Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

>The right to encrypt is the right to privacy.

Is there no right to encrypt? Because no government can actually prevent you from encrypting anything and the maths behind cryptography are openly taught and researched in all modern states. So are you saying that governments should never have the right to compel you to decrypt what you encrypted (by, for example, a fine or a prison term)?

View on HN

That's relatively recent, though. Until the 90s and PGP, encryption was very much under the government's control, and regular citizens definitely did not have a "right to encrypt". The Clipper Chip launched in 1993.

IMO the battle over privacy and crypto is well documented by Steven Levy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto:_How_the_Code_Rebels_Be...

Wow the Clipper Chip is interesting reading, especially in light of the current battles over cellphone encryption. Thanks!

While encryption is of course just maths, governments have done a surprisingly effective job in the past controlling access to research and implementation. Granted this is significantly harder now with much wider proliferation of the internet. While this may not deter those with a technical interest much, it definitely does affect 'average users'.

As one concrete example, Netscape's SSL implementation was originally shipped in two versions - the 'secure' US version, and a severely compromised international download version, due to export controls on the encryption method used.

I'd also argue it's still not fully 'open' in the US - there's still a legal requirement to notify the government of any open source release of new cryptographic technologies, and some restrictions on distribution still exist. I also don't think it's a major stretch to imagine we are just one more San Bernadino style tragedy away from the first western government legislating to ban/compromise cellphone storage encryption, especially with the current US and UK political climates. One can only hope after San Bernadino that Apple has began preparing in earnest for that fight - I can't see any other big players having the moral conviction.

https://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

> As one concrete example, Netscape's SSL implementation was originally shipped in two versions - the 'secure' US version, and a severely compromised international download version, due to export controls on the encryption method used.

No need to bring Netscape from the past, Oracle's Java 8 ships with crippled crypto and you need to download additional jar from their site after accepting that you are not exporting it to "bad" countries [0]. What's funny is that the jar contains only configuration and it's super easy to adjust it manually.

[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6481627/java-security-il...

The right to encrypt - unlike the current debate over a right to healthcare - is a negative right: All men are born able to encrypt (given the math), it can only be taken away.

Positive rights, like healthcare or Social Security, are a thing that you are not born with that is given to you. The government does not have to provide you with encryption software in order for you to encrypt.

That is to say, I think you are correct and that right does exist.

With respect to healthcare isn't it more complicated? As regulations/laws can interfere with a negative right like the ability to self medicate?

In the same vein, there is no right to life, there's right of not being killed.

And despite centuries of civilisation, this is actually true, under the surface of civility and sophistication. Human beings understand what they ought NOT to do better than what they ought. We're wired that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com