|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 28 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 03:16 LightSpectra wrote:On March 28 2017 03:13 Plansix wrote:On March 28 2017 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 28 2017 03:07 Plansix wrote:
If Facebook and Apple want a law that makes the act of breaking into their client’s data using internal backdoors illegal, they can ask for it. Makes perfect sense. Criminals of course always obey the law, so they'll be totally bound to obey this one as well. Please refrain from making these garbage arguments. What's garbage about it? Russian/Chinese/North Korean hackers are already breaking the law, why would a law that says "please don't use the backdoor" be any different? That is a risk with phone calls, mail, checks, faxes(maybe not faxes), wiring funds and all other forms of communication. Why is digital communication different?
I can communicate with encrypted content over the phone, airmail, checks, faxes, etc.
The only difference is that modern apps do the work for you by encrypting in-transit. As I've repeated many times, it's just a matter of convenience. My proposal is that we *not* compromise the security of billions of people in order to inconvenience smart criminals and possibly catch some dumb criminals.
|
On March 28 2017 03:24 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On March 28 2017 03:16 LightSpectra wrote:On March 28 2017 03:13 Plansix wrote:On March 28 2017 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 28 2017 03:07 Plansix wrote:
If Facebook and Apple want a law that makes the act of breaking into their client’s data using internal backdoors illegal, they can ask for it. Makes perfect sense. Criminals of course always obey the law, so they'll be totally bound to obey this one as well. Please refrain from making these garbage arguments. What's garbage about it? Russian/Chinese/North Korean hackers are already breaking the law, why would a law that says "please don't use the backdoor" be any different? That is a risk with phone calls, mail, checks, faxes(maybe not faxes), wiring funds and all other forms of communication. Why is digital communication different? I can communicate with encrypted content over the phone, airmail, checks, faxes, etc. The only difference is that modern apps do the work for you by encrypting in-transit. As I've repeated many times, it's just a matter of convenience. My proposal is that we *not* compromise the security of billions of people in order to inconvenience smart criminals and possibly catch some dumb criminals.
And my point is that your system isn’t sustainable with the modern legal system or governments. They need access to communications and there is a reasonable expectation that companies comply with court orders. The tech industry will at some point have to play by the same rules that everyone else does. No company could ever create a data storage system they controlled and claim to the court “we don’t have the power to access it.”
So its work with the government or have their products be very publically compromised through legalization and regulation. Encryption is not sacrosanct, it is just a product made by for profit companies on the internet.
|
On March 28 2017 03:22 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +Well, you could of course make it illegal to use phones of that type. It wouldn't stop criminals from using them, but it would give law enforcement another tool: they could arrest them on the use of contraband technology. Another charge to add to the "blew themselves up in public" charge, I suppose. But would that work against scammers and smugglers? Sure, until they decide to just revert back to word-salad as was done in the days of olde. Show nested quote +Absolutely. Do you, though? Or do you just download the app from Google Play? Because I guarantee you that virtually nobody installs their homebrew apps. In fact, most people don't even know where the button to install from "untrusted sources" (irony noted) is. I do download it from Google Play, but I do a cryptographic hash verification. Granted most people don't do that, but I'm sure they will the moment the very first bait-and-switch exploit is demonstrated to have been used in the iOS App Store or Google Play. If I was a Bad Person, I would compile from source. It's not hard. Non-programmers can do it, and in fact many of them probably do. Show nested quote +Where you say mass-surveillance I say court-ordered surveillance. Remember that the default mode is still encryption on. Facebook/Google/Telegram/my homebrew messaging app have absolutely no incentive to switch that off. So unless a court orders a wiretap on you, your WhatsApp messages are encrypted. And if you're paranoid you are free to add extra layers of encryption in there. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. If Facebook/Google/Telegram can do it arbitrarily for a court order, they can do it arbitrarily for anyone and any reason.
I fail to see the problem. Either you trust that Facebook/Google/Telegram have their clients' best interests at heart, or you don't. I tend to trust that, because it would be a company-ending scandal if it turned out they were selling "secure" communications.
So what you win over the current situation (unencrypted telephone/SMS) is that the NSA (or anybody with a very large hdd) cannot just aimlessly collect all data: it is useless jibberish to anybody who doesn't have the key. Our corporate overlords have the key, but no incentive to trawl the data (see above).
But if you don't trust the corporate overlords, an arrangement could be made so that an independent institution related to the judicial branch would have the key. Note that merely hacking and releasing the key would not really do anything to anybody, because you'd still also need access to the communication servers (although it would return access to our untrusted corporate overlords, because presumably they do still control these servers).
Show nested quote +It also won't catch smart criminals, who will of course be paranoid and add those extra layers of encryption. But nobody is claiming catching smart criminals will ever be easy. Just that barring law enforcement the possibility to listen in to conversations by very simple design makes catching dumb criminals needlessly hard. I don't agree with the premise that we should compromise billions of people's security for a chance to catch a few dumb criminals.
I disagree that we compromise billions of peoples' privacy. In fact, we improve the privacy for almost everybody from the status quo of unencrypted conversations. However, we don't improve it as far as we could. But I don't believe absolute privacy is a fundamental right, so I don't really see that as a problem.
|
On March 28 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
And my point is that your system isn’t sustainable with the modern legal system or governments.
So you say.
Until we have a world government that has the power to yank Wikipedia pages and censor Google searches etc., it will always be trivial for any person to roll their own encryption scheme. Those modern legal systems and governments can accept that fact and adopt the best they can, or they can cost themselves billions of dollars and endanger their ordinary citizens while still accomplishing nothing.
But hey, at least they'll have the perception of trying to do something.
The tech industry will at some point have to play by the same rules that everyone else does.
They do now. Safe companies don't make skeleton keys for the FBI to stealthily crack them. FedEx and the UPS don't return-to-sender if they can't read your mail.
No company could ever create a data storage system they controlled and claim to the court “we don’t have the power to access it.”
You're about 100 years late to that party. Remember the Enigma machine? You know, Alan Turing and Bletchley Park and all that? Guess what--those teletype machines were available for commercial use before the war and were commonly used by banks. Nobody said "we can't crack these messages over the air, these have to be illegal."
After the Cold War the USA did try (in vain) to keep the lid on cryptography so our enemies couldn't have access to it. That was a lost battle. Now everybody in the world can make impenetrable communications. We're in a better place because of it.
|
So what you win over the current situation (unencrypted telephone/SMS) is that the NSA (or anybody with a very large hdd) cannot just aimlessly collect all data: it is useless jibberish to anybody who doesn't have the key. Our corporate overlords have the key, but no incentive to trawl the data (see above).
You're presuming that we live in a perfect world where the NSA is separated from Google/Microsoft/etc. and don't ever try to use their backdoors.
That illusion was shattered in 2013.
If we lived in such a beautiful world where the surveillance state never tried to abuse its powers, nobody would bother with encryption.
I disagree that we compromise billions of peoples' privacy. In fact, we improve the privacy for almost everybody from the status quo of unencrypted conversations. However, we don't improve it as far as we could. But I don't believe absolute privacy is a fundamental right, so I don't really see that as a problem.
People now are already using encryption en-masse via WhatsApp and iMessage. We can roll back the clock and backdoor those products, but a good chunk of those people will just move to non-American solutions and we're no better off for it, except poorer because now our tech companies are no longer competitive due to the requirement to make their products insecure.
|
Once again, the argument that you are so smart and the only one who knows the way forward is tiring. May people in law enforcement and the legal field have discussed the problems with the current system of encryption. If your argument is they are all too stupid to understand, that is fine. They will simply take the same stance with the tech industry and pass laws regulating the use of this encryption.
|
On March 28 2017 03:55 Plansix wrote:
Once again, the argument that you are so smart and the only one who knows the way forward is tiring.
Sorry for defending my opinion, of course at no point in this debate have you ever sounded like "you are so smart and the only one who knows the way forward."
May people in law enforcement and the legal field have discussed the problems with the current system of encryption. If your argument is they are all too stupid to understand, that is fine. They will simply take the same stance with the tech industry and pass laws regulating the use of this encryption.
Quite the opposite, they've all decided that a backdoor would be counter-intuitive. Hence why they haven't legislated it. This was the decision of the Clinton administration when they toyed with key escrow. This was the decision of the 113th United States Congress when Sen. Feinstein introduced a bill to mandate a backdoor in the Playstation Network. This was the decision of the New York State Senate when some state senator introduced a bill requiring backdoors in iPhones for law enforcement.
Maybe under the Trump administration things will change. Wouldn't bet my horse on it though.
If you want to see what other nerds think, check out the comments section on this article posted on Slashdot: Non-US Encryption Is 'Theoretical', Claims CIA Chief In Backdoor Debate. It's pretty merciless.
|
We will have to agree to disagree then. I am sure on a long enough timeline the court and legislature will provide their opinions on encryption and how it should be addressed by governments.
|
Y'know. I swear something really important happened today.
|
On March 30 2017 04:07 Deleuze wrote:
Y'know. I swear something really important happened today.
Not really. its a long wait and see with the negotiation still.
|
The Europeans care about it more than the Brits though.
|
said the russian living in the us.
|
On March 30 2017 04:07 Deleuze wrote:
Y'know. I swear something really important happened today.
Never forget.
|
On March 30 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Europeans care about it more than the Brits though.
Because brits already know who they'll blame if they don't get all the things with no concessions. Not to mention that the "intelligent persons press" like Daily Mail etc went head over heels over it. Boris Johnson ignoring warnings of the ministry of finances that, if the UK has to deal with the EU on wto rules basis - which is very likely - the BIP could drop by a catastrophic 7.5% and £45 bil in taxes. He describes that as "brexit will be fantastic for our country", which is weird to me that people still fall for a fat muffinface that demonstrably lied to get his campaign going. Not to mention that it kinda goes exactly against what even May thinks.
So yeah. Not a big deal here, pretty big deal for the old, xenophobic majority of the country - and conveniently already spotted the boogieman in case the UK doesn't get everything it wants: the EU wants to punish a leaver.
|
On March 30 2017 04:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Europeans care about it more than the Brits though. Because brits already know who they'll blame if they don't get all the things with no concessions. Not to mention that the "intelligent persons press" like Daily Mail etc went head over heels over it. Boris Johnson ignoring warnings of the ministry of finances that, if the UK has to deal with the EU on wto rules basis - which is very likely - the BIP could drop by a catastrophic 7.5% and £45 bil in taxes. He describes that as "brexit will be fantastic for our country", which is weird to me that people still fall for a fat muffinface that demonstrably lied to get his campaign going. Not to mention that it kinda goes exactly against what even May thinks. So yeah. Not a big deal here, pretty big deal for the old, xenophobic majority of the country - and conveniently already spotted the boogieman in case the UK doesn't get everything it wants: the EU wants to punish a leaver.
LOL.
Here's to a cheerful, positive negotiation  .
|
On March 28 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:
So what's being suggested is that we all give up our privacy because a guy drove a car into a bunch of people and stabbed a cop.
Fair enough, but its not going to stop the next guy driving his car into a bunch of people and stabbing a cop is it?
Ding Ding Ding.
Also, do criminals really need encryption?
|
On March 30 2017 18:54 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:
So what's being suggested is that we all give up our privacy because a guy drove a car into a bunch of people and stabbed a cop.
Fair enough, but its not going to stop the next guy driving his car into a bunch of people and stabbing a cop is it? Ding Ding Ding. Also, do criminals really need encryption?
According to our newspapers, the terrorists are regularly discussing their top secret plans over Whatsapp.
I'm highly skeptical.
|
On March 30 2017 19:50 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 18:54 TMG26 wrote:On March 28 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:
So what's being suggested is that we all give up our privacy because a guy drove a car into a bunch of people and stabbed a cop.
Fair enough, but its not going to stop the next guy driving his car into a bunch of people and stabbing a cop is it? Ding Ding Ding. Also, do criminals really need encryption? According to our newspapers, the terrorists are regularly discussing their top secret plans over Whatsapp. I'm highly skeptical.
That is almost certainly true. But as soon as they get an idea that Whatsapp could be backdoored they will move to another more secure platform.
Blow for Nicola Sturgeon as poll shows Scots reject her post-Brexit plan
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/uk-regions/scotland/news/84692/blow-nicola-sturgeon-poll-shows-scots-reject-her-post-brexit
Despite the First Minister hoping to keep free movement and stay in the single market, the research by NatCen found 62% thought trade and immigration rules should match those elsewhere in the UK.
Some 64% said EU migrants should face the same restrictions as those from outside the bloc - a far cry from SNP policy.
Professor John Curtice, a highly respected political academic and senior research fellow at NatCen, said the research called into question Ms Sturgeon’s justification for a fresh independence vote.
“This means that on immigration in particular voters in Scotland seem to be more in tune with the stance taken by the UK government than that adopted by the Scottish Government,” he said.
|
On March 30 2017 20:11 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 19:50 Laurens wrote:On March 30 2017 18:54 TMG26 wrote:On March 28 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:
So what's being suggested is that we all give up our privacy because a guy drove a car into a bunch of people and stabbed a cop.
Fair enough, but its not going to stop the next guy driving his car into a bunch of people and stabbing a cop is it? Ding Ding Ding. Also, do criminals really need encryption? According to our newspapers, the terrorists are regularly discussing their top secret plans over Whatsapp. I'm highly skeptical. That is almost certainly true. But as soon as they get an idea that Whatsapp could be backdoored they will move to another more secure platform.
Yeah, exactly. That's precisely what the tech industry is trying to get politicians to understand.
|
Well, you can't simply ban math.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
