undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFakeComments7y ago0 comments

The ones courts which governed the relevant company were willing to issue warrants on behalf of — that is, those our regular legal and political systems decide on.

For a big multinational like Apple, that’s probably a fair number. But it’s also harder to hide they’re doing that, and let’s us bring pressure on them politically for their political misdeeds. In the end, it’ll be major powers who can — US, Europe, China, etc.

My point is that it’s never going to be the case that technologists get to unilaterally decide that for all of society.

My proposal is just to bring phones into line with existing warrants: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19036408

But by doing so, technologists have the political cover to push back on spy agency excesses and abuses.

0 pointsFakeComments7y ago0 comments

The ones courts which governed the relevant company were willing to issue warrants on behalf of — that is, those our regular legal and political systems decide on.

My point is that it’s never going to be the case that technologists get to unilaterally decide that for all of society.

My proposal is just to bring phones into line with existing warrants: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19036408

But by doing so, technologists have the political cover to push back on spy agency excesses and abuses.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

pjc507y ago· 3 in thread

So you support China being able to hack any phone globally with a warrant in a Chinese court? Isn't that literally what Huawei are accused of facilitating?

FakeCommentsOP7y ago

No, I support China being able to spend an appreciable amount of time to crack each phone they have physical possession of, following a court order. I never suggested the ability for remote compromise (what Huawei is accused of), and my exact point is that we can create a cost to cracking each phone — in hashing power and time spent — if we compromise on the topic. No such cost exists now, because they achieve access via other means.

The combination of requiring physical possession and appreciable hashing time per crack is a two-layered response to mass-surveillance. That’s the whole basis of the compromise I’m proposing: calling their bluff, and enabling warrant cracks as political cover to shut down mass surveillance and cracking as unnecessary.

pjc507y ago

The "hashing time per crack" reminds me of the old 48-bit encryption which was mandated to have short, crackable keys. Or even the previous attempt at doing this with the "LEAF". Are you proposing some sort of work function within the crypto enclave? ie you leave the device brute-forcing for a few days and it spits out the key?

The "appreciable time" is going to be subject to constant downward pressure, both politically and technologically.

> political cover to shut down mass surveillance and compromise as unnecessary

Mass surveillance is not going to go away without huge cultural reform of the security services. They don't take concessions.

2 more replies

Zecar7y ago

> my exact point is that we can create a cost to cracking each phone — in hashing power and time spent

This is not at all how encryption or security works

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse