Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaur | Hacker News Reader

> this becomes a gigantic public debate where we scramble to enact legislation that removes this power from the government.

No such thing will happen. The public will forget this ever happened, and politicians will do nothing to prevent the government from doing this again.

View on HN

Well, my tech-illiterate grandfather knows about this debate, and all he can understand is that the FBI has a terrorist's phone and Apple is obstructing their investigation.

He thought encryption was something we could easily ban, and he's a civil engineer. I walked him through it mathematically, then gave examples until he understood, but not everyone has a technical background.

We are losing because we aren't presenting an alternative public narrative.

We must educate the public on the necessity of strong encryption to the modern economy, and the danger of backdoors. Even getting them to imagine how the Soviets would have used this technology is usually enough to get the greatest generation and the boomers to at least think.

We won against the Clipper chip, munitions classifications, export grade encryption, 96-bit maximum key sizes, and SOPA.

We can win here.

It was 56-bit maximum key size btw.

And before that 40-bit RC2 and RC4 were the strength that was easily exportable, which was laughable.

The problem is people have a hard time of wrapping their head around the idea that an encryption backdoor, once created, is at extreme risk of being leaked to others and can not be contained.

This is something that I find is hard to explain to nontechnical people because it isn't intuitive of our understanding of the real world.

E.g. "If a bank can keep my money from being stolen, then surely you can keep this backdoor from being stolen, so stop complaining and just do it already!" -- As Trump would probably say when ordering it done, echoing the sentiments of many.

Point to TSA locks and the New York City master keys. Both systems are similar enough to encryption backdoors, and both systems have already been compromised.

NYC: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/03/12/new-york-1620 TSA: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/11/tsa-master-baggage-keys-3...

I don't plan to let that happen. Do you?

I'll fight this as long as it's under discussion. Talk to your friends and family, contact your representatives and let them know you care.

If we as technologists, the only ones who understand the tech side of things, are silent, then yes this defeatist attitude will win.

We need not be silent.

I'm with you there

> contact your representatives and let them know you care.

Unless you have a lot of money, your representatives don't care.

It seems like the only way to make progress is to support stronger encryption, with less of a possibility of engineering backdoors.

This is not true; there are any number of studies and interviews which have shown that elected representatives will only act in favor of donors if the voters are silent or supportive. No congressman or senator will ignore dozens of letters and phonecalls (, though there has been some debate as to the utility of e-mails).

I don't see why the myth persists. If money really did speak so loudly, Jeb! would already have clinched the GOP nomination.

You may enjoy This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1]

> Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]

...

> Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]

The point is, if they are voted out they lose their jobs and income, therefore they must listen to voters. I'm not saying I support super PACs or anything, but I find it comforting to know that if we come together on something then we do have a role in the democratic process that is stronger than money.

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

So is there a super PAC that supports the agenda of encryption as a right? If not, should we make one?

We are! Sort of. Not a money-raising PAC, but rather a campaign to educate people about encryption in ways that are understandable by non-techies. A few of us plan to make a website and a fun campaign name. If you're interested in being involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service.

Or make your own campaign. The more, the merrier.

There is also the EFF, and an organization called Fight for the Future which is currently running a campaign called Save Security. I'm in touch with both about working together. Tech companies will also lobby for stuff themselves. I'm not sure whether the likes of Facebook, Google and Apple are coordinating on this issue yet or not.

My thought is to do this campaign at zero cost and on donated developer time. I don't plan to register as a 501(c)3 or take donations. I'm hoping Obama changes his mind and there is no need for a campaign. But, if that doesn't happen, I hope we can present the facts to non-techies and share some reasonable arguments techies can use when talking with friends or family, or when contacting representatives. I've read a lot of good arguments online. I think it's just a matter of putting them in one referable location, and making them relatable to non-techies.

If that's not a propaganda piece, it's still anecdotal.

Unfortunately, any technological progress is hostage to public policy.

Unless the voting public starts valuing their privacy more, the government can simply legislate around stronger crypto.

They can mandate key escrow, ban encryption altogether, or be old fashioned about it and send letters demanding you hand over the private key. Don't like it? Go to jail.

Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6].

All of the companies I've mentioned have filed or joined in an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Apple [7]. If money mattered more than voters, then congress would have already passed a bill to satisfy the wishes of America's most financially successful company.

Why haven't they? Because money can only buy advertising and campaign staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep them in office.

[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand

[2] https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand

[3] https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand

[4] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand

[5] https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...

[7] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/03/03Amicus-Briefs-in-S...

Another take on this issue is that the FBI and NSA have a strong opposing interest. While they may not lobby in the same sense as Apple etc., they do represent law enforcement, which is an enormously powerful lobby in the US. So all those private companies are on one side, sure, but US law enforcement is on the other, and that's quite a fight (and one that law enforcement has been winning for a long time now).

But what is it that makes law enforcement a more powerful lobby? The average cop with several years of experience makes significantly less than an engineer straight out of college.

I hate to break this to you, but the majority of people no longer remember the name Snowden. Give it 6 months and this will be such old news that you'll sound like a nut trying to get the majority of people to care about it.

The window of opportunity is short, and closing every day.

Oh, they remember the name Snowden, in the same way as their alter egos remember the name Goldstein. Snowden the great traitor, the demagogue, the terror-sympathiser, the subject of the five minutes hate.

Most "technologists" who talk about this don't really understand the tech side of this thing.

My friends and family have largely disowned me as a "Terrorist sympathiser" over this and other similar matters - convincing arguments based in fact and logic are nothing in the face of loud and blustery arguments - if it was said on TV, or by a politician, it must be true. This holds in the minds of most.

You are absolutely correct.

I remember being told that I was paranoid when I had concerns about CALEA. I was worried that it would be used for purposes other than warrant-backed monitoring of actual criminals and criminal suspects.

Here we are, 20 years later and even though there's no evidence that things are quite as bad as I feared, it's certainly much more invasive than we were told it would be.

Even the most controversial and contentious of issues are quickly forgotten or mis-remembered by the public.

This IS the last stand on this front. If Apple loses, we all lose.

I completely agree. In fact there is already a mechanism for doing what they want done, generally. They get a search warrant, they get a judge to compel a suspect to unlock his phone, refusal results in jail time for contempt of court. There is prior law for all of that. Nobody seems to care that we are talking about doing the search without the judiciary. This is all purely for fishing. Either fishing or they believe that there are all these real life episodes of 24 being played out, which isn't true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com