Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kalium | Hacker News Reader

Would you care to share what you think the valid view points against encryption are?

For my own part, I find it helpful to remember that questions over encryption have been ongoing for several decades. Historically, the arguments boiled down to shouting about CSAM, terrorism, drugs, etc. Mostly it tended to be really be about law enforcement agencies wanting to have the unfettered powers of surveillance.

What's perhaps most interesting to me is that the prevalence of encryption seems to have done very little to stop the FBI from catching people. I know this next point will be contentious, but perhaps there's room to question why these people who are indeed not idiots are so against encryption for you and me.

So yes, you're absolutely right. Let's look hard at our viewpoints and biases and expertise and paychecks and ask ourselves - why does the FBI want us to not have encryption? Why do we want it? Who has the valid view points here?

View on HN

I don't think it's that complicated or nefarious. Law enforcement are humans just like us, mostly trying to do their jobs with as little effort as possible. Encrypted communication makes their jobs harder in some cases, so they don't like it.

> What's perhaps most interesting to me is that the prevalence of encryption seems to have done very little to stop the FBI from catching people.

I don't think we can know this. Or maybe you have some data? But more importantly there's a big gap between "catching" someone and "convicting" someone. Having the content of specific communications can make a big difference in actually proving guilt.

> I don't think it's that complicated or nefarious. Law enforcement are humans just like us, mostly trying to do their jobs with as little effort as possible. Encrypted communication makes their jobs harder in some cases, so they don't like it.

I completely agree. My point was not that their motives are inherently evil per se, just that they're as self-centered as anyone and carefully gazing deep into our navels does not imbue their perspectives with extra validity or compelling strength.

> I don't think we can know this.

We do know that the FBI routinely arrests and prosecutes people, even ones that use encryption. There's no end of public sources showing it occurring again and again. The fate of Dread Pirate Roberts is a good example.

> Or maybe you have some data?

What data would you like? The FBI has statistics available going back to the 1930s: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

> Having the content of specific communications can make a big difference in actually proving guilt.

You're absolutely right, it definitely can be! Which is why the FBI has learned how to both build cases without such things. They've also learned how to gain access to encrypted communications. Between the two, some might opine that it's enough to raise questions about if they really need to prevent you and I from having access to cryptography or not. They're clearly experts at law enforcement and perhaps have no need to confiscate the tools of mathematics from technologists.

Which brings me back to the point. Let's look hard at our viewpoints and biases and expertise and paychecks and ask ourselves - why does the FBI want us to not have encryption? Why do we want it? Who has the valid view points here? What have we gained from this navel-gazing?

We live in a world made of spectrums where we must balance opposing desires. We cannot have prosperity without security (in the law enforcement sense) and we cannot have freedom with absolute security but we make compromises to try to find a balance between those opposing forces. It is an incredibly hard problem to solve but I don't really know where that perfect balance is and I'm not sure anyone knows.

I don't want to live in a police state and I'm not sure of anyone else that does. I also don't want to live in complete anarchy or even a libertarian state because I think there are bad people out there that would take advantage of that and potentially hurt other people.

It always seems to be hand waved away on this forum, but perfect computer security could indeed help criminals out there. I don't know the numbers around how many more but I really believe that no one knows.

I make no assertion that one side is right and the other is wrong, just that it is a hard problem and that I don't know the answer.

Where and how do we find the balance? I know the law enforcement community pushes against computer security to attain better security (in the law enforcement sense) and I know that tech people generally push for computer security that limits law enforcement abilities. I don't think we can let one side of the argument completely win, but how do we find that balance?

You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and educated individual. Perhaps you might find it interesting to read up on the history of attempts to pursue the precise balance you suggest is desirable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

If you seek numbers, the FBI invites you to inspect their data: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

As you correctly and wisely say, the world is full of hard problems with many strong, clear, compelling, and valid viewpoints to balance. It may just be possibly worth considering that this might not be one such scenario where balance is possible, let alone achievable. Do you think there might be cases, in the fullness of the human experience, where one set of extremists on an issue are right, their opposite numbers are wrong, and any balance between them also wrong? What if what seems to be a balance is based on a false premise?

Perhaps we should stop, take a step back, and examine our biases?

Yes, I absolutely think that finding that balance is usually a case of finding the unhappy minimum and not about finding a spot where everyone is happy.

> Do you think there might be cases, in the fullness of the human experience, where one set of extremists on an issue are right, their opposite numbers are wrong, and any balance between them also wrong?

Yes, I think there probably are cases where something like this happens but I would assume those cases would be a little less debatable. But yes, what you say makes a lot of sense and is probably a large part of the reason the current political climate is so tribal.

> Perhaps we should stop, take a step back, and examine our biases?

If you are talking about the current case though, what is the false premise or what are the biases?

There are indeed monsters out there that hurt women and children and use technology to accomplish those crimes. They are not made up bogey men. They flock to technology that provides them cover and punishments for crimes deter criminals from attempting those crimes. If criminals did not have to fear punishments, more crimes would happen. I certainly would speed more if I didn't have to worry about speeding tickets.

> Yes, I absolutely think that finding that balance is usually a case of finding the unhappy minimum and not about finding a spot where everyone is happy.

I'm glad we agree!

Here's where the hot take comes in: we're there now. Encryption is something we have access to. Law enforcement manages to work around it on a regular basis and has now for several decades.

> Yes, I think there probably are cases where something like this happens but I would assume those cases would be a little less debatable.

One would certainly hope so, but it's perhaps possible that this might not always be true. There are often people ready and willing to debate what should be undebateable. It shocks the conscience.

> If you are talking about the current case though, what is the false premise or what are the biases?

Some people have come to this conversation with the false premise that taking away encryption will substantially help law enforcement, improving safety and security for our vulnerable friends, neighbors, and community members. Their pain, suffering, and exploitation is very real, yet that perhaps does not always make functional what is done in the name of keeping them safe.

Some have come to this debate with the bias of assuming there is a useful policy medium to be found. Perhaps there is not, as we might be dealing with technical matters that are all-or-nothing in unavoidable ways.

Some may find these to be perhaps worthy of careful examination, as such things can perhaps lead to dangerously misguided policy - such as the Clipper chip or mass surveillance.

Thank you for being thoughtful and centering kindness, mercy, and compassion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com