Comment by johnisgood
12 days ago
It really is.
> then Microsoft can provide them with a key to unlock your device.
This is a quote from parent. That renders the key and encryption itself pretty useless if it has been given to someone other than you.
Well, I disagree that it's useless - my front door still keeps my home secure even though my sister has a copy of the key.
I want my devices to be secure from thieves who might steal them, and I want my communications to be secure from someone intercepting internet traffic at various locations I might visit - that is still achieved in that scenario, even if MS/Apple hold the copy of the key. That doesn't make the encryption useless - just ineffective if your attack vector is defending yourself against state-level actors.
>my front door still keeps my home secure even though my sister has a copy of the key.
Someone has to physically come to your house to access your front door. Computers and other computer equipment is accessible by anyone anywhere. A Russian hacker outfit can attempt to access your phone from Vladivostok in a way they can't with your front door.
Sticking with front door analogy, what if there were a master key that could open up all door locks that the police held. What if that key was leaked and now you knew that multiple gangs and criminals had the key and were breaking into houses. Would you feel secure with your front door then? Data breaches happen and a company with the keys to everyone's computer front door is a huge target. I don't trust my bitlocker key to Microsoft. There is no such thing as a magical backdoor that only good guys can use but is secure against everyone else. A backdoor is a vulnerability that puts everyone using it at risk.
>>Sticking with front door analogy, what if there were a master key that could open up all door locks that the police held.
That's exactly what I said I don't want Apple/Google/MS to have - a master key that opens all locks is unacceptable imho.
>> What if that key was leaked and now you knew that multiple gangs and criminals had the key and were breaking into houses.
I'm sure I used this exact analogy in another comment, that's why no one should have a master key.
>>I don't trust my bitlocker key to Microsoft.
And neither do I - but overall on balance I think this is a good thing. I do like that my mum's laptop is automatically encrypted, if it gets stolen her data is safe, and if she forgets her password there is some pathway to recovering it. I like that. It's nice convenience for "regular" people. I don't do it myself because I have an alternative backup of my encryption keys. And yes, I do like that if someone is under criminal investigation that the key can be obtained from MS when a valid warrant is produced. I see that as a good thing personally.
>> There is no such thing as a magical backdoor that only good guys can use but is secure against everyone else.
Well, good thing it's not a backdoor then.
>>A backdoor is a vulnerability that puts everyone using it at risk.
Again, MS having a copy of your bitlocker key is not a backdoor.
Yeah, your sister. Now go ahead and give it to a stranger.
Once your key is in the hand of a third party, you lost control of that data, and you have to trust them that they will not give it out to someone else (they will), and you have to trust them to keep it safe, and you have to trust them to [...].
My private key is mine, and mine only, or supposed to be.
>> Now go ahead and give it to a stranger.
Well, maybe a better example then - I have a secure storage deposit with a bank. I'm 100% sure it's secure from opportunistic criminals and no one, including the government, knows what's inside it, however, the bank still holds a master key for that deposit box in case it's compelled to open it for law enforcement.
>>My private key is mine, and mine only, or supposed to be.
Again, OP was talking about balance - how do we make sure that people's private communications are safe from criminals, but at the same time allow law enforcement to look at them if needed. To which my answer is - that's how. That's doesn't make encryption "useless", it's just that this model doesn't fit your specific usecase.
4 replies →
No, it makes the encryption useless. Because whatever technical method the government has to break encryption will leak. Once those 4096 bits or whatever leak, nobody has encryption at all.
It’s like high schools that mandate use of a particular model of lock for students’ lockers because there’s a master key staff can use to open lockers. Do you know how many students have copies of that master key? Essentially anyone who wants one.
The myth here is that a magic key that invalidates encryption can ever be controlled. It cannot.
I am very explicitly arguing that master keys shouldn't exist, for the exact reasons you mentioned.
>> Because whatever technical method the government has to break encryption will leak.
The government cannot break encryption(at least I hope they can't!)
>>The myth here is that a magic key that invalidates encryption can ever be controlled.
It's the same key you have.
1 reply →
I'd like my communications to be secure from the British Government, in case they decide they don't like the protest I decided to join.
We can see in the USA how quickly things can change. Laws must account for a possible Reform government, for example.