Breaking Encryption

Cory Doctorow begins his latest LOCUS column with a discussion of technorealism and "nontechnical technothrillers":

Rubber-Hose Cryptanalysis

He deplores the "bad art" of the "laziness of treating computers as plot objects with no fidelity to the real world." Nowadays, he says, most SF readers will instantly recognize an unrealistic cryptography-hacking scene in a book or movie. Well, speak for yourself -- I wouldn't, but, then, hard SF isn't one of my favorite subgenres, and I know little more about computers than how to use them as magically enhanced typewriters. However, I'll take his word for the reactions of the tech-savvy audience.

In any case, fidelity to actual possibilities in the parts of a story intended to be realistic always produces better fiction. Even if readers have little to no familiarity with the science or technology essential to the plot, the action won't quite ring true if it's not accurate. Readers will usually sense when the author doesn't really know what he's doing but is "handwaving" details.

As Doctorow explains the current state of the art, modern ciphers are so impregnable to brute force that they couldn't be decrypted that way even within the lifespan of the universe. He cautions, however, that "just because well-implemented encryption can’t be attacked mathematically, it does not follow that your secrets are safe." Even if the cipher itself can't be "broken," the human user can. The criminals or the cops can torture the victim into revealing the vital password. The only thing stopping them is "the rule of law." And, ultimately, the only guarantee of the rule of law is the commitment of governments to respect it. Therefore, "authoritarianism represents an existential threat" in this area as in many others -- especially since our lives now depend on computers in so many ways.

Devising believable methods for villains to "break" encryption by tricking or forcing the information out of the protagonist unfolds endless potential for plot development through exploring characterization and the human element. In Doctorow's words, "Science fiction writers have only barely begun to plumb the many ways in which the flexibility and nondeterminacy of computers, combined with the fallibility of the people who use them, can be used to create high-stakes, high-suspense plotlines."

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

National Sovereignty and Free Expression

Cory Doctorow's latest LOCUS column explores the tension between the rights of nations to "establish the rule of law" and individuals' rights to freedom of expression.

Hard Cases, Bad Law

Some nations use the power of their sovereignty to protect individual rights, while some do the opposite. The internet comes into the discussion because it "crosses international borders." Currently the United Nations is working on a Cybercrime Treaty, intended to prevent "ransomware attacks and other serious crimes." The problem is that the treaty will leave it up to each country to define "cybercrime" within its borders. A dictatorship might well define it as any public criticism of the regime. Or, for example, weaponize it against a dating site that permits same-sex matches.

The essay also discusses "data localization" laws, enacted by the EU member nations and some other European countries. Beneficial effects include preventing data about internet users within these countries from being accessed by the NSA's global surveillance. A less benign provision, however, "allows sovereign nations to access and use the data stored within their borders," a power obviously vulnerable to abuse by countries such as Russia.

Encryption presents another dilemma rooted in the clash between sovereignty and individual rights. Governments would like to ban highly effective "working encryption," at least to the extent of mandating a back-door feature for investigation of criminal activity. The trouble is that it's impossible to create such encryption to allow action prosecution of criminals while still protecting the data of legitimate users. Laying out the procedures that would be required to implement the kind of restrictions authorities might like, Doctorow concludes "the collateral damage to human rights from this kind of ban are gigantic."

The essay goes into considerable detail about these and other related issues of interest to anyone devoted to freedom of speech. Conclusion -- in irreconcilable clashes between national sovereignty and human rights, the latter should rule, and "we can recognize the legitimate exercise of sovereignty without using that as a pretense to ignore when sovereign power is used to undermine free expression, especially when that use is likely to kick off a cascade of ever-more-extreme measures that are progressively worse for free expression."

Margaret L. Carter

Pease explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.