
Hillary Clinton wants “Manhattan-like project” to break encryption - nikbackm
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/
======
sitkack
We have a Manhattan-like project already, is it called the NSA. They have had
pretty much a mirror image budget to NASA over the same lifetime. Encryption
is a red herring. Terrorism is a red herring. We are spending ourselves into a
depression chasing ghosts.

------
Dowwie
Coming from someone who while Secretary of State willingly breached security
policies to ensure her privacy, this rhetoric carries no water at all.

Who are the Halliburton and Blackwater of the information security fields, or
is it them all over again?

They are obviously superpac'g Clinton's campaign

------
dcgudeman
She suggested that there be a "Manhattan-like project" where the government
and industry collaborate to solve the issue of law enforcement not being able
to decrypt messages of suspected terrorists even after following due process.
This article is totally misleading.

~~~
stcredzero
_She suggested that there be a "Manhattan-like project"_

This is the sort of pointy-haired-boss thinking that gets parodied in Dilbert.
Anything is possible, if you just throw enough money at it. Actual
understanding of science and first principles is unnecessary if you understand
that!

------
gizmo686
Putting aside the question of "should we break encryption" to look at the
Manhattan analogy. We did not get atomic bombs because the government asked
physicists to invent a method of building bombs orders of magnitude larger
than what we had before.

Instead, physicists hypothesized that atoms might undergo fission, which would
lead to a release of energy and neutrons. Then they did further research into
this matter and observed fission occur. Once this foundational research
happened, not before, Openheimer drew a picture of a bomb.

It was only later, that the US spent about 0.2% of GDP on the research and
development necessary to construct an atomic bomb.[0]

At this point in time, we have no hypotheses that are analogies to fission
from which we can build the type of system that Clinton is suggesting. In
fact, a solution to this problem would also be a solution to many of the
problems that cryptographers have been researching for decades. Consider that
under the proposed system, the Government has legitimate access to the
encrypted data[1]. Additionally, we would like the system to prevent access to
people without legitimate access. It will be a good day for crypto when we
solve this weakened version of the problem at scale.

At the moment, the best solution to this problem we have is to decentralize
all key material, so that any breach is localized. However, this solution is
fundamentally contradictory to the proposed system.

Additionally, when we say that the Government is an honest actor, we really
mean that the Government computer systems are honest actors. We know that this
is not the case, because we have seen these systems be compromised by
malicious actors.

[0] Total cost of the Manhatten project was about 2% of GDP but about ~90%
went to construction, which would likely be far more expensive for a bomb than
for crypto.

[1] With judicial approval, which I will ignore. For the purposes of this
security definition, assume that the Government is an honest actor.

------
tankerdude
Seems pretty rough, as it seems like she's trying to solve NP hard problems.
And once it's solved for a small number, just a small adjustment again would
render them useless.

Anyone who wants the government not to see anything would just encrypt with
the larger key as a standard (unless _someone_ does a timing cheat in the
decryption implementation itself).

There could be dirty tricks deployed, but truly breaking an encryption is a
serious waste of time and money. It sounds to me that Clinton's tech team
needs to get more than just policy wonks in there if we are to trust her with
truly understanding technology.

Like the fact that H1 Visas are really a ploy to get cheap labor, and not that
we are 'deficient' in tech know-how.

~~~
stcredzero
I expect this level of technology cluelessness and obliviousness to unintended
consequence from Diane Feinstein. Now that Hilary is exhibiting it, that's
another strong point in favor of Bernie Sanders for me.

------
blktiger
I just can't believe anyone would say they "trust the tech experts"
immediately before dismissing what the experts are telling them.

~~~
machiaweliczny
Given article context she said that there must be a way of cracking encryption
without installing backdoors which tech experts advise agaist. Where she
dissmised what they say?

I think with quantum computing and possibilities that breaking encryption
brings to the table goverments will have this in near future.

~~~
blktiger
The tech experts are telling her that you can't break encryption without
ruining it for everyone. She is turning around and basically saying they
aren't trying hard enough.

It's possible that quantum computing will offer a temporary way around this,
but unless governments ban the sale of quantum computing, it's only a matter
of time until quantum computing allows criminals the same ability. Also
consider that if the government can use quantum computing to break encryption,
what's to stop other governments like China from doing the same thing?

------
geerlingguy
Recommended reading, if you haven't already: Crypto[1]. It covers a lot of
history in a readable format (especially if you're not a mathematician) and
deals with a lot of the shrouded history of cryptography in America, the NSA,
etc.

[1]
[http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/crypto](http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/crypto)

------
jtchang
In a way it isn't insane to try and break current RSA encryption. We know if
you throw enough cpu cycles at it you will eventually succeed. What is more
interesting is if we come up with a new method to break it and I would totally
be behind that.

~~~
serge2k
The NSA is already working on this. So is every other government with a
halfway competent intelligence agency. So are researchers.

------
ape4
Guess what the NSA is already doing.

------
daughart
Actually less idiotic than what Martin O'Malley said right afterwards, that we
should never give up liberty for the promise of safety (paraphrased). Except
that's exactly what a stop sign does... trade liberty to drive without
stopping for the reduced risk of crashing at every intersection. Our democracy
is based on compromise, not ideology.

