More encryption means less privacy
queue.acm.org
More encryption means less privacy
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#2> Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement.
While political engagement is an alternative to "slapping unbreakable crypto" onto things, this article establishes no precedent for political engagement actually helping!
I see the technical as political, direct action as engagement.
An article like this that's attempting to be a call to action, needs to provide some positive reinforcement. I find myself failing to come up with big wins, the examples I can think of are almost exclusively heartbreakingly tragic (snowden, manning, swartz, Occupy, etc). When I think of political engagement in the US, I think of pretty violent end cases for everyone involved.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#3Kinda clickbait-y, and ignores the fact that encrypted communications were able to be used (with some effort) before Snowden, but his last point is solid:
> The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#4> Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement. While political engagement is an alternative to "slapping unbreakable crypto" onto things, this article establishes no precedent for political engagement actually helping! I see the technical as political, direct action as engagement. An…
SOPA's defeat was a big win.
There is almost no political engagement from the technology sector, as compared to others (like pharmaceuticals, finance, telecoms, entertainment). If there had, the DMCA might not be so onerous, the CFAA would be gone, and SOPA would never have gotten as far as it did.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#5> Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement. While political engagement is an alternative to "slapping unbreakable crypto" onto things, this article establishes no precedent for political engagement actually helping! I see the technical as political, direct action as engagement. An…
I do IT for a think tank in DC. I've seen people across the political spectrum fail to enact their particular agenda for their entire multi-decade careers. Changing policy is slow and, quite often, impossible.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#6> Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement. While political engagement is an alternative to "slapping unbreakable crypto" onto things, this article establishes no precedent for political engagement actually helping! I see the technical as political, direct action as engagement. An…
>no precedent for political engagement actually helping!
Off the top of my head:
In the US: the fourth amendment, Miranda rights, the right to abortion, various efforts to decrim gay sex.
Here in Canada, Trudeau père famously said "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", adding that "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_19...
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#7The article seems to make the fundamental error of assuming that there is any middle ground between "unbreakable crypto" and "effectively no crypto at all".
If crypto can be broken, it will be broken, whether that's by state actors or by some kid in Mongolia who wants to make a quick buck by ransoming all your files.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#8Kinda clickbait-y, and ignores the fact that encrypted communications were able to be used (with some effort) before Snowden, but his last point is solid: > The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement.
No its not. The reality is the biggest threat to privacy is due to political engagement. Stronger encryption that no one can break is really the only viable option.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#9Nobody really knows the correct answer and I think that's the reason communication is failing between the government and the tech sector.
I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from the get go and then increasing transparency as needed for society, while government is kind of hovering on the "we need transparency everywhere for any arbitrary reason because we don't know when we'll need it", and this is a difficult position to hold.
I think unfortunately if we are to have a government, we need to do the latter, because the government can't intrude on privacy NOR punish people without evidence or at least minimum cause, while in a completely private anarcho-capitalist society the individuals who don't comply can be punished indirectly with exclusion and isolation from society. Personally this seems like a pretty crappy way to do things but that's a post for another time.
Re: More encryption means less privacy
#10[deleted]