John Oliver On Encryption

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of John Oliver and his Last Week Tonight show on HBO so I might think this is funnier than it actually is. That said, if you haven't seen this week's installment on encryption, you need to stop what you are doing and watch it now. Be warned though, while it is definitely worth the watch, there is plenty of NSFW language throughout the show.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
The one with Snowden was good as well ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed. Breaking the whole surveillance issue down into "Don't you realize, with what Snowden revealed, the government can see your dick pics and a whole lot more!" is probably a lot easier for many people to grasp, especially the "I have nothing to hide" crowd, with the added virtue of being true. I'm glad to see Oliver weigh in on this side of the encryption debate, too.

Edit: I do feel that John Oliver could have taken a bit "stronger" stance on the issue and brought up some other facets of the debate (ie They already have a ton of information about the San Bernadino Shooter from many other sources of investigation, the most useful of it from basic police work. Likewise , governments and corporations around the world are waging a war on encryption and privacy - for instance, blaming encryption/darknets as soon as the Paris shootings happened, yet it was revealed that the shooters coordinated in person, via paper, and using non-encrypted email and SMS, proving that certain entities were just waiting to take a stab at blaming encryption the next time there was an attack

There were a lot of other arguments worth bringing up and some of the most important I feel he could have dedicated more time upon, but I understand the need to keep it focused. The largest issue I had was when he talked about all of the other encrypted services being prevalent and "the bad guys switching to them".. I think he left an opening for some people to claim "Then we need to outlaw the use and distribution of these programs in the country!", by not spending enough time saying that people SHOULD have access to these programs regardless, highlighting some of their benefits. I am glad that he summed up by saying that the good uses of encryption outweighs the bad, which is absolutely true but a little more focus on it may have been helpful.

All in all, another well-done episode that will help some people to better understand the issue by putting it into humorous terms that are meaningful to them.
 
Last edited:
I thought he could have explained the situation a little better, rather than constantly relying on the "Neighbor has the key, do you trust him to keep it safe" analogy. That's part of it, precedence is another huge part of it he glossed over. There's also many international examples of encryption protecting good people from their government. He generally nails everything though, so I'm holding him to a high standard. It's not like anyone else has summarized it any better than this. I do have a hard time believing the government doesn't already have ways to bypass iPhone security. They are making use of this case and the "terrorists are bad and scary" angle to set precedence for future cases.

I loved the Apple ad though.
 
I watched this earlier, thought it was pretty funny.

Although I operate on the assumption that anything I put on any electronic device might get leaked at some point. Actually, I don't really understand why the feds don't just clone the storage on the iPhone directly, then they can do whatever they want to try and brute force it.
 
What this debate is missing is the common sense factor. There are black areas and white areas and a whole lot of grey areas. What I would like to see is Apple cooperating when the situation calls for it and defending privacy when that is appropriate. The public is best served when reasonable men/women make reasonable decisions. It is not reasonable for the FBI to be poking around indiscriminately but it is likewise not reasonable to refuse cooperation when dealing with indisputable terrorists. It really hurts the debate when Apple refuses to cooperate in a situation that is clearly a black and white area. The San Bernadino Shooter's are unquestionably "bad guys" and cooperating with the FBI may very well provide insights that could save lives.
 
Except it is black and white, if they give in once and precedence is set they will be compelled to give in every time, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable. That's why the FBI picked this case to make a big deal out of, so people like you would say "They are terrorists, it make's sense!". Problem is, you can't just open the door once.
 
Quix said:
I watched this earlier, thought it was pretty funny.

Although I operate on the assumption that anything I put on any electronic device might get leaked at some point. Actually, I don't really understand why the feds don't just clone the storage on the iPhone directly, then they can do whatever they want to try and brute force it.
Click to expand...
Apparently the encryption is good enough that bruteforcing the memory doesn't really work. They would have to go through the phone's security (as it has the encryption key in protected storage) to reduce the unencrypting attempts to 10000.
 
Quix said:
I watched this earlier, thought it was pretty funny.

Although I operate on the assumption that anything I put on any electronic device might get leaked at some point. Actually, I don't really understand why the feds don't just clone the storage on the iPhone directly, then they can do whatever they want to try and brute force it.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is time. Prior to the the transition to the latest security scheme, at least a couple companies did just that essentially. They provided software that cloned the phone, ran it as an iphone simulation, and whenever it locked up, they just copied over the image andcontinued where it was. Now, you need to decrypt on the device because the key is physically in hardware. This limits the number of tries you get by tying the process to the physical device. Even if it didn't, you now have to copy the whole image to the physical device, which dramatically slows down the brute forcing prospect.

Even so, the FBI's argument is shit. Can you force someone to unburn paper? Do paper shredder manufacturers have to provide an un-shredder? Sometimes shit is just gone because you did your job wrong. This is one example.
 
Well this would explain why HardOCP has turned into a branch of the Huffington Post, with REAL tech news being pushed off the page by Steve's daily "diversity" reports, sensitivity awards, which company offers the cushiest "safe spaces", whatever "social justice" topic is fashionable that week...
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Well this would explain why HardOCP has turned into a branch of the Huffington Post, with REAL tech news being pushed off the page by Steve's daily "diversity" reports, sensitivity awards, which company offers the cushiest "safe spaces", whatever "social justice" topic is fashionable that week...
Click to expand...
You should start your own tech news site.
 
DocSavage said:
You should start your own tech news site.
Click to expand...

LOL, no, any idiot can (and many do) aggregate news and make snarky comments. I'm merely lamenting the handing of the front page reigns to a social justice warrior who uses tech as a vehicle for his political views, rather than the [H]ard tech news with witty asides this site was for the decade before the taglines said Steve, instead of Kyle.

But hey, if you enjoy being treated to a dozen articles a week micro-analyzing the skin shade and sexual preferences of last months tech company hires, rather than something actually IT oriented so be it.
 
Taco said:
Except it is black and white, if they give in once and precedence is set they will be compelled to give in every time, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable. That's why the FBI picked this case to make a big deal out of, so people like you would say "They are terrorists, it make's sense!". Problem is, you can't just open the door once.
Click to expand...
No, they will not have to give in every time. It's like a search warrant. "Every" single time a request for a search warrant is issued a judge has to review that request and make a decision whether that request is justified. According to the logic you are trying to advance Apple should never have to comply with an FBI's request. That is absurd... Sometimes they should and most of the time they should not.

I stand by my statement: The public is best served when reasonable men/women make reasonable decisions. There "are" circumstances when the FBI should have access in order to protect the public. IMO Apple is showing poor judgement in making an issue of this specific case. If they are forced by the Justice Department to comply with the FBI's request than their power to oppose law enforcement in the future will be compromised for failing to develop a reputation for being reasonable...
 
Apple is getting free publicity. They don't care. They're going to find a solution eventually.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
LOL, no, any idiot can (and many do) aggregate news and make snarky comments. I'm merely lamenting the handing of the front page reigns to a social justice warrior who uses tech as a vehicle for his political views, rather than the [H]ard tech news with witty asides this site was for the decade before the taglines said Steve, instead of Kyle.

But hey, if you enjoy being treated to a dozen articles a week micro-analyzing the skin shade and sexual preferences of last months tech company hires, rather than something actually IT oriented so be it.
Click to expand...

You seem to be in the minority here, and not particularly vocal at that. Feel free to go back to lurking, or just leave. You will not be missed.
 
Xaeos said:
Likewise , governments and corporations around the world are waging a war on encryption and privacy - for instance, blaming encryption/darknets as soon as the Paris shootings happened, yet it was revealed that the shooters coordinated in person, via paper, and using non-encrypted email and SMS, proving that certain entities were just waiting to take a stab at blaming encryption the next time there was an attack
Click to expand...

That's a tale as old as time. Here in the US, the PATRIOT Act was passed on 10/26/11, 5 weeks after 9/11. You think they came up with anything meaningful that was derived from learning about the attacks in that time? Hell no. It was a laundry list of law enforcement wants that had been sitting around forever that no one would pass before, all bundled up.
 
There's a big difference between handing over information you have (in legal terms, "company records") and being forced to assist the FBI in breaking encryption.
silent-circuit said:
You seem to be in the minority here, and not particularly vocal at that. Feel free to go back to lurking, or just leave. You will not be missed.
Click to expand...

So because my opinion is in the minority, I should be silenced? How very liberal of you.

I have a better idea, if you don't like my opinion, move on....or tremble in your safe space. I see you joined in 2005. I've been here since before "Quack" put Hardocp on the map in 2001 so I know a thing or two about the pre-Steve/post-Steve [H].
 
thejokker said:
No, they will not have to give in every time. It's like a search warrant. "Every" single time a request for a search warrant is issued a judge has to review that request and make a decision whether that request is justified. According to the logic you are trying to advance Apple should never have to comply with an FBI's request. That is absurd... Sometimes they should and most of the time they should not.

I stand by my statement: The public is best served when reasonable men/women make reasonable decisions. There "are" circumstances when the FBI should have access in order to protect the public. IMO Apple is showing poor judgement in making an issue of this specific case. If they are forced by the Justice Department to comply with the FBI's request than their power to oppose law enforcement in the future will be compromised for failing to develop a reputation for being reasonable...
Click to expand...

Taco said:
Except it is black and white, if they give in once and precedence is set they will be compelled to give in every time, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable. That's why the FBI picked this case to make a big deal out of, so people like you would say "They are terrorists, it make's sense!". Problem is, you can't just open the door once.
Click to expand...

But you are not talking with reasonable people.

Most of these guys will not try and understand the other side. They will blame the FBI for using scare tactics while propping up the same thing from the other camp "It'll set a precedent and they'll have to do it every time forever".

I gave up on the Ed Snowden NSA thing. They didn't care that the media lied to them as long as the media was telling them what they wanted to believe. When anything is brought up that puts a kink in those beliefs they ignore it and just continue to regurgitate their previous comments. I warned them that it was a mistake, that what they claimed was totalitarian surveillance wasn't even close. That's OK, Now we actually do have total surveillance but because it's only on people with security clearances they don't care. It's OK, those people aren't real Americans anyway.

Now you have this issue and again, they dig their heals in and will not discuss anything. They just parrot Tim Cook and the media. The media, you know, those guys who keep lying to us?

Fuck it, as long as they are hearing what they want to hear it'll all work out.
 
silent-circuit said:
You seem to be in the minority here, and not particularly vocal at that. Feel free to go back to lurking, or just leave. You will not be missed.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything he says, but even I don't tell another member to shut up and go away. Maybe you should rethink your comment for a moment.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
I've been here since before "Quack" put Hardocp on the map in 2001 so I know a thing or two about the pre-Steve/post-Steve [H].
Click to expand...
I had to look up that Quack reference. It's from 2001! What's interesting is that I'm sure I've been reading this site for years before that occurred. Damn. I wonder when I did start reading the Hardocp.com...

As far as promoting SJW viewpoints, can you identify what view Steve even has on this encryption debate? I think Kyle is on the FBI's side, but I don't recall Steve taking sides.
 
thejokker said:
No, they will not have to give in every time. It's like a search warrant. "Every" single time a request for a search warrant is issued a judge has to review that request and make a decision whether that request is justified. According to the logic you are trying to advance Apple should never have to comply with an FBI's request. That is absurd... Sometimes they should and most of the time they should not.

I stand by my statement: The public is best served when reasonable men/women make reasonable decisions. There "are" circumstances when the FBI should have access in order to protect the public. IMO Apple is showing poor judgement in making an issue of this specific case. If they are forced by the Justice Department to comply with the FBI's request than their power to oppose law enforcement in the future will be compromised for failing to develop a reputation for being reasonable...
Click to expand...

Who defines reasonable? When does that change, and who has the power to change it?

Reasonable people do not exist, it is a myth. The best you can possibly hope for is that someone aspired to a career in which they hold a massive amount of public power (political, enforcement, or judicial) and they went into said profession not because of some ego trip, desire for power, or desire to punish, but that they happen to be an altruist.

All judgement's have the potential to apply to other cases in unforeseen ways. The tech industry isn't infallible, neither is the national surveillance and law enforcement industries, technology gets stolen, international communities make decisions separate but in reaction to American policies and a ton of ne'er do wells exist in between.

I understand why this is a quagmire of a case, and honestly it is the perfect one, the accused are dead, there appears to be very little imminent threat surrounding this case. It is a good case to have this discussion, both in court and outside of it.
 
Aireoth said:
Who defines reasonable? When does that change, and who has the power to change it?

Reasonable people do not exist, it is a myth. The best you can possibly hope for is that someone aspired to a career in which they hold a massive amount of public power (political, enforcement, or judicial) and they went into said profession not because of some ego trip, desire for power, or desire to punish, but that they happen to be an altruist.

All judgement's have the potential to apply to other cases in unforeseen ways. The tech industry isn't infallible, neither is the national surveillance and law enforcement industries, technology gets stolen, international communities make decisions separate but in reaction to American policies and a ton of ne'er do wells exist in between.

I understand why this is a quagmire of a case, and honestly it is the perfect one, the accused are dead, there appears to be very little imminent threat surrounding this case. It is a good case to have this discussion, both in court and outside of it.
Click to expand...

The Judge determines reasonable just like they have for over 200 years.
 
Last edited:
GlowingGhoul said:
I have a better idea, if you don't like my opinion, move on....or tremble in your safe space. I see you joined in 2005. I've been here since before "Quack" put Hardocp on the map in 2001 so I know a thing or two about the pre-Steve/post-Steve [H].
Click to expand...

Foul on the field!!! You cannot call someone out for "only being around since 2005" based on their join date while simultaneously posting from an account that only goes back to 2013. - 10 yards

Point of clarity, quack/quake didn't put Hardocp on the map. They were the go to place for overclocking news well before that. additional 5 yards back

Please resume play by explaining the virtues of the pre/post Steve glory days as you put it. Let us know when this heinous transition happened too.

<gets the popcorn ready>
 
DocFaustus said:
Foul on the field!!! You cannot call someone out for "only being around since 2005" based on their join date while simultaneously posting from an account that only goes back to 2013. - 10 yards

Point of clarity, quack/quake didn't put Hardocp on the map. They were the go to place for overclocking news well before that. additional 5 yards back

Please resume play by explaining the virtues of the pre/post Steve glory days as you put it. Let us know when this heinous transition happened too.

<gets the popcorn ready>
Click to expand...


He has a point.
 
raz-0 said:
Even so, the FBI's argument is shit. Can you force someone to unburn paper? Do paper shredder manufacturers have to provide an un-shredder? Sometimes shit is just gone because you did your job wrong. This is one example.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! It is called living in a free society and it is the price of FREEDOM. Sometimes the government can't protect you from everything.
 
Threads like this are a great way to develop your ignore list, the world looks a lot more level headed once you get a good one going.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
LOL, no, any idiot can (and many do) aggregate news and make snarky comments. I'm merely lamenting the handing of the front page reigns to a social justice warrior who uses tech as a vehicle for his political views, rather than the [H]ard tech news with witty asides this site was for the decade before the taglines said Steve, instead of Kyle.

But hey, if you enjoy being treated to a dozen articles a week micro-analyzing the skin shade and sexual preferences of last months tech company hires, rather than something actually IT oriented so be it.
Click to expand...

Steve's posts don't strike me as political, he posts what he thinks the readers will like. You don't have to like his stance. If he was to stick to just H-related news, there'd be no news posted on a daily basis. At the end of the day, they have to give a reason for people to come so that they can pay their bills.

At least it's not daily things like "Ten things you should do ..".

Megalith posts a lot of movie related news on weekends, yet you're not attacking him. It's fine, because it's the weekend and news is even slower.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
I have a better idea, if you don't like my opinion, move on....or tremble in your safe space. I see you joined in 2005. I've been here since before "Quack" put Hardocp on the map in 2001 so I know a thing or two about the pre-Steve/post-Steve [H].
Click to expand...

This made me LOL. While my account is only from 2004 HardOCP was definitely well established in 2000 when I started visiting here. Steve has been great and is pretty even handed, but also not boring. I know Kyle tends to put a bit more of his opinion when he posts. Megalith also tends to put his opinions on his weekend posts. Although he does get the crap job of trying to work with tech news on the weekend which is ALWAYS a bad time for news.
 
NSA big wing chimes in...

Former cyber czar says NSA could crack the San Bernadino shooter’s phone

But the FBI wasn't seeking that help, he said, because "they just want the precedent."
...
"To make the FBI's job easier, we could, at the far extreme, put ankle bracelets on everybody so that we know where everybody was all the time. That's a ridiculous example, of course, but encryption and privacy are larger issues than finding terrorism."
Click to expand...
 
Aireoth said:
Who defines reasonable? When does that change, and who has the power to change it?

Reasonable people do not exist, it is a myth. The best you can possibly hope for is that someone aspired to a career in which they hold a massive amount of public power (political, enforcement, or judicial) and they went into said profession not because of some ego trip, desire for power, or desire to punish, but that they happen to be an altruist.

All judgement's have the potential to apply to other cases in unforeseen ways. The tech industry isn't infallible, neither is the national surveillance and law enforcement industries, technology gets stolen, international communities make decisions separate but in reaction to American policies and a ton of ne'er do wells exist in between.

I understand why this is a quagmire of a case, and honestly it is the perfect one, the accused are dead, there appears to be very little imminent threat surrounding this case. It is a good case to have this discussion, both in court and outside of it.
Click to expand...
To declare that reasonable people do not exists lowers your credibility. If you were to argue that some people are not reasonable or even most people are not reasonable than you "might" have a valid point but "all" people are unreasonable is "false" therefore your conclusion is likely false as well.

You are arguing in favor of anarchy. You are denying people from gathering together and establishing institutions for protecting the common interests of citizens. You are saying those people don't matter because protecting criminal behavior takes precedence over protecting law abiding people. The intent of the law is to protect people from criminals while providing safeguards to prevent that same government from becoming abusive and corrupt. That is a difficult task but the law is designed to protect the innocent and not the guilty.

The San Bernadino killers were terrorists. Apple has an ethical responsibility to protect the innocent and not to shield the guilty. Apparently they lack the ability to make that distinction. They are on the wrong side of this issue.
 
Kor said:
Threads like this are a great way to develop your ignore list, the world looks a lot more level headed once you get a good one going.
Click to expand...

Yes, cause we wouldn't want a different opinion to get in the way of anything.
 
lcpiper said:
Actually, it is outside of the preview of the NSA to crack that phone for the FBI. The NSA does SIGINT and breaking a domestically owned phone for the FBI related to a domestic terror case is not a Foreign Intelligence issue. In short, it's not what they are paid to do.
Click to expand...

Lets just ignore the entire fucking point of what the man said and go off into left field on some nonsense...

If the FBI wanted the damn thing cracked it cold be done. What the FBI wants is the legal precedent. The man is not offering to crack the thing for them hes calling them on being full of shit.
 
I really think you're giving the FBI a bit too much credit with "If they wanted it cracked, they could do it"
 
All this around the same time we officially find out that the NSA will be sharing everything they have with all domestic agencies. No need for warrants.

Obama Administration Set To Expand Sharing Of Data That NSA Intercepts

"Under current rules for data gathered under a parallel program — the no-warrant surveillance program governed by the FISA Amendments Act — N.S.A. and C.I.A. officials may search for Americans’ information only if their purpose is to find foreign intelligence, but F.B.I. agents may conduct such a search for intelligence or law enforcement purposes."

Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism
 
Disposed said:
Lets just ignore the entire fucking point of what the man said and go off into left field on some nonsense...

If the FBI wanted the damn thing cracked it cold be done. What the FBI wants is the legal precedent. The man is not offering to crack the thing for them hes calling them on being full of shit.
Click to expand...

It's not ignoring the point that the FBI cannot legally ask the NSA to do that; so this guys point isn't accurate.

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the massive overreaction to terrorism and the curtailment of our civil liberties; but this new trend of thinking that the government doesn't follow any law at all, that it's just a massive free for all at all times, isn't correct either.
 
Disposed said:
Lets just ignore the entire fucking point of what the man said and go off into left field on some nonsense...

If the FBI wanted the damn thing cracked it cold be done. What the FBI wants is the legal precedent. The man is not offering to crack the thing for them hes calling them on being full of shit.
Click to expand...

Thank You Twisted, I really appreciate that even though you disagree with me on different points that you acknowledge valid statements and don't discount them out of hand.

Bankie, I'm looking into your posts, that's the first I have seen of them. Of course it goes without saying that your comment about things needing to be related to terrorism is beyond ignorant, but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top