4 ms·

I understand this. Such a database would definitely be a juicy target. Concentrating backdoor keys and information is unwise. I'm not sure we want to base poli

by themeek 11y ago

I understand this. Such a database would definitely be a juicy target. Concentrating backdoor keys and information is unwise. I'm not sure we want to base policy on something speculative like that. Agreed that conversations should be had - both about widespead backdoors and about centralizing the keys to these backdoors - if the scenario ever comes to pass. In the meantime we can't say that the backdooring contributed to this Chinese attributed breach.

mc808 11y ago
I don't see anyone claiming a backdoor contributed to this breach in particular. It's just a bit ironic (and convenient, frankly) that the news would break on the same day an FBI official calls to further weaken U.S. digital security under the extremely dubious assumption that the U.S. government, now and forever, would be the only power capable of exploiting those weaknesses.
- themeek 11y ago
  It is ironic in a certain sense. Comments here unfortunately were and are linking the two in a causal way rather than just pointing out the double standard. The point of these backdoor programs is that there is an asymmetry in how the vulnerabilities can be exploited. The point being that the calculus has been done - right now the benefit to national security (the place of the US in the 'world pecking order' - it's ability to project power and protect its strategic interests) is greater than its detriment to national security. Now, it absolutely does weaken 'personal security'. Broken encryption, backdoors, weak protocols, federated auth, these things decrease the digital security of companies and persons. As a person not involved in performing the calculus of national security (again global strategic interests) it is easy to see these programs as merely a threat with no obvious gain. Those concerned with national security and global competition see this as a small price to pay to wield a large amount of global influence. This is a good way to understand why the FBI will say things that seem so plainly wrong to the HN crowd. I happen to agree with the HN folk wisdom - that the national security apparatus is there to protect our democracy not the other way around - but to really engage with the issue its important to understand what the 'other side' is arguing more fully. This is a very complicated space. Very important policy scholars (Sunstein) even recommends reinterpreting free speech to mean something closer to what we've historically criticized China for. Going forward we need as much informed debate as possible. The national security apparatus isn't going to listen to the public if the public can't understand the issues they grapple with and engage it charitably. I hope I didn't rant too long.

by themeek 11y ago

mc808 11y ago

I don't see anyone claiming a backdoor contributed to this breach in particular. It's just a bit ironic (and convenient, frankly) that the news would break on the same day an FBI official calls to further weaken U.S. digital security under the extremely dubious assumption that the U.S. government, now and forever, would be the only power capable of exploiting those weaknesses.

themeek 11y ago
It is ironic in a certain sense. Comments here unfortunately were and are linking the two in a causal way rather than just pointing out the double standard. The point of these backdoor programs is that there is an asymmetry in how the vulnerabilities can be exploited. The point being that the calculus has been done - right now the benefit to national security (the place of the US in the 'world pecking order' - it's ability to project power and protect its strategic interests) is greater than its detriment to national security. Now, it absolutely does weaken 'personal security'. Broken encryption, backdoors, weak protocols, federated auth, these things decrease the digital security of companies and persons. As a person not involved in performing the calculus of national security (again global strategic interests) it is easy to see these programs as merely a threat with no obvious gain. Those concerned with national security and global competition see this as a small price to pay to wield a large amount of global influence. This is a good way to understand why the FBI will say things that seem so plainly wrong to the HN crowd. I happen to agree with the HN folk wisdom - that the national security apparatus is there to protect our democracy not the other way around - but to really engage with the issue its important to understand what the 'other side' is arguing more fully. This is a very complicated space. Very important policy scholars (Sunstein) even recommends reinterpreting free speech to mean something closer to what we've historically criticized China for. Going forward we need as much informed debate as possible. The national security apparatus isn't going to listen to the public if the public can't understand the issues they grapple with and engage it charitably. I hope I didn't rant too long.