Hacker News Reader

Even if most people don't have the technical chops spy on traffic themselves, I can imagine a world where there are companies that provide such things as products / services. (Probably there are already a few companies like this, I haven't checked.) For example one might be able buy a gizmo with an antenna that listens in on people's wifi and mobile connections. If end to end encryption was banned, I'm guessing that spying on that non-encrypted traffic would take about $50 and an afternoon of setup, and would not require any special skills.

>I'm guessing that spying on that non-encrypted traffic would take about $50 and an afternoon of setup, and would not require any special skills.

I could see it even becoming a feature in consumer grade network equipment. A bit like HDCP circumvention in video capture boxes or region free playback in optical media players. All you'll have to do is shop around.

Thankfully with the mass adoption of HTTPS most messages are going to be encrypted over the person's network you are using.

And with the law. We whould have a backdoor in tls. And HTTPS will be meaningless

It's possible that the commission will require ISPs to block non-backdoored TLS. But I'd consider that to be more of a worst-case scenario, rather than something that's particularly likely to happen. More likely outcome is companies that store user messages on their servers won't be allowed to provide end to end encryption, and would be forced to store the messages on their servers in plaintext, or using backdoored encryption. The bill allows for differing requirements for different kinds of services, so hopefully ISPs would not have much of a change from the current situation.

Of course, even just that scenario is bad enough. It would mean that the police, the FBI, the NSA, people at the messaging company, and hackers who breach the company's security would all be able to read those messages.

No we wouldn't. This law doesn't even ban E2EE. E2EE eliminates any liability of transferring the messages.

True, and definitely a good thing.

They are comparing to the word "hide" in the context authorities use it, e.g. "nothing to hide". They are not drawing comparisons using the word generically, and they make this explicit. Your two assertions seem to ignore this (i.e. it seems like you're "playing word games").

At least with locking your door because you are afraid the government is going to break in to your house without a warrant is the same. If someone is doing this either they have done something illegal, e.g. "have something to hide", or they are have a mental issue where they have problems with trust and are overly paranoid.

Everyone has something to hide from public view, at least in the sense that you don't want anyone (government or civilian burglar) being able to steal your stuff or know what sort of stuff you have on your hard drive. And by everyone, I include regular people who might have a regular desktop or laptop without disk encryption.

>Everyone has something to hide from public view

But we aren't talking about making something public. We are only talking about a case where the government already has a warrant.

There's literally no difference. None. This was tried before with special locks that 'only the TSA had the keys to open'. The keys were posted online for anyone to make their own. It's also been tried commercially with various DRM and failed.

There is no such thing as a 'government only, and only with a warrant' backdoor. There is either private or not private.

The problem with TSA keys is that they are all the same, can easily be cloned, and couldn't be rotated.

It is possible to design a system where judges have their own hardware keys. Hardware keys can not be cloned assuming strong tamper protection. If a hardware key gets stolen it can be revoked as being valid and a judge can be issued a new one.

DRM is different because the client ultimately has to have the keys to decrypt the content they have been permitted access to.

Shot in the dark here? Which Government are you talking about? Saudi? Where being gay is a death sentence? No? How about the US where being Japanese was illegal? China's got the most people, perhaps we take a wold wide vote to see? Biggest land mass? Millionaires per population (the 1%)?

Who would control the creation of the keys? I mean which tech vender would control access to my android phones encryption? My phone was made in China, and the chips inside it were made in China. They also have the most people, so it seems fair they control the keys.

No, we're not. We're talking about the EARN-IT act, which wants to legally require all website owners to report all kinds of things to law enforcement, without any probable cause that anyone has commmitted a crime and without any kind of warrant.

We were on a tangent. E2EE isn't even banned by the bill so it's all somewhat off topic to talk about.

> E2EE isn't even banned by the bill

Not explicitly, no. But it is not feasible for applications to comply with the provisions of the bill while still supporting E2EE, so the bill's effect will be to largely eliminate the use of E2EE.

What is an example of a right that you think people should have (by law), which constrains the government in some way?

The right to not be randomly murdered by the government.

Why are you afraid of the government randomly killing you? I think you only have to think about that if you're doing or planning something very illegal. People who have problems with trust and are overly paranoid might fantasize about that sort of thing, but the average citizen who doesn't do anything wrong will be fine.

> Most parents aren't technical and wouldn't even know how to MITM even an unencrypted messaging app.

Give it a couple of weeks and someone will have put together surveillance and parental control system for it.

>Give it a couple of weeks and someone will have put together surveillance and parental control system for it.

????? CSGO chat is unencrypted. It's been more than a few weeks since source games have been out. Show me this parental control system you theorize would have been created.

> Even in regard to whistleblowers they only need anonymity. They want to do the opposite of hiding their messages. They want the opposite. For as many people as possible to see their messages.

This website is freeeeeeeee