61–70 of 70 posts
This video is a production of the Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society. It is meant to be a starting point for discussions about encryption, privacy, and cybersecurity.
The Internet Exposed: Encryption, Backdoors and Privacy – and the Quest to Maintain Trust
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't it transparent? Isn't the code open source?
Not transparent to the user. Good security is one you don't have to have a PhD to configure. How much encryption is in iMessage? (Lots) how much did you do to configure it (none) Transparent encryption (or, encryption for everyone even my mother) is the best way for it to be effective. So when I say transparent. I mean it should not be obvious to the end user and that user should not have to spend significant time co…
How do we allow people to share their private keys across multiple devices?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The resources dedicated to securing non-free software may be far greater than those dedicated to free software because of the business interests in maintaining security. My argument is about confidence---you cannot trust a system that you do not have confidence in. Yes, a proprietary system may have had much more development and research. But that doesn't make it "better". With a free system---even if it's more poo…
"Any free system is an improvement over Apple's" It's hard to take that seriously. I challenge you to name a single such system. It should be trivial since the class is so large.
What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically?
From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Any free system is an improvement over Apple's" It's hard to take that seriously. I challenge you to name a single such system. It should be trivial since the class is so large.
This is simply by default, from both a free software and security perspective. I've made my security point already. What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically? From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.
The part that I disagree with is the 'even if the alternative is poor'.
I understand that tolerating non-free software could be seen as moving us further away from a world where free software is the norm, but I also disagree with this.
You are arguing against Apple when the problem you are actually facing is a failure of the free software ecosystem to produce a viable alternative.
From an ideological perspective I would prefer free software too. My argument 'in favor of Apple' isn't really in support of Apple. It is against trying to tear down the current best option in favor of an alternative that doesn't exist.
There is a real fight going on right now, and favoring the government over Apple in this because you prefer free software seems like an extemely counterproductive move.
A free alternative can just as easily be outlawed as the non-free ones can. What matters is the legal and social precedents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply by default, from both a free software and security perspective. I've made my security point already. What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically? From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.
Right - I can see that's the belief you hold. The part that I disagree with is the 'even if the alternative is poor'. I understand that tolerating non-free software could be seen as moving us further away from a world where free software is the norm, but I also disagree with this. You are arguing against Apple when the problem you are actually facing is a failure of the free software ecosystem to produce a viable alt…
I'm not sure where you got that impression. I apologize if I was unclear.
It's essential that Apple fight this order, and essential that everyone do everything they can to ensure that this precedent is not allowed.
My comments were about the OP's comments about tradeoff between freedom and security.
As I summarized elsewhere:
https://social.mikegerwitz.com/notice/6552
We shouldn't agree with Apple's position on many things.
But it is _essential_ that this precedent---government-mandated backdoors---not be allowed. The stage on which we fight the crypto wars is shared by what would be our enemies in many other respects. So yes, we should choose our own shoes: we can stand with Apple in resisting this order while at the same time standing _against_ them for all of their other evils. This issue does not somehow legitimize all of their other evils.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right - I can see that's the belief you hold. The part that I disagree with is the 'even if the alternative is poor'. I understand that tolerating non-free software could be seen as moving us further away from a world where free software is the norm, but I also disagree with this. You are arguing against Apple when the problem you are actually facing is a failure of the free software ecosystem to produce a viable alt…
> favoring the government over Apple in this because you prefer free software seems like an extemely counterproductive move. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I apologize if I was unclear. It's essential that Apple fight this order, and essential that everyone do everything they can to ensure that this precedent is not allowed. My comments were about the OP's comments about tradeoff between freedom and secu…
However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'.
Apple is simply exercising their freedom. I agree that there may be better ways of doing things, but the failure of free software to produce these alternatives is nothing to do with Apple.
If anything, I'd say that standing 'against' Apple, works against the cause of producing a free alternative because it focuses people's attention on misplaced anger towards Apple, rather than on the constructive effort needed to build what is required.
I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> favoring the government over Apple in this because you prefer free software seems like an extemely counterproductive move. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I apologize if I was unclear. It's essential that Apple fight this order, and essential that everyone do everything they can to ensure that this precedent is not allowed. My comments were about the OP's comments about tradeoff between freedom and secu…
Thanks for the clarification - it does help. However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'. Apple is simply exercising their freedom. I agree that there may be better ways of doing things, but the failure of free software to produce these alternatives is nothing to do with Apple. If anything, I'd say that standing 'against' Apple, works against the cause of producing a fre…
We'll have to agree to disagree here---I don't want it to seem like I'm showing disrespect toward your opinions.
> I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
Apple is exercising a _different_ kind of freedom---a broader set of freedoms, to which they are certainly entitled. Free software represents a small subset of those freedoms---the four freedoms which are designed to protect the users, not the developers.
It's important to educate others on both the free software community's philosophy and on the problems with Apple so that they can have that comparison, and so that they can avoid Apple's products if they decide that those issues matter to them. Apple has an advantage in the number of users---one we'll never have---so we have no choice but to reach out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the clarification - it does help. However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'. Apple is simply exercising their freedom. I agree that there may be better ways of doing things, but the failure of free software to produce these alternatives is nothing to do with Apple. If anything, I'd say that standing 'against' Apple, works against the cause of producing a fre…
> However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'. We'll have to agree to disagree here---I don't want it to seem like I'm showing disrespect toward your opinions. > I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple. Apple is exercising a _different_ kind of freedom---a broader set of freedoms, to which they…
Since you've explained this so clearly, I guess I would pinpoint my disagreement at the assumption that the free software movement will never have the number of users that Apple will, and the idea that you have no choice.
Whilst the argument about types of freedom and the goal of free software seems sound, both of these other points seem to be relatively arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with a sense of powerlessness and failure in free software.
I think it's sad because I don't see why either statement should be true, and I think believing them does far more to undermine the goal than to help it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it isn't. I could press a glass against the wall and listen to people having a private conversation. Does that make their conversation public "like shouting it across the room"? No. Of course it doesn't. Get your analogies straight. I could use my zoom lens to spy over your shoulder as you type your message into your super-encrypted phone. I will now publish the video on youtube, your private message now publi…
That's not how WiFi works, it's not like a wall or anything. Your device literally "shouts" (transmits in RF) your private message across the room (and into adjoining rooms). Anybody that can connect to the WiFi network (or has a decent machine and half an hour to kill) can read your message (the encryption in WiFi is fucked).
We live in a world where eavesdropping on a private conversation is possible because people aren't talking in a cone of silence every time they want privacy. The unlawful intent to listen in needs to be there, and then some sort of action is required to hear the conversation, such as holding a glass to a wall.
Exactly the same with digital messages. Sure, they can be listened to, but not by just anyone accidentally, as the video seems to suggest. Unlawful intent is required, and specific actions with specific software to listen in.
I'm all for encryption, but let's get something straight: unencrypted messages are not dripping down the walls for anyone to read who passes by.