Encryption: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Elections are coming and everyone has to play tough. None of this is targeted at terrorist as is does not even remotely make sense its all about controlling the population. Let`s see when they propose to ban math. Mandatory John Oliver on Encryption :) ▶ this video

I am surprised that a search for "math" only turned up one result in this thread, about car accidents vs terrorist victims. Isn't it true that encryption legislation or policy is sort of irrelevant next to the very clear math that says encryption will always be ahead of decryption? Even in a (hopefully avoidable) dystopia where encryption is illegal, would that really stop technology companies from continuing to do what they've always done? John Oliver has a great segment[1] where he notes that the majority of cheap, available encryption applications aren't even US-based, and so it becomes nigh-impossible for our (or any) government to stop any pedestrian from encrypting. [1] ▶ this video

Two relevant humor bits. * Honest Government Ad | Anti Encryption Law - YouTube || link * Encryption: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube || ▶ this video

I agree voting from your IOT device is something that should happen. We will get there some day. To get to that point sooner, we should elect more people who are knowledgeable about technology. If you disagree or feel that is an impossible route, you may be able to find others who feel similarly. Personally I think people who feel this way are part of a minority and that limiting your interactions to a certain group is isolating and not productive. I am always looking for ways to engage people with different ideas, both to learn and to share what I've learned. Ultimately, I reject vox_mollis comment that participation in the democratic process is worthless or powerless. Just listen to This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1], > Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2] Or look at how Lindsey Graham changed his mind in the encryption case [3]. Our representatives are not entirely useless. Similar to your day job or at your school, some people are good at what they do, and some are bad at it. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have the longest running democratic republic in the world. We should study it, contribute improvements by speaking up and vot

> it's not about the average person, it's about someone with something to hide Keep in mind that the FBI would love it if everyone held that to be true. We all have something to hide, average person or not. No matter if you are a criminal, political activist, pervert, lawyer, priest, or just the baker down the street. Paraphrasing John Oliver: your banking statements, medical data, dick pics, private messages, dick pics, dick pics, and your secret diary are all things you most likely want to hide. ( ▶ this video ) The FBI would not mind a situation where only people with technological know-how use GnuPG, LUKS with dm-crypt, etc., and the rest whatever came with their smartphone. Most criminals are not particularly tech-savvy, so if that group loses access to strong encryption by default, they largely gain what they want. Of course there is no practical way to make the use of strong encryption by individual citizens around the globe illegal, and they know this. They may however succeed in outlawing strong disk encryption available by default on store-bought devices. So when a suspect uses an Android or IPhone, and the FBI has his or her device, they want to be able to access its contents without the suspect's consent. Ideally, they also want the most popular messaging platforms (like Facebook's WhatsApp) to have a backdoor available, in order for the vendor to be able to comply with warrants for such data.

There is good evidence that public debate is starting to turn. Senator Lindsay Graham, a national security hawk, is beginning to state reservations with the FBI's strategy. That's a big deal: ▶ this video

“Even Apple, with all their skills — and they have terrific cryptographers — wasn’t able to quite get this right,” said Green, whose team of graduate students will publish a paper describing the attack as soon as Apple issues a patch. reminds me of John Oliver's fake Apple ad from last week: "We're barely one step of hackers at any time," ▶ this video

Blog post by one of the authors about the attack: link Also the title seems to be a reference to Last Week Tonight's Apple ad: ▶ this video

I think you're reading this completely wrong. The FBI asked for access, Apple said no (because they knew the case was about precedent rather than capabilities). Apple knows the older phones had vulnerabilities (see this faux-apple computer - ▶ this video commercial). This is the follow-up from Apple saying "oh, you needed our help to crack it huh? How did you suddenly find a way to do it on your own without us as soon as you realized public perception wasn't proceeding as you hoped? EFF seems to think that the FBI is legally required to disclose the method ( link ) due to their VEP process.