Hacker News Reader

Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

I am a supporter of the EFF but I don't really see the point of suing the NSA. If they loose, they will call it something else keep doing it. And the NSA is only one of the offenders. Don't think foreign gvt aren't doing the same on their side of the cable. The only solution is systematic encryption. The EFF's let's encrypt effort is way more constructive in my mind.

View on HN

There's a lot more to a lawsuit than just winning or losing. By the time this is over, the public will (should) know _exactly_ what is happening, and _exactly_ what the legal basis for it is (should the EFF lose). With that knowledge, we can advocate for specific legislative change.

Assuming that the NSA would continue on regardless of winning or losing is to have zero confidence in our legal system. While there may be some ground for skepticism, using all available tools is absolutely appropriate.

Your comment doesn't imply that they will stop either. Advocating for change doesn't mean you'll get any.

Both avenues must be pursued. One without the other is useless. Pursuing the technical-only approach will fail if the use of such technology is made illegal.

That's actually a worry. I wonder if the NSA's reaction is not going to make backdoors mandatory. But in a way the genie is out of the bottle. Most of the crypting technologies are freely available and the US can't de-invent and de-distribute them.

It doesn't even need to be made illegal, just incorrectly "regulated".

--Someday in the futre---

SecurityAwareCustomer: "I've noticed that my VPN and ssh connections have started to lag & disconnect frequently"

Comcast: "We've gotten several reports on this issue. To better serve our customers we've implemented a software designed to optimize network traffic routing. To do that, the software must do some deep packet inspection. Unfortunately, if a traffic is encrypted this software must go through all its known packet types before determining that it's encrypted. This takes time and also because the incoming buffer might fill up before it's done determining the packet is from an encrypted stream, said packets might get dropped entirely."

SecurityAwareCustomer: "So, encrypted traffic's performance is severely degraded then?"

Comcast: "We're sorry for any inconvenience this may cause"

SecurityAwareCustomer: "Couldn't you check if it's known encryption first, then try other packet types?"

Comcast: "The software vendor has been made aware of the issue. Due to net-neutrality laws & regulations, the vendor was assigned to us by the USGov and they must review any proposed changes to the software. This legal process could take a long time."

SecurityAwareCustomer: "How long?"

Comcast: "Thank you for choosing Comcast!"

-Comcast hangs up phone-

SecurityAwareCustomer: "............huh"

Think of it this way: If we set the precedent that this sort of surveillance is unconstitutional, it will be easier to sue them the next time around. Additionally, if we take this stance as a country, then our government will be more likely to put pressure on foreign powers not to do the same.

That said, I don't disagree about encryption being the real answer. We've gone too long without end-to-end encryption by default.

But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting on both fronts. End-to-end encryption will take a while, why not fight the fact that they're doing it at the same time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com