1800: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
2000: lol tech lets us read it all
2025: Oh no, crypto is good now? They want us to get a warrant and use non-dragnet surveillance to pursue leads? THE HORROR!
Calling 2000 as the "year of dragnet surveillance" has similar issues, because you could argue that dragnet surveillance really got started in the telegraph era and scaled during -- was it WWI? If I think too hard about these dates I'm going to wake up tomorrow drooling on the keyboard from a wikipedia binge.
Hopefully the aftermath of this era of corruption and grift in government is a better legal framework.
edit: I realize I wasn't clear what the more serious problems I'm referencing are. They are human trafficking, murder, domestic abuse and so on.
The biggest problem in the past was secure coordination. For example, the battle plans at the Battle of Antietam were discovered in cigars.
Thus, the calculus was that people could keep their stuff private, but if they were trying to coordinate with others, communications were able to be cracked.
However, now, people can do secure, encrypted communication easily with dozens of people worldwide. This changes the calculus of what they can accomplish. A person with a locked briefcase at home is pretty limited in what kind of stuff they can coordinate. A person securely communicating with dozens of people worldwide, can accomplish quite a lot without discovery.
This changes the calculus from the 1800s.
> There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in Ruritania there was a strange phenonmenon -- all the trees that grew in Ruritainia were transparent. Now, in the days when people had lived in mud huts, this had not been a problem, but now high-tech wood technology had been developed, and in the new age of wood, everyone in Ruritania found that their homes were all 100% see through...
> One day, a smart man invented paint -- and if you painted your house, suddenly the police couldn't watch all your actions at will...
> Indignant, the state decided to try to require that all homes have video cameras installed in every nook and cranny. "After all", they said, "with this new development crime could run rampant. Installing video cameras doesn't mean that the police get any new capability -- they are just keeping the old one." [...]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22758407
With the author’s name (Perry E. Metzger) I was able to track down an archive of the original Usenet post.
Why would you build houses out of wood if the wood is transparent?
It would make more sense if it were discovered years later that the police had special polarizing binoculars that let them see through the wood, which no one knew they had until it was too late and all the old mud huts had been phased out.
Also, describing someone as a “paint technologist” when they are anti-paint is a confusing decision for a parable: a story intended to make a complex issue easier to understand. I initially assumed they were going to have a role analogous to a cryptographer, not an anti-privacy provocateur.
Perhaps having the police attempt to foil insidious flower thieves or dastardly rebel plots to undermine the government controlled potato cartel would also be more in spirit with a parable. The use of awful real life crimes (against children, even) make this a difficult one to share.
A parable is, by definition, metaphoric language. "Mud" and "wood" and "paint" and "tranparency" are metaphors for analogue physicle vs. digital electronic data, crypto, and surveillance.
Why do people choose, or find themselves with no alternative than digital data systems? There are numerous reasons. Many resemble, in some fashion, the list I've given above.
Reading parables overly literally is a category error. All metaphors melt if pushed loudly enough.
It’s not so much that the metaphors break down under scrutiny, it’s that they didn’t really make much sense to me in the first place.
But that’s just it. Every time someone wants to put limitations on encryption, they cite child exploitation.
I think every new impactful tech requires a reevaluation of laws to keep the balance from tipping in the wrong direction.
I also object to your wording around "bad guys" and "good guys." When Joe LEO wants to use the state surveillance apparatus to spy on his ex, is he a "good guy"? When the FBI mailed MLK Jr a suicide letter, was MLK the "bad guy"?
(Libressl is developed by OpenBsd)
Once you write significant software, it's frequent that the NSA or police will offer you collaboration (eg. How CloudFlare started with Project Honeypot, or how Facebook got investment by the CIA, Crypto AG that got investment, etc).
The intelligence services don't have to coerce you through a gag order; they can just make a generous offer.
One of the LibreSSL author(s) maybe has financial problems. In this case, what is better for him ? Accept a juicy 5M USD consulting contract, be a nice boy, solve all the problems and beyond, or be the guy that will discover what it means to be sued to oblivion on frivolous charge (NSA will never charge you but they can share information).
If the US companies respect orders of the NSA, it's because they don't want to end up sacrified.
If the DoJ for example needs help from Facebook to capture documents from Airbus to give them to Boeing, you think Zuck will give away all his shares, stock, money, family, or just collaborate ?
The CEOs will fight the decision until they can (because of the PR risk), but at some point if the pressure is strong enough they won't be able to refuse (and I respect their choice to protect their families and by extension, protecting the families of their employees by protecting their job).
If someone knows your weaknesses he has unlimited power. It doesn't matter if it is a legal or illegal organization.
Yeah that's my first thought: why would they use gag order when they can just bribe someone? Doesn't even have to be $5MM; a few $100k here or there could change someone's life.
And then there are actual government contracts, e.g. how the US can dangle the GovCloud or other lucrative contracts over Facebook/Google/Red Hat/Microsoft/whoever, with some implied or explicitly demanded "add this to the stack..." requirements.
This doesn't seem relevant here. The government can make all the secret attempts to read your communications remotely that they want. If they want to take the strategy of torturing you until you hand the information over yourself, at a bare minimum they need to be willing to admit to doing it. It's not a threat to worry about, from the US government.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniq...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_in_the_United...
You are first of all assuming the worries are coming from US citizens. People outside the US can obviously worry about the US government or its allies breaking their knees, it is a widely documented fact of life in many US war zones. We know that the US has officially been torturing people it suspected of terrorism for information (Guantanamo, CIA prisons in Eastern Europe) .
Second of all, we also know from the past that the FBI has been involved in campaigns of infiltration, blackmail, threats, incitement to violence, and almost certainly assassination of civil rights organizations and leaders (COINTELPRO). This was investigated at the time by Congress and new laws were put in place to prevent this type of behavior, but we have no guarantee that it didn't resurface in some form, especially in the current political climate (especially by not only the 'war on terrorism' started by Bush and escalated by Obama, and enthusiastically supported by Trump).
Overall, I think it's perfectly reasonable to fear the US government may physically force you to give up secrets, obviously so if you are not a citizen, and quite likely even if you are one.
Once you have taken care of these priorities, you can start worrying about the soundness of your encryption. Inventing safe encryption if you're not overly concerned about performance is really not hard, even experienced laymen can do that by using existing cryptographic primitives. You can even make it quantum safe. (It should be, in the described scenario.) If you think that is not within your capabilities, then you're probably right, but then you've already failed at task 1 and 2 anyway.
For the remaining 99.9999% of the population this is not a realistic threat scenario, and it's best to use a well-established cryptographic library with the recommended defaults.
Whose knees to break though?