Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

> If Apple has the key to unlock your data legally, that can also be used illegally, without Apple's cooperation. Home Depot and Target? They were recently hacked to the tune of 100 million accounts. Despite great financial and legal incentive to keep your data safe, they could not. ... your data is only as strong as the weakest programmer who has access.

That's the main point here, which is excellently put.

Also, the graph by the bottom is great too -- the point that our data is becoming more and more intimate is really relevant. That's something really salient, which you rarely hear mentioned these days.

View on HN

To me, that's not the main point. The main problem with a universal backdoor "so that the good guys could get in" is that the good guys with all their good intentions have no business pawing through your private stuff. It's not about having a good reason, or having a mandate. It's about your rights to not be subjected to warrantless searches, which is exactly what a golden backdoor would enable.

In other words, even if some genius devised a backdoor that was perfectly secure (allowed access only to those who were explicitly granted that access), had it verified by an international group of geniuses 10x smarter than she is to be sure it's actually secure, and granted access to only the most trustworthy organizations, which would of course act in the most transparent way possible with a clear cut mandate and individual accountability, it's still a violation of your privacy, a violation of your rights, and in the US a violation of the constitution.

> in the US a violation of the constitution

The fact that there is a backdoor is not a violation of the Constitution. If it's only used with legal warrants, then it's well within the Constitution.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. On the other hand, the NSA has a secret court that, in secret, grants it warrants to wiretap anyone it wants. While that's a neat loophole, it should be closed. I don't think that dangling a carrot the size of a golden backdoor in front of the law enforcement and spy agencies will result in anything other than more rubberstamp courts and very questionable warrants.

You are technically correct about "technically correct", which is the best kind of "almost correct".

I'm not in favour of the 'golden key' but saying that the existence of a golden key violates the Constitution by fact of existing is not true.

I should have been more clear, but what I am saying is that it's existance within the US will almost undoubtedly be used in violation of the Constitution.

Maybe the way to present that to laypeople is to say, "If law enforcement can unlock a child predator's stuff and look through it, then they can also unlock your stuff and look through it. All of it."

The last sentence is important. A large number of people have some area(s) that they wouldn't particularly care to have law enforcement looking at closely, even if they aren't overtly criminal in any way.

>"they can also unlock your stuff and look through it. All of it."

I have had this conversation. The response is, "I have nothing to hide. My life is boring." I have gotten this response from people I know have things to hide. One guy had cheated on his wife and was illegally selling marijuana. But he said "I'm a small fish. They have more important things to deal with."

For people who warned about NSA spying, they watched as the response went from "that's impossible" to "that's illegal" to "that's not happening" to "it's targeted" to "it's everybody overseas only" to "it's everybody but why do you care." What I learned is, many people are apolitical and they will just use whatever is the most convenient excuse that justifies continued inaction.

There's one point which I see far too rarely: even if the current people in power were all 100% trustworthy good guys, you can't guarantee the people in power 10 years from now are any good at all.

In the face of every other objection, THAT should be the one to attack proponents with. If you wouldn't give the powers to your worst enemies, you shouldn't even think about giving them to your current friends.

In addition to intimacy increasing over time, it's also a very continuous change. So people aren't really thinking about how it's changing. They're just doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com