This is a very good video that gives you insight into both sides of the debate, but I'm not sure it will change many minds because the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything. The entire thing rests on on argument, "There is no way to build a digital lock that only angels can open and demons cannot." However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back.
It also makes the entire debate black and white which isn't the case in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. There are guilty people who get off and innocent people who are convicted. If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate?
>However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future.
It seems obvious to me why it's trivially true but maybe you had something else in mind.
Let's say you have an equation like this: x+3=10.
How do we make it so the answer of "x=7" is only given by angels but never by demons? Cryptography is mathematics and for the entire period of its existence, there's no math that only the good guys can perform but the bad guys can't. Math and numbers don't have a concept of angels vs demons acting on it. Same idea as a physical key not knowing if the hand using it is a legitimate police officer or a criminal.[1]
Also, the distinction of angels-vs-demons is not as simple mapping it to government-vs-terrorists. What if the actors in government are the demons?!?" Examples are police officers using their computers to digitally stalk people or CIA officers probing into citizen's private files that they're not authorized for.
Clinton said, "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,"[2]
Ok, it seems like someone can just sit down with Clinton and outline the math above. Or, if we really really wanted to play along with the "there must be a way" idea, I suppose we could postulate a math device that only performed mathematics after scanning the users brain and determining that the neural patterns constitute a "good guy" with lawful intentions. Well, what about all the electronics and math unrelated to the biometric verification? Just bypass it.
I think the obvious response to your first argument is that encryption already works on the angels vs demons system. Except with the current technology the angels are the owner of the data and anyone with which they share the data. Why does the mathematics work for that but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, your second point isn't an argument involving encryption. You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate that is relevant in a whole bunch of other areas and not specifically encryption.
>but you can't expand it to a larger group of angels.
Your phrasing and labeling of "angels" is not the same as mine. We are starting from different assumptions.
In my opinion, you've made a leap of logic and a priori called the abstract actors in the government, "angels".
I would weaken your sentence to say: "but you can't expand it to a larger group of 3rd-parties."
It's critical that I call them 3rd-parties because it is not yet known if they will behave with angel or demon intentions. It's also impossible for technology to determine that.
>You are arguing that we can't trust the government. While that might be true, that is an entirely different debate
I respect that you consider it a separate issue but I think that bad actors (or sometimes incompetence without malice[1]) within the government is intertwined with what an "angel" is.
To not get bogged down on "angel", let's say we just consider if there's a way for technology to create a backdoor that only works for the government but not non-government. Again, the answer would be no.
There are ways to make perfectly secure (from a mathematical standpoint) backdoors. Theoretically, there is no reason that every encryption couldn't have a second key known to the government that doesn't weaken the encryption by any significant standard.
The problem is about trusting the government, which can mean (at least) two things. Either you don't trust them to use the key properly. Which is a valid concern. Or you don't trust them to keep their official backdoor key secure. Which is also valid, secure data is stolen all the time and we can't even be sure that they'd notice or admit if it did get stolen.
Again, the technical challenge here is that in the real world keys can be stolen. The "system" can be secure from non-government actors even if the system comes installed with a backdoor that the government has access to. The weakness isn't in the theoretical "system", it is in the fact that now instead of one point of weakness (you yourself protecting your own key) there are two real-world points of weakness (your key and the government's key). The "system" is still impregnable to the same types of attacks, but now rather than tricking you out of your key someone might be able to trick the government out of theirs too.
Now hypothetically, what if you divide the "government key" in half. Give half of that key to the vendor controlling the encryption and half to the legal system. As long as you don't restrict the company from speaking out about its cooperation, that would seeming prevent abuse as well as minimize damage if one key leaked.
I think you just proved my point of why no one is changing their mind on this issue. You went from saying you had a trivial mathematical argument to debating semantics and disagreeing on the meaning of the word "angel". Politicians thrive on those type of semantic arguments. If you want to change their minds, you have to get better at explaining that mathematical argument more convincingly than this video did or you did in your first post.
I went from Math to Semantics because I was engaging with your points specifically... and you mentioned the technology angle because... CodeGrey mentioned it in the video. I wasn't making a universal treatise about government backdoors such that anyone from anti-vaccination parents to moon landing deniers will be convinced of the merits.
The technology impossibility of digital locks used by angels-vs-demons mentioned by CodeGrey is a red herring and not really part of the debate that I've heard.
Instead, people like Obama/FBI/NSA already know that a backdoor provided to the government is impossible to keep out of criminals' hands. They knowingly avoid mentioning the misuse by criminals and only highlight the benefits of catching terrorists. They don't need to be convinced of math proofs because that part was never the stumbling point.
the central idea of the video isn't really supported by anything.
You missed the point of the video.
Thinking of encryption as a 'lock' is only a metaphor, it isn't actually a 'lock'.
There aren't 2 sides to this 'debate.' There is no debate here.
Something is either encrypted or it isn't. There is no in between.
If you want to take an opposing side in a debate, you would have to say something like "encryption is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed to exist, we must wipe it from the face of the earth."
Yeah... good luck with that.
Not only would attempting such a task be futile and foolhardy, but the vast majority of political will would be aligned against attempting such an idea since so much of the modern world rests upon encryption.
in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate.
Our legal system doesn't rest on the absolutes of mathematical thinking in the way that encryption does.
The legal system describes punishment, not protection. The legal system only works inside of said country and does not pertain to outside actors, individual or state level that are beyond your prosecution. Even the government itself protects itself from itself by using compartmentalization. By giving the government the keys to everything we have ruined said compartmentalization and put everyone at risk.
> However, there is nothing in the video to back up why that argument is true now and/or will continue to be true in the future. That is where Clinton's whole "Manhattan Project of Encryption" idea comes from that she mentioned a few months back.
Completely agree; it could have done better to reinforce the why it's not possible.
> If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate?
No because that would also collapse our entire e-commerce industry in America. Why would any company do business here if they are now liable for people using a back door into their software / network and stealing all of their data? Plus this is the information age; if you keep out nearly all of the demons then that means at least SOME demons are getting in which is the same as ALL demons getting in.
Think about it. One bad person gets in and...all the data is now in a torrent. It only takes a single demon getting in. One.
No, it wouldn't, because we have different ideas of which people comprise each group. I would apply strict scrutiny and the tightest limits to the angels group. Its obvious from past behavior the government, especially prosecutors, favor adding to both groups at their convenience.
This is not an argument for encryption. This is an argument for who has the keys. It is much easier to reach a compromise on the latter than the former.
I don't think so. Personally I think breaking encryption should be setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. IMO, this represents a reasonable compromise where rogue agents are simply not going to stalk their ex.
The point is this needs to be the kind of choice where the president is in on the call. Not simply a secret that can be sold to foreign governments within a week.
>setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time.
Which means every X months that cost drops by half. Hopefully you don't need to keep your secrets very long. In 10 years with the rate of Moores law it will cost you a few thousand dollars at most to crack it.
Your idea is bad and puts peoples lives at danger.
Five years < 50% speed boost. And let's not forget some people can overclocked that 2600k from 3.4ghz to 5.2+ Ghz where people are having issues getting the 4790K that high even with a 4ghz base clock. GPU's got faster for longer, but they where using older processes.
It also makes the entire debate black and white which isn't the case in the rest of our legal system. Nothing there is 100% accurate. There are guilty people who get off and innocent people who are convicted. If we could devise a lock that keeps out nearly all demons and lets in most angels, would that satisfy both sides of the debate?