Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes.

So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those...

Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if somebody stubs you with one.

And what about clothes? Naked criminals would be much less effective...

The thing is anything can assist criminals. Why single out encryption (besides the government wanting to snoop at will)?

View on HN

> Not to mention knives

Bad example. We definitely do ban carrying large knives (blade length >X), butterfly knives etc. around with you. Relatedly Germany even punishes carrying around lockpicking tools (unless that is your job) -- just carrying them.

Also cars have unique identifiers literally attached to the outsides of them with typefaces you can read from 100 feet away. They do this to, you know, mitigate their criminal uses.

A sharp enough 3cm blade is more than enough to make someone bleed to death.

A 5cm screwdriver is more than enough to give brain damage to someone.

A flexible extension hose like the ones that go under the sink (with the nuts attached) is perfect for knocking someone out.

A titanium tipped pen is quite good if you aim for ears, temple or throat.

A tightly rolled newspaper makes a very good blunt weapon.

Breaking/banning encryption like would have minimal benefits while exposing the whole society. Don't think that only the gov't will have the secondary keys if they decide to "only" have back doors. Anyone motivated enough will have them.

If chat encryption is banned... let's say it's not hard to reintroduce it on top of existing layers for anyone motivated enough or with enough money.

When I was a teenager (in the 90s in the UK), the police sent a guy to our school to tell us all about the new knife laws. He said that even a sharpened plastic ruler was illegal.

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys".

Whether the balance is good or bad, we will see. But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

> But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

Yes, but the "bad" tends to become "good", as the members of the society becomes weaker and weaker.

> what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys".

Which can only be done through spyware installed universally if encryption isn't going to be broken. Because that certainly isn't ripe for abuse..

Yes, it will be abused. As will the surveillance tech that I prefer as an alternative to crypto backdoors, on the grounds that (1) the crypto is far too important to permit backdoors, and (2) it won't be possible to stop boring everyday criminals from getting surveillance tech, let alone governments, and (3) crypto is knowledge that's already out of the bag, so sufficiently motivated bad guys can still have it without backdoors even if everyone else's crypto is broken.

That's why I can only see a plausible outcome involving radical reductions in penalties for basically everything.

>Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle

There is no balanced middle with encryption. Things are either encrypted or their not.

"Encrypted but a third party has access" or "Encrypted, but with breakable encryption" is as good as non encrypted.

This is why I didn't go beyond the quote.

My general point is that even though crypto is necessary (despite criminals using it), keeping it available isn't sufficient.

This comment is gold, I'm definitely going to be using these arguments!

Indeed, food is also helpful to criminals, without proper nourishment they would be less capable

Reply on news.ycombinator.com