News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:More encryption means less privacy by Bartweiss on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @12:37PM (#12255806)
I'm actually curious: can anyone cite a serious win for privacy that was wholly political?

I frequently see pieces criticizing over-reliance on crypto as solutionism and political apathy, but I don't understand what they expect. The people fighting for strong cryptography have also led the political fight for privacy, but their nontechnical efforts have been ignored or circumvented at every turn. At this point it's hard to imagine what a strong, trustworthy political advance would even look like.

Re:More encryption means less privacy by medmunds on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @01:17PM (#12256136)
How far back are you willing to look? "The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) was a bill passed by the United States Congress in 1988 ... to prevent what it refers to as "wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records..." Congress passed the VPPA after Robert Bork's video rental history was published during his Supreme Court nomination." [1]

I thought there were also some U.S. privacy laws around library records, but can't locate a clear reference just now.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

Re:More encryption means less privacy by jessaustin on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @01:56PM (#12256468)
The rental records of several specific adult video places in the DC area were probably foremost in the minds of that bill's sponsors. Going forward, they realized they would need to be more circumspect, and internet allowed them to pretend that they were. (Of course, they can't hide their peccadilloes from the state intelligence apparatus but most of them are wholly owned by that entity for other, actually-evil reasons anyway.) Kathleen Kane in Pennsylvania has claimed that her current troubles stem from a similar motivation on the part of her disgruntled employees.
Re:More encryption means less privacy by Bartweiss on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @01:58PM (#12256488)
Interesting, thanks. 1988 is a while back, but it's far more relevant than the people citing the Fourth Amendment!

That's actually a pretty solid win for privacy, although it doesn't alleviate my sense that the government stance is "we can read everything as long as we don't tell anyone about it". The last I heard about library records was the Patriot Act opening them to government investigation, but things may have changed since them.

Still, this one is news to me, I appreciate it.

Re:More encryption means less privacy by adrusi on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @12:43PM (#12255861)
Well, there was a declassification of cryptography as munitions, which was very important. But that kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
Re:More encryption means less privacy by Bartweiss on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @12:52PM (#12255941)
Yeah, it does.

I almost called out the crypto wars specifically, because they were a political win caused by technical means (just too hard to control exports) and enabling technical progress (didn't regulate surveillance, but made privacy securable).

To the extent that anyone has actually come to the table on this stuff, it's been as a result of technical change forcing their hand. I wouldn't be surprised if widespread encryption-by-default changes the terms of the debate and opens the door to more transparency from governments who want some degree of cooperation.

Re:More encryption means less privacy by nickpsecurity on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @03:19PM (#12257091)
"there was a declassification of cryptography as munitions"

That's the popular tale. It was partial. Lots of stuff, including high-assurance systems and custom, stayed under old classification. Such export uncertainty was a consideration in the cancellation of A1-class, VAX, Security Kernel. Here's excerpts and links from a write-up I did on it after I dug into the actual export laws:

http://pastebin.com/GHmHJASm

Still like some help from professionals to confirm or reject my analysis. People dealing with export on Schneier's blog gave feedback indicating they never ran into trouble. Yet, they might have been under the mass-market classification. So, I don't know if the other one is enforced or under what circumstances.