Hacker News Reader

Comment by donkeyd | Hacker News Reader

Even without having encryption in main stream applications, like WhatsApp, it's child's play to communicate secretly. There are so many open source applications that allow you to do this, it wouldn't even be a speed bump for criminals.

Targeting main stream applications only hurts main stream users. NYT should write an article about that.

View on HN

Or to put it another way,

"If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption"

I heard that you can download plans for encryption from the internet and build it secretly in your basement with widely available tools.

Yes, and that reduces the number of people you need to watch more closely by about 100x.

Watch for what? Random noise? Innocent Looking Traffic? https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable-transports.html.en

In the end bad guys could just use an one-time pad through unsecured communication channels. Then we have to ban pens, paper and dices.

You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem.

I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made.

Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will really be made by governments instead of the pointless one the NSA, etc have already answered. You can downvote me but you don't get a downvote in governments around the world when they outlaw real encryption.

If only the government(s) could be trusted to not pass along confidential business information from foreign companies (or even perhaps local) to help the companies in their own country.

I have not seen them use that argument. If they used that it would be better than what they normally do; which is imply they don't understand what's going on. But even this argument is subject to the same problems; it implies they don't really know why we'd want/need encryption because it assumes that a government could create a back door only they could use.

I work for a Bank and we use encrypted external email all the time. We have to for regulatory reasons. I'm sure it's the same for defence contractors, and it's a prudent precaution for governments and many other businesses and in many parts of the world.

The ideal scenario for the NSA-types is "unbreakable" crypto with a built-in NSA-only escrow/backdoor and possibly a secondary backdoor for five eyes allies (with domestic traffic free of 5-eyes backdoor.)

Suspension of disbelief on security of escrow mechanism is a necessary pre-condition.

Fortunately that unicorn has been shot in the nineties already. Several times. Still, it won't completely die.

banks... defence contractors... governments... If you guys didn't have something horrible to hide you wouldn't need this encryption.

I'm happy that my bank uses encryption. I bet most people with bank accounts would agree.

> You can downvote me but you don't get a downvote in governments around the world when they outlaw real encryption.

I'm pretty sure you can downvote them by voting for representatives that do not support such laws. At least if you're in some kind of democracy.

Unfortunately that process isn't as easy as clicking the little triangle, and hence only 4 out of 10 eligible "moderators" participate[1]...

[1]: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

There should be a name for this fallacy. This is easy to say for any issue in isolation, but what is a voter to do when they only have two or three choices? When there are dozens of issues at any given time the chances of having a candidate that aligns with you on all of them is nil.

You can vote for either a) the representative on the one side who supports such laws or b) the representative on the other side who supports such laws or c) throw your vote away and let the majority of people who don't understand/care about this issue decide between (a) and (b).

Voting is not a solution to a problem like this and is generally very ineffective in the US.

Not in a gerrymandered district. It won't do you any good, even if you presuppose the existence of a pro-encryption candidate, which is a bad supposition.

Assuming the numbers wouldn't go up from people encrypting out of spite

Over the last year or more I've started encrypting everything I can out of spite, just in the hope of creating noise.

> Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will really be made by governments instead of the pointless one the NSA, etc have already answered. You can downvote me but you don't get a downvote in governments around the world when they outlaw real encryption.

I was ready to up-vote your argument because I agree with the first two paragraphs but the snark turned me off from supporting you. Leave it out next time and I you'll make a more convincing argument.

Encryption is important and is crucial to the security mechanisms that underly the whole internet. I don't think anybody is seriously advocating making encryption illegal. (Which makes your argument pointless.)

What does seem being argued for is to mandate adding a 'backdoor' for the government.

The counter argument to that is that adding a 'backdoor' makes the encryption pretty much worthless.

The weighing of risks of this and the importance for privacy versus the anti-terrorism fighting benefits is the only debate (not) happening.

"Which makes your argument pointless"

Of course it doesn't, and that's not what I meant. I didn't mean wholesale outlaw, as in no one would be allowed to use it. Governments can mandate consumer communication technology, for example, like they are trying to do with Apple now.

http://betanews.com/2015/11/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-weaken-en...

I don't think that would be the case. If a couple of western Governments "ban encryption" it would probably just mean that they weaken the crypto (e.g. backdoor). The traffic of weakened crypto still looks the same as the traffic of strong crypto - I don't think it would make strong crypto any more noticeable.

Also remember that crypto would still be legal in the rest of the world (China is not going to backdoor their crypto for the NSA's benefit) so you would still have heaps of encrypted traffic moving across the internet. I doubt that such a measure would do anything but make mass surveillance of western populations easier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com