasonable search. Yes, having your communication open provokes any number of three-letter agencies to want to snoop on it, just in case. And if they find it encrypted, they want to crack it — again, just in case. Why not yield? Again, this is fundamentally wrong, it goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of it. It's the law enforcement that needs to change, not citizens. First have a probable case, preferably a court order, etc. Citizens, id anything, should use encryption more.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  > See, there's an argument that women should not wear short skirts and tank tops, because this provokes potential rapists. Better safe than sorry, no? This discussion went emotional very quickly. > It's the law enforcement that needs to change, not citizens. Last time I was looking there was no world government. What a country has to do and does not have to do is fundamentally decided by it's lawmakers. In some countries those are elected, in others they are not. I'm a programmer and as such I limit my general impact on technical things. I might have the opportunity to shape legislation but I do not claim that I know what every country should do.
  - nine_k 12y ago
    This argument was not intended to be emotional; it's just a bit less technical and more down-to-earth. Unfortunately, when we're looking at what is right or wrong thing to do, some emotions inevitably wake up. Still, the same point can be made using strictly rational arguments, both from first principles or from practice and history. Also please note that nobody is forced to wear revealing skirts or use concealing encryption. You are free to do what you think is right. I very much appreciate what you do, and wish you to continue unhindered. I hope we can disagree on the point of usefulness of encryption in certain cases without affecting everything else.