Hacker News Reader

With a subpoena or warrant, yes. But not pervasively.

And while we're at it, why is the existing state of affairs not good enough? Why the attempts to subvert the message pipe? After all, the govt can still compel people to talk, and its people receiving those secret messages.

The reason is, to my cynical mind, that they're interested to avoiding the work of warrants etc. They'd like to sidestep privacy entirely, and just record everything in the pipe. Not entirely cynical; its exactly what they've done with the tools they already have.

In my mind there's an enormous gulf between subpoenas of a person for information, and the ability to get that information secretely and continuously.

You make a good point, which is that if companies have to weaken their encryption in order to be able to comply with this law, that opens up the possibility for easier surveillance without a warrant. I think that's a huge concern, because in my opinion the 4th amendment only provides limited protections to bits travelling over third-party pipes on the Internet, so effective end-to-end encryption is essential for privacy.

That being said, the ostensible purpose of this bill is to govern what happens in response to a valid court order.

> That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity.

This is true, but they can't compel me to inform on someone who had a whispered conversation near me that I couldn't hear. To me, the current bill is more like the latter scenario.

If I invented a communication device consisting of two cans and a connecting string, then sold it as a way for neighbor kids to talk privately to each other, they could not compel me to divulge the contents of their conversations because I wouldn't have access, even though I built the canmunicator. I think that in this case, what they're doing is more like mandating that I have a way to let them monitor all string vibrations.

If they want to subpoena information, they can demand that one of the parties actually involved in the communication surrender their keys. If they refuse, then it seems like basically the same situation as when both parties to a whispered conversation refuse to talk about it.

> Pervasive, unbreakable encryption is a game-changer that requires rethinking the existing framework.

It is. But - I'm sure you've heard this better stated before, but - the first game-changer was the massive volume of everyday conversation and chatter that has moved from ephemeral speech to various digital forms, such as SMS, Facebook, messaging apps, or this very site, and thereby (usually inadvertently) preserved indefinitely, along with a ton of metadata such as location information. Digital message records are in theory the same type of information as, say, the result of a subpoena asking someone what they heard in a not particularly important conversation in a private space three years ago, but the former's volume and precision creates a significant qualitative difference. Using encryption to take that information out of the government's reach is in large part a return to the status quo.

Of course, for the case of stored information on a phone, an alternative to encrypting such data is just periodically wiping it - something which, if Snapchat is any indication, appeals to people at some level and should be more widespread.

All that pervasive unbreakable encryption does is make it possible to whisper in someone's ear at a distance. You right there said there is a tool for that situation:"the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said."

That is, you said it is a "game changer," and not a game-changer. You have to issue subpoenas, conduct depositions, etc.

> force me to tell a court what you said

Incorrect.

Government can attempt to legally compel you, but they cannot actually "force" you to do something. Even torture cannot actually "force" you to do something. What can force you to "tell a court what you said" is making it impossible for you to keep a secret; like mind-reading technology.

> ...legal system is built on being able to get whatever evidence is relevant wherever it may be found...

Think about it for a minute; Government says "tell us what you whispered", you say "no", then Government says "fine. you go to jail for contempt". Has our society collapsed because people said "no" to this question?

> ...being disingenuous to pretend that the government...

I'm not sure "disingenuous" was the word you meant to use here. There is nothing I've feigned ignorance about, and I've made my points pretty clear.

EDIT:

Ah, see @JoeAltmaier's already great sibling reply.

You are taking a literalist view of the word "force" there. You can be compelled to testify, and the people asking the questions need to do their homework so they can catch you in a lie if you try that. That's how things were before every communication was electronic.