
EFF, Access Now, and the White House Sat Down to Talk About Encryption - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/eff-access-now-and-white-house-sat-down-talk-about-encryption-details
======
hidingfromherd
Perhaps I'm being hard-headed here, but I don't understand the need to debate
secure communications here, beyond the benefit of opening doubt in the minds
of those ignorant of the underlying physical process.

This boils down to the fact (for me, and by proxy, my community) that I (and
by proxy, my community) will not use insecure communication because someone or
someones wants me to do so.

Shake your fist, rattle your sabres, put me in your sights, it will not change
my (and by proxy, my community's) resolve.

And if I (and by proxy, my community) is to be prosecuted for using secure
channels, then I (and by proxy, my community) will resort to steganography.
Exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the effects of a
dedicated mind and an overwhelming power (of math) on my communications'
transit.

The only means by which a paternal element can mediate the policies of my
interactions would be to mediate the interface by which I (and by proxy, my
community) communicate (in this case -- electronic/digital computer<->human),
and enforce this with vigilant, and economically costly violence.

This matter-of-factness is similar to that in traffic stop interaction
situation. I'm not happy that men with guns can systematically stop my
transit, search my belongings, and steal my assets (at least in Texas), with
ex post facto logic applied to the inherent justice, and I have no way of
stopping this. The exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the
effects of a dedicated mind and an overwhelming power on my transit.

So I work around it, I try not to get stopped, and I deal with it when I do
get stopped. I don't shake my fist or pout, beyond the benefit of opening
doubt in the minds of those ignorant of the underlying physical process.

~~~
mindslight
While I agree with what you've said, the problem is that the sheer majority of
people are using defective-by-design webcrapps. In fact, this is what has
reopened this "debate" \- TLAs got used to firehose access that companies no
longer want to provide because it hurts their image.

So we, as a society, are in a situation where say 95% of people's software
choices _are being decided politically_! If they're nudged into [continuing]
using backdoored software, then criminalizing the remaining few is pretty easy
to do, even if it's only through lazily-enforced laws like RIPA.

But as I said I do agree with you ideologically and have to hope that as
people get a clue the pendulum will swing back to secure decentralized
solutions. Because even if our holy leaders dismantled the NSA (et al)
tomorrow, it's only a matter of time until the same electronic panopticon
catches up with us via the private sector through eg insurance policies and
aggressive price discrimination.

~~~
adrtessier
> But as I said I do agree with you ideologically and have to hope that as
> people get a clue the pendulum will swing back to secure decentralized
> solutions.

As technology progresses, eventually at some point those in power of that
panopticon can actually grab the pendulum before it swings back. That's what
you really have to be afraid of: if the surveillance programs get enough of a
head start on the people recognizing their own government is watching their
every move, they can cause enough havoc behind the scenes that whatever the
people end up getting mad amount they can give up for PR, and just continue as
usual with any and all of the other programs they didn't figure out.

It's debatable where that point is. I don't think we are quite there yet, but
I expect we'll get there in our median lifetimes unless the American people do
more than privacy slacktivism.

~~~
mindslight
I was referring to the pendulum of centralized-decentralized computing, not a
general pendulum of people wanting totalitarianism/freedom.

FWIW I'm more worried about what becomes societally normal than what the
government prescribes. In that sense, we need freedom-preserving software more
to show people what is possible and give them alternatives, rather than to
simply hide ourselves from abusive brother.

------
obvmn
I have a pretty certain suspicion that this whole debate is fake. Here is why:

They already have backdoors in the hardware! The googles and apples and so on,
the big companies already willingly work with them! Etc.

Apple is happy to pretend they are on the consumers side, fighting the
demands, in order to roll back the damage that the Snowden revelations have
done to the collaborators. In reality it is the same as before: business as
usual. What does it matter even if the device is truly encrypted? They've got
all your info while you were using it anyway. This way the people they don't
want to have it can't get it, but they still have it.

This debate about adding backdoors, this pretending to care that backdoors are
added, is nothing more than an attempt to fool you and I that they don't
already have them!

This isn't to say that if they win these fake debates they won't also use such
an opportunity to make illegal things like TOR and Freenet as they have made
attempts to circumvent copyright protection illegal. This will be so that if
secure hardware does arise, they won't have to worry much about it since the
software will be illegal and already repressed and thus retarded since made
illegal.

------
mikekchar
Obviously on this topic (and many others), you can't expect everyone in the
government to have the same interest in secure communications that we have.
However, this conversation worries me. It appears that the EFF and Access Now
talked extensively about their position. According to them they called the
debate on the topic "laughable". Which is true but...

The response was: "While they seemed well aware of our concerns about the
technical infeasibility of inserting backdoors, they didn’t necessarily share
them." In other words, the White House was already aware of the EFF's position
-- so the talking at length will not result in the White House having any new
insights.

If you believe that negotiation with the other side will be fruitful you need
to find out what you need to say to make the other side understand. "Your
position is laughable" followed by a repetition of something they are already
ignoring is not going to help.

I would much rather the EFF had a conversation with the White House and said
absolutely nothing. I'd love it if the EFF's report of the conversation
consisted of a list of misconceptions that the white house has about
encryption and a strategy for correcting those misconceptions. Right now their
strategy seems to be, "Write in and tell them how stupid they are". While it
might be true, it's not going to change any minds.

So my question: Why does the White House not share the concern about the
technical infeasibility of inserting backdoors? Have they been told otherwise
by someone they trust more? If so, why do they trust the other party more? Are
they just closing their eyes and hoping that science will eventually triumph?
In either case, how do we educate them otherwise? Is there some way to
demonstrate the infeasibility in a way that will attract their attention?

I'm happy the EFF exists, but this seems to have been a giant waste of an
opportunity (We complained very loudly and they politely ignored us).

------
lvspiff
This sounds like the beginning of a bad joke...

Getting Obama to understand doesn't really matter though at this point. The
power is in congress and the supreme court. Laws are passed by congress then
either overturned or ruled just by the supreme court it seems like lately.
While the role of president looms large as the next one will likely appoint a
new member or two to the bench, the current president will have no real say in
the encryption battles. This seems more like a moral victory for the EFF and a
face saving one for Obama and his legacy and wont really affect any change.

~~~
doctorshady
Couldn't the Whitehouse just find some 200 year old law that sounds like it
applies to encryption, and issue an executive order?

From the sound of it, they want to keep any sort of draconian measures as
quiet as possible, and that'd probably be the quietest way to do it -
especially now. The Obama administration said they'd clarify their stance on
encryption "by the holidays".

~~~
rpgmaker
They would if they wanted to but they don't. The FBI really thinks that the WH
fucked them on this issue with Obama's statement a couple of months ago so I
doubt he will go further on this. Hillary Clinton has already hinted that
online companies should open up to law enforcement and Trump has gone even
further than that so it's not looking good in that respect. The federal courts
and the supreme court are a sucker for natsec so it's not looking very good.

------
PebblesHD
I don't understand why this form provided by the White House seeks comment
from US residents only, as this debate and the result will affect not only the
US but users of American services across the globe. As an Australian I would
like to contribute to this debate as it will have a significant effect on my
life and work regardless of physical location.

~~~
mhurron
You might not have noticed, but nations actually only have to show lip service
to serving their own citizens, not everyone on the planet. You don't get to
have a hand in the US elections either for similar reasons, though you could
claim it would have an effect on much more than just the US population.

