
Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight - paralelogram
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/16/obama-sides-with-cameron-in-encryption-fight/
======
tuna-piano
My biggest issue with all this is that when you give them the power to take
away rights to prevent terrorism or protect children, the government will use
their powers wherever convenient. For example, the patriot act has been used
in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases[1]. It has also been used for
everything from copyright violations to Las Vegas money issues[2].

1\. (2011)
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-
act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-
terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html)

2\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act)

~~~
SixSigma
B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers

[http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-
national/northe...](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-
national/northern-ireland/bbc-uses-ripa-terrorism-laws-to-catch-tv-licence-
fee-dodgers-in-northern-ireland-30911647.html)

~~~
nailer
For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming
government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't
watch or listen to that content).

~~~
alextgordon
The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.

~~~
0942v8653
U.S. citizen here—what's the difference?

~~~
thristian
That is to say, the BBC is supposed to be run for the benefit of the United
Kingdom and its citizens, not for the benefit of whoever happens to be the
elected leader at the moment.

------
mrsteveman1
Blatant attempt by intelligence services and law enforcement to get their
personal wish lists legislated by shamelessly exploiting a tragedy.

I'll happily donate a constant percentage of my company income to fight
whatever useless laws come out of this. It'll be fought immediately if they
try to legislate backdoors or any equivalent tinkering.

Last time we had a big legal fight about strong encryption, we got a supreme
court ruling that source code implementing strong encryption was free speech,
didn't we? Wonder how counterproductive the governments own actions will be
this time.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Why don't you donate to EFF?

~~~
mrsteveman1
I do :)

------
dllthomas
_“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number,
despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate
that, that’s a problem,”_

If you can penetrate that with evidence of a terrorist plot, 1) you can
penetrate that without evidence of a terrorist plot, and 2) probably so can
others.

Both of these make us less safe.

~~~
nyxtom
Exactly!

------
ipsin
What really twists the knife for me is the idea that a belief in privacy is
unpatriotic.

"Of course, they'll want to subvert private communications. They're
_patriots_."

The world needs a hell of a lot less _patriotism_ right about now.

~~~
xnull1guest
This kind of "privacy" (lack of the existence of institutionalized absolute
compelled disclosure to law enforcement and along with broadly cast suspicion
less search) was once called liberty and freedom by American mythological
forefathers.

------
spiralpolitik
So its Crypto Wars 2. There are two possible ways this will play out:

a) Obama is just being polite given that "Call me Dave" is in town and has an
election to fight so he can't been seen as being soft on terrorism. He knows
that its highly likely that Cameron will be out of a job in six months time so
is just stringing him along.

OR:

b) The fix is in, a tame lawmaker will drop a bill that they just happened to
have prepared that was sitting in their drawer for a rainy day. Given the
Republican's have never met a national security bill that they didn't like
expect it to pass through the house and senate with the usual added pork and
pardons for the NSA/CIA to make sure nobody goes to jail for recent
revelations (Democrats being too chicken to filibuster).

If we don't see a huge outcry from the tech industry pointing out what an
insanely bad idea this is on Tuesday then I fear for the future.

~~~
snowwrestler
There are a fair number of Republicans who would oppose this sort of thing (as
many did last time). The most prominent might be Rand Paul, who is a serious
prospect for the GOP presidential nomination.

But look at what just happened with civil forfeiture; pressure on the
administration came from Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans like to
feel privacy from the government too. It just needs to be framed correctly;
"imagine if someone like Lois Lerner had a backdoor to every conservative
group's email server," or something like that.

And there are other routes they could take with legislation besides global key
escrow. They could pass a law that mandates stiff penalties for people who
decline to provide their encryption password in the face of a warrant.

~~~
spiralpolitik
There is already laws on the books to handle that. If the government can get a
warrant describing the item(s) to be retrieved from the encrypted volume then
you can be held in contempt of court if you don't hand them over. There was a
recent ruling that (that is being appealed) that ruled in this direction.

But as per the 4th, if the government can't say what they want from the
encrypted volume then they are on a fishing trip and you can tell them to get
lost. There was a recent ruling that confirmed this (again being appealed).

What is up in the air is whether or not you can be compelled to provide your
password to decrypt the volume. Expect the Supremes to have weigh in on this
one in the coming years.

Basically all this is an end run around what's left of the 4th and 5th
amendments. Probable cause means that law enforcement actually has do its job
and build reasonable case rather than just deciding you are a bad person,
looking to see which laws you've broken based on your data shadow, and then
throwing the book at you in hope you'll settle for a plea.

------
bhhaskin
George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students.
Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers
come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide,
and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and
always on intelligence network can have over the population.

~~~
dllthomas
I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful.

For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning.

For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't
actually happen" distracting from the important points.

~~~
fit2rule
Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author,
specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of
the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to
lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like
so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point
entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now as it ever has, and should be
required reading for everyone - not just school kids - who care about the
state of their cultures in the future.

~~~
dllthomas
While I don't think I disagree with any of that, I do think my observation
stands and that 1984 should be less stressed in these discussions.

Note that I didn't say that I think _the book_ is harmful, but the focus on
it.

~~~
fit2rule
Why do you think the focus itself is harmful? Does 1984 in some way detract
from the issue of state control over personal lives, or is it the hubris of
the issue that makes it so difficult .. because if you're referring to the
hubris, I can understand that. Its a kind of fatigue that sets in when 1984 is
brought up, over and over again, and people stop paying attention to the real
issue because the pop-culture knee-jerk reaction is to devalue the message due
to the fatigue of no solution. There is no solution to 1984; its a dire
conundrum with no end, and I think this is a source of definite stress in the
issues.. the book itself does not discuss a solution. However, discussing the
book _is_ a solution, because it brings the issue to a point where an
individual can be aware that they have to always be vigilant against state
intrusion.

But this is not always the case - for the younger generations who are not
familiar with the issue, 1984 is a very important piece of literature. For
those of us who have suffered decades of ignominy over the crimes of our
governments, sure: fatigue is the issue. But, we must never be willing to put
our freedoms aside, for a little relief from repression. Always be aware, and
always fight back!

------
andrewflnr

      “We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he
      said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad
      cryptography.”
    

Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. What in the world is this author
doing giving the NSA the last word? What's really sick is that it sounds
reasonable, like he's exposing a false dichotomy. But is it so hard to see
that it's actually a real choice?

~~~
skuhn
The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order
to mislead.

The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bit export
grade RSA, that the government can just bust whenever they feel like it. Of
course, so can pretty much anyone else, so this offers almost no protection.

The second option is to use secure cryptography, like 2048-bit RSA, that is
thought to be difficult to bust in any reasonable timeframe. However, the
government can compel you to hand over your private key, and they can then use
that to decrypt whatever they want. An attacker could also steal the key and
do the same thing.

The third option, which is what companies have begun to realize is the only
method with actual security from criminals AND the government, is to transmit
data without using a private key that they control. A good example is
iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use
of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to
turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either. If they have
done their job correctly, there is no way to compromise the data that doesn't
include obtaining someone's phone. This third option is what the ex-NSA lawyer
doesn't even want to include in the conversation, even though it is what
everyone is up in arms about right now.

It's also worth stating that this does not offer some new revelation in
privacy. If I had sent you a letter in 1885, someone would have to actually
GET the letter to read it and know what I told you. A system like iMessage
functions in the same way: to know what I wrote you, you have to obtain one of
our phones. The NSA is just sad that they can no longer pluck the message from
the air.

One final note: there are so many methods of communication on the Internet,
and more launch every month, that I can't imagine how they could all be
monitored. Terrorists could be communicating with voice chat on Everquest 2.
They could be arranging plants in their Farmville gardens to spell out coded
messages. It's an arms race, and I don't want my freedoms compromised by
governments trying to win it.

~~~
runeks
> A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a
> conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's
> servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one
> can steal the key either.

I'm not intimately familiar with the security of iMessage, but Apple controls
the key server, as far as I understand. Can't law enforcement just compel
Apple to make their key server respond with a public key owned by the NSA,
instead of the public key of whichever device wants to receive the secret
information?

~~~
skuhn
Yeah, that is my main worry about their strategy as well. A public key server
and visibility into the keys selected for a conversation could solve this, but
the usability cost would be gigantic.

I think it's pretty tough to make something elegant and simple without
centralization, but hopefully it will happen some day.

------
datashovel
This is absolutely terrifying. You can't use "the way things currently are" to
argue for giving governments access to personal data. You have to think about,
and protect "the way things might end up". How easy do you want to make it for
corrupt government leaders to suppress opposition?

~~~
datashovel
with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a
collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be
responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to
keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By
making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The
moment you make it entirely the government's problem and responsibility is the
moment you (for humanity's sake) have to relinquish your privacy.

~~~
woodman
That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is
an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed"
mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the
fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also
likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is
the nature of bureaucracies.

I can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion, it has its
finger in every other pie. What are you actually suggesting, that companies
should voluntarily be backdooring software and handing over keys to the
government? Or are you suggesting that they should be monitoring all their
customers and informing on them, in the attempt to preserve privacy?

~~~
dllthomas
From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is _one kind of_
collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of
government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and
further empowering police or the armed services.

From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything
the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussing
any action of any sort. But backing off that just a little, if the popular
mindset at least helps determine _how_ that bureaucracy expands then privately
limiting terrorism might help push the growth along less harmful avenues.

What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion - I
think we agree that companies adding backdoors, monitoring and informing is a
bad approach and I don't think it's what the parent meant to suggest.

~~~
woodman
> ...government is one kind of collective effort.

Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve
state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really
doesn't like it.

> ... privately limiting terrorism might help ...

You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident
that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would
be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in
the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private
individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually
starve.

> What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion...

Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding
my breath.

~~~
dllthomas
You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was
thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other
benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included,
providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that
vein...

~~~
woodman
No, I've set no constraints on private efforts. Things of low cost quickly
become very expensive (in both time and money) when multiplied by the size of
the population, or the number of cities, or whatever other base you're
imagining. I've not yet heard an actual suggestion though.

~~~
dllthomas
The goal is not, primarily, "reduction of terrorism because terrorism is
first-order a significant problem we need to deal with". Terrorism is first-
order a tiny problem; reducing it is good, but not worth tremendous expense.
But the second-order effects of overreaction to terrorism can be existential
threats.

I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, continuing to spread the
word that the first-order effects are _not_ so severe - you're helping, there.
Second, trying to capture any over-reaction in a non-privileged sphere (and
trying to multi-purpose it - medical first-response built in case of terrorism
also helps with heart attacks and pandemic). Third, reducing instances of
terrorism to be over-reacted to, insofar as it's reasonable.

People will respond more positively to the second point if it credibly has
some impact on the third.

~~~
woodman
lol, imagine what you just described in a state machine. The hypothetical
program is billed as an anti-terrorism measure, with a stealth payload to
reduce irrational fear of terrorism. Those without the irrational fear will
resist program implementation, as will those positively influenced by the
program. At best the program would arrive at a fluctuating state of half
implementation. This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would
completely undermine the goals of the state.

I think the best we can hope for is free, high quality, approachable
instruction in propositional logic. Now we only need to get people interested
in PL... maybe sponsored product placement of SWI Prolog on daytime TV? :)

~~~
dllthomas
Actually, reducing irrational fear of terrorism can reduce incidence of
terrorism - as terrorism becomes a less effective tool it will be employed
less. "Refuse to be terrorized" isn't a bad meme.

Beyond that, one doesn't need to fear the first-order effects of terrorism in
order to support such a program. Fearing damage done by undirected (or
maliciously directed) overreaction to terrorism is plenty.

 _" This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would completely
undermine the goals of the state."_

I'm not convinced the state is quite that monolithic, but I think this is
likely better as a private effort anyway.

------
p01926
'Patriots' is an interesting word in this context. I say giving foreign
intelligence agencies access to your customer's private communications is
treason.

~~~
themartorana
This is doublespeak - taken in its opposite (and the message it was intended
to deliver), it means if you _don 't_ want law enforcement to have encryption
backdoors, you're _not_ patriotic.

Ya know - "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." [0]

[0] [http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...](http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)

------
click170
> [Obama] said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the
> problem. “They’re patriots.”

He's right that they're patriots, but he's wrong about the problem they're
trying to solve. They're fighting different terrorists. Terrorists hiding in
government.

~~~
nateberkopec
That's optimistic. I think we learned with PRISM that Silicon Valley companies
are more than willing (whether through legal compulsion or otherwise) to
cooperate with the administration.

------
hamoid
This discussion so far contains: 52 times "terror", 11 times "safe", 5 times
"fear". I'm tired of those words. Having no TV and reading no news I don't see
any connection between those words and the world that surrounds me.

It's sad to see homeless or drunk people in the street, but that's the worst I
see.

I think eating healthy, exercising, having friends and a job does much more
for our "safety" than ridiculous laws and surveillance.

I don't understand why people fear so much. Is it not possible to just refuse
to fear? Be conscious about the effects it has. Talk about it. Why not just be
brave and ignore the nonsense? Living with fear is no good life. We can't
choose what happens in the world, but we can choose what we feel about it. We
will die if we have to die. So what? It's not the end of the world.

edit: I remember seeing the tv in Finland. They play hours of crime-related
series every day. What can you think of the world if you just see murders all
day?

------
ibejoeb
"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…"

Have I missed something important? Is there a case, or even evidence of one,
wherein encryption was a factor in a plot coming to fruition? If there had
been, I would have expected the Obama, Cameron, et al., to trot it out.

Are we legislating this just in case? Strong encryption is already out there.
I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with
weak encryption. But why don't we just make terrorism illegal, then?

~~~
xnull1guest
It is not about terrorism - it is that technology like this threatens the
current level of the capability of the state to enforce its laws. Imagine
instead the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud
speculation markets or manipulate stock prices. Or enemy states using
encryption to thwart espionage attempts. Or insurgents and soldiers engaged
with US troops around the world to organize efforts to put up resistance.

Remember that Julius Caesar famously sought to make pen and paper illegal
because he saw such low barriers to fast potentially secret communication a
threat to Rome's security.

I know of no case reasonably called terrorism where encryption played a role
in thwarting intelligence efforts.

> I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do
> with weak encryption.

When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.

~~~
ibejoeb
If it's not about terrorism, somebody should tell Obama; that's his quote I
pulled.

Now, regarding:

> the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud
> speculation markets or manipulate stock prices

Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud
than it prevents?

> When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.

Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take away
our encryption and somehow convince our adversaries to abide by those rules.

~~~
xnull1guest
> somebody should tell Obama

Oh he knows. Lip service to the public about terrorism is just that.

> Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud
> than it prevents?

No idea.

Keeping things on topic financial fraud, insider trading, etc is an example
where strong encryption does complicate the state's ability to enforce and
investigate illegal activity. The purpose here is to draw from a well of
motivation other than oft cited but never seen use of encryption in
'terrorism'.

The government's fear is that ubiquitous access to these tools will deprecate
the executive branch. All tools from nuclear enrichment to hammers to animal
husbandry have noble and malicious potential. Encryption is no different. The
executive branch's job is to allow the noble purposes and to discourage,
prevent, investigate and indict the malicious.

From the perspective of the executive, encryption presents a serious hurtle to
the pursuit of the malicious.

Yet disagreements between the public and the executive about the the scope and
breath of executive practices along with the US incarceration rate, of legal
exceptionality of the rich and powerful, and general unease with current power
structure coupled with traditional mythical US values means that the public
would like guarantees about their ability to communicate without being
searched.

The US public wants its cake and to eat it too. Secure and private
communication for the masses that can not be intercepted. But it wants the
executive branch to be able to enforce the law and to investigate broadly.

The executive branch has made many proposals to this middle ground: the
clipper chip and key escrow, proliferation of weak cryptography and the use of
third party doctrine as a buffer zone mechanism all represent compromises the
executive branch has made.

What it comes down to is that the US public does not trust the executive
branch not to abuse a middle ground - it points to historical and current
examples of extralegal abuse - and in general feels that its government
represents their interests but only after compromises with other 'more
important' interests (international and domestic elite).

That is to say that the current state of "front door" encryption is a
compromise made by the executive but one that the public does not trust.

Yet the public still wants law enforcement to be able to investigate insider
trading.

So the government is in a bind. The government is justified to the people by
its ability to enforce the laws of the land - if it can't, even for technical
reasons - it will have difficulty seeming justified. The government's solution
is to invoke the boogieman. 'Terrorists' will get you if we don't compromise.
'Pedophiles' will get your kids if we don't compromise.

But no, it's not about terrorism - it's that the government does not know how
it will be able to stand up to proper strong cryptography in the case of true
and perceived malicious use.

Freedom is like a dove, yadda yadda.

Encryption is like osteoporosis.

> Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take
> away our encryption and someone convince our adversaries to abide by those
> rules.

Entirely. Historically this has been achieved by subversion of cryptographic
methods, consumer products and standards and misinformation about security
margins. It has made legitimate strong cryptography hard to come by but not
specifically illegal. It is likely to become more and more difficult to
perform this sort of influence now that the cat is out of the bag.

------
hackuser
This all seems to be a bit of a red herring:

1) Based on what I've read from experts and what I know, if a national
security agency targets your data, they will get it. Even government systems
containing state secrets, protected by other state security agencies, have
proven to be vulnerable. Banks are penetrated; even RSA's crown jewels were
stolen, IIRC.

2) Even if 'content' data is encrypted, metadata almost certainly is not.
Security agencies can identify which data belongs to their target and collect
it, even if encrypted. Also, IIRC, recent leaks indicated that the NSA
automatically collects much encrypted traffic, including Tor and maybe VPN
traffic.

3) Metadata, as most people here probably don't need to be reminded, is as
valuable as content. Again, regardless of what encryption you use your
metadata probably is vulnerable and security agencies can easily collect it
and utilize it.

4) Therefore, it seems that encryption only prevents low-cost search of bulk-
collected content. It doesn't provide any security for metadata (usually),
encrypted content still can be collected, and unencrypted content probably is
vulnerable if you are a high-value target.

------
ak217
> “If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number,
> despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate
> that, that’s a problem,” Obama said.

Yes, it's the kind of problem you get when a patriot whistleblower exposes
rampant corruption and unlawful behavior at the NSA; behavior that, above and
beyond civil liberties, hurts American commercial interests, and then you do
nothing about it.

> He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem.
> “They’re patriots.”

He's right about them being patriots. He might be wrong about what patriotism
means in this case.

------
nsnick
So Obama is the least transparent president in history, cracked down the most
on whistle blowers and is diametrically opposed to privacy. When will everyone
admit that they voted for a charming fascist.

~~~
datashovel
I try not to mix the politician with the POV. Especially in this case. My
impression of Obama is he's a very cerebral president. My impression is that
he wants the country to have an open, honest conversation about important
issues. Without stirring up controversy sometimes it's probably impossible to
get people talking about or thinking about these things. My initial belief is
that he not only doesn't believe in this, but wants to see strong signs that
public opinion disagrees also with what he has proposed.

I'm hopeful the next president will be just as conscientious about the
intricacies of important issues and how it's important not to act on
controversial things without strong public support.

My initial reaction, though strongly opposed to what he's saying is: "Joke is
on us". The fear I think is having a U.S. president who will not consider
public opinion and go about making his / her decisions in a bubble.

~~~
nsnick
So what you are saying is that Obama is supporting surveillance in the hopes
that we will oppose it because he supports it? I think you are giving him too
much credit. There aren't many policies that all politicians can agree on, but
spying on citizens seems to be one of them. This is a great example of how
Obama can do no wrong.

~~~
datashovel
Time will tell, but my previous comments are my initial reactions in a
nutshell :) The scary thing will be if he actually acts on this.

~~~
judk
Obama has run the NSA for 6 years, shielding them from prosecution or even
censure for their crimes.

------
nlh
Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please
bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE
asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent
answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario:

We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad -
to blow up things and kill innocent people. They are plotting and coordinating
these bad things via communications with one another. Historically, we have
been able to intercept those communications, read them, and interrupt our
adversaries from the bad things they are plotting.

If our adversaries' communications are completely impossible to intercept, we
have lost one of the most valuable tools in our ability to prevent them from
doing bad things. How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad
things?

Again - please don't attack me - just looking for a smart answer here.

~~~
smtddr
I find it works best to use something the "Average/non-tech" person will
surely understand:

 _" What if there were cameras in your house that recorded everything you did
& said, but the government promised you the footage would only be reviewed in
the case that they suspect you committed a crime. How would you feel about
that?"_

I've gotten a lot of mileage from this metaphor myself. The response is
usually silence while they internally question their worldview or something.
Never gotten a counter argument, nor anyone replying with _" I'd be okay with
that"_. Would be interested if HN could poke a hole in this so I can patch it.
:)

~~~
FLUX-YOU
I might start responding with:

"Oh, I think it will be a great idea. The government will see how good of a
citizen I am and how much I learn on my own, and perhaps, if I'm lucky,
they'll give me a job so that I can stop cooking the rats in my walls."

~~~
elpachuco
Not a counter argument at all. You've just shown that any more time on you
will be wasted. There will always be types like you. Nothing to do but write
you off.

------
icelancer
How can people still side with major party candidates after Obama's power
grabs? So frustrating.

------
tdaltonc
What if Google says, "no"? What if they choose to implement a service that
they don't have keys to?

~~~
imaginenore
They will force them to create a backdoor. Just like they did with Microsoft's
products.

~~~
andreasvc
They have offices in other country, e.g., Switzerland. Couldn't they avoid
having to create backdoors by running the service in question from there?

~~~
icelancer
Absolutely not. No first world country would host it, especially one that has
strong ties to the US like Switzerland now does. This isn't the 1960s.

~~~
andreasvc
It was my impression that Switzerland had a name for being crypto and privacy
friendly. It sounds odd to me that the US making a law would automatically
mean that every other country with strong ties to the US would follow it as
well.

------
chj
What's the front door approach they are going to take? legalised middle man
attack?

------
diminoten
Well what he actually said was that if the US government has a warrant, they
shouldn't be stopped by encryption.

And if the company is a US company, who would disagree with that?

------
comrade1
"They're patriots"

This is the same argument Obama tried to use with Abbvie while trying to block
their takeover of shire for tax purposes. He used the phrase "economic
patriotism".

But in the end the government had to go with a more mundane solution and
reward Abbvie 100% of contracts for their new hepatitis drug with Medicare
rather than give split the cohtract with gilead.

My point - look for some large government contracts with apple and google in
exchange for dropping encryption on their platforms.

------
woodman
walter_laughing_in_crawlspace.gif

------
lukem123
WHAT? everything is horrible

------
yarrel
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit.

