Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Devil's advocate: encryption is also what's stopping users with locked-down devices (increasingly common and hard to avoid) from having freedom to run and/or modify the software they use.

It's a tough situation. Encryption can be used for good or bad (and even the definition of what's "good" or "bad" encryption varies depending on who you ask). Unfortunately, I see it increasingly being used to oppress users, in the form of DRM and other "security" features.

Perhaps classifying encryption as munitions makes the most sense, if you support 2A rights.

On the other hand, it's just maths. Maths which anyone can theoretically do.

I don't know if there is a good solution to this problem.

View on HN

What does any of this have to do with the EARN-IT act? This all appears to be just claims about possible uses of encryption with no particular relation to the subject of the article. If these other uses of encryption you're discussing wouldn't be affected by the EARN-IT act, then they aren't relevant here.

I'm saying that "the war on encryption" isn't all one-sided.

The article is about the EARN-IT act specifically. If your points only relate to the war on encryption in general, and not the EARN-IT act specifically, then they do not bear on the article.

I'd imagine that companies would get licenses to use encryption in limited and restricted circumstances, such as for DRM or basic system security. The user won't be able to use strong encryption, but only backdoored or weak encryption to keep the average attacker out.

> but only backdoored or weak encryption to keep the average attacker out.

I realize this is likely not your argument but the only thing that does is delay the access to data, not prevent it.

Private keys will eventually leak, if not publicly, through nation state espionage.

Weak encryption prevents the average attacker today but not the average attacker in the future.

But I'd assume that license wouldn't be an easy thing to get. So it would be rich companies getting it.

It would price innovation out of the market.

Also, not sure what you mean by weak encryption. An average attacker now has access to decrypting tools out of the box (with a few Linux distros) so wep isn't stopping anyone really. Even noobs can be trained to crack with an hour of youtube.

The same cryptography that protects us from them will also protect them from us. The key issue is who owns the keys to the machine.

We'll never be truly free until we can literally manufacture our own free chips at home just like we can make our own free software at home. There should be no big chip manufacturing company they can target with regulation or make agreements with. It's either this or eventually free computers will no longer exist. Just like the radio situation where your software has to be approved by some government agency to make sure it won't cause interference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com