undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnimalMuppet8y ago0 comments

Well, it shows that there is a non-zero probability of the key being leaked or breached. And if the key can open everything, that's a consequence big enough that we need to think seriously about it happening.

"Trust us, we'll keep it secret" has been empirically proven to be not as true as they want us to believe.

0 comments

gtcode8y ago

Agree 100% about carefully considering consequences of crafting a skeleton key into our most prized technologies. The tech community, at least the most vocal subset in these parts, can keep pushing back against LE's cries for such a key, and it's clear there is merit to such an argument. It just seems to be somewhat provincial from a neutral perspective, however.

Taken from the "other side", it does not seem universally true that generally deployed strong, unbreakable encryption built into "secure" general-purpose commodity hardware is in the best interests of humanity going forward. It seems to be an open question. It was nice to see rational/objective/neutral discourse on HN in the past that considered all sides. But, such a universal perspective seems to be missing of late, and the more recent parochial attitude seems a natural form of pushback, given the current chaos. Hopefully good comes of this.

"Snow Dawg" is currently partaking in thoughtful discussion arguing against NSA's policies on his twitter, if anyone is interested.

nitrogen8y ago

What you describe as "neutral" is a false compromise between the reality of technology and math, and the inanity of thinking a backdoor is a good idea.

gtcode8y ago

No, that's not true, the argument for a backdoor isn't purely technical. LE's perspective is almost certainly predicated on a universal (amongst the good) desire to reduce suffering. This part is downplayed or ignored.

Can you prove that there is no such thing as a "perfect" backdoor? Can you show that the existence of a skeleton key introduces risk beyond losing the key? Has this been formally proven?

That might be a good starting point, and I apologize if my understanding is wrong, but can't one build a skeleton key into encryption that cannot be broken with any greater likelihood than otherwise would be possible by compromising the encryption itself? If the surface area of attack is doubled at most, that seems a viable trade-off. Yes, it's potentially a huge SPOF if designed sub-optimally (I'd suspect that there is a way to build something akin to a one-time use set of segregated skeleton keys), but that risk needs management like all risks.

(redact)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

gtcode8y ago

"Snow Dawg" is currently partaking in thoughtful discussion arguing against NSA's policies on his twitter, if anyone is interested.

nitrogen8y ago

What you describe as "neutral" is a false compromise between the reality of technology and math, and the inanity of thinking a backdoor is a good idea.

gtcode8y ago

Can you prove that there is no such thing as a "perfect" backdoor? Can you show that the existence of a skeleton key introduces risk beyond losing the key? Has this been formally proven?

(redact)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse