More encryption means less privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#51

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #47

rocqua wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a very important point was raised though. Before crypto, basically all guarantees where conditional on a judge's say so. With crypto this changes. The issue also comes up, in a clearer way, with crypto currencies. There is no way to deal with fraud or mistaken tranfers in bitcoin. That loss of intervention hurts, and we gotta think about it. Even though no government has given a satisfactory solution, that do…

>There is no way to deal with fraud [...] in bitcoin Don't we have an extensive legal system to deal with fraud? The fact that a lot of payment providers elect to deal with fraud themselves probably shows that that legal system isn't working as smoothly as it should; but that's really something that should be fixed in the legal system, not in the payment channel.

Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible.

With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo...).

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#52

Post by darawk » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

I don't totally understand this view. Government doesn't have a right to ephemeral conversations that happen in physical space between two people. We aren't required to record them in case some law enforcement officer might request them.

Why is online discourse different? Just because the bits still exist in some sense, why does that mean they need to be accessible?

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#53

Post by icebraining » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #51

wongarsu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no way to deal with fraud [...] in bitcoin Don't we have an extensive legal system to deal with fraud? The fact that a lot of payment providers elect to deal with fraud themselves probably shows that that legal system isn't working as smoothly as it should; but that's really something that should be fixed in the legal system, not in the payment channel.

Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible. With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo... ).

With cash, unless the wallet in which it resides can be obtained, that is not possible. I fail to see the difference.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#54

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

theandrewbailey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder. I've seen people on HN saying that Google is one of the biggest lobbyist, so apparently tech sector is very much present in Washington. So maybe it's not that there is no engagement, but that those who engage have different goals in mind than your average HNer?

Perhaps even inherently opposite goals. Google, Facebook, et al make it their business to peel away your privacy and know everything about you.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#55

Post by Kenji » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

This argument is like saying that if you build a castle to protect yourself from the attacker, you are responsible for the enemy's construction of trebuchets that siege the castle. Yeah, the castle builders are at fault. Nevermind that they protect so many innocent with their work.

Of course we need political involvement, but we also need encryption everywhere, literally everywhere.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#56

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #52

I don't totally understand this view. Government doesn't have a right to ephemeral conversations that happen in physical space between two people. We aren't required to record them in case some law enforcement officer might request them. Why is online discourse different? Just because the bits still exist in some sense, why does that mean they need to be accessible?

Government doesn't have a right to meticulous transcriptions of every verbal conversation you've ever had. But, it does have a right to do its utmost to figure out what was said. It has a right to search your file cabinet, or tap your phone, or tail you with a detective, with a warrant of course.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#57

Post by apeace » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

This is a fringe opinion, but I personally wish the U.S. would make all forms of hacking and digital surveillance totally legal. Yes, legal, with no "I".

I think this would drastically change the technology landscape, putting more impetus on vendors to provide (and prove) protections such as encryption, and an impetus on users to select the vendors who are the best at doing so.

Hacking laws are a crutch that attempt to patch insecure systems with law enforcement. And they risk being interpreted incorrectly--see interpretation of CFAA in the Aaron Swartz case, where downloading files could have meant 35 years in prison.

I say let the CPUs interpret the bits, not the politicians. They cannot keep up with changes in technology, will make many wrong decisions, and are susceptible to corruption.

In a world where hacking is legal, encrypting everything would be the right thing to do. It would be the only way to stop the government from spying on us, and the only way for them to stop us from spying on them.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#58

Post by ffwd » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #38

ffwd wrote: post #9

Nobody 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 transp…

> 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 This is almost a non-sequitor. If your private life is transparent then it ceases to be private. You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. It's funny how you'd think you have to be an…

> You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society.

No, I'm not advocating for anything per se, I'm just bringing up opposite points of view. I don't have an easy answer either. Second, no privacy is what has been the standard since governments started. There has been no technology that has been able to make some aspect of reality 100% private, other than the decay of physical objects over time, essentially erasing the evidence.

The fact that we can have permanent 100% private aspects of life is a brand new thing, and thus must be discussed in that manner. That's why I brought up the extreme of anarcho-capitalism - not to speak against it but as a counterpoint to what we have now/what has been.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #38

ffwd wrote: post #9

Nobody 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 transp…

> 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 This is almost a non-sequitor. If your private life is transparent then it ceases to be private. You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. It's funny how you'd think you have to be an…

ffwd said that you needed to be an anarcho-capitalist to want absolute privacy. To have a "proper society" (one where government can arrest murderers, say), you have to have some transparency. (Because if I'm a murderer, and I do the murder in the privacy of my own home, and there is absolute privacy, the government can't ever find out, much less prove, that I did it.)

For the proper functioning of government for the legitimate benefit of society, there is a balance between privacy and transparency. The government is going beyond that balance, seeking more transparency. The anarchists go the opposite direction, seeking more (preferably total) privacy. Neither is in the public interest.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#60

Post by mediaman » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #53

sliverstorm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible. With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo... ).

With cash, unless the wallet in which it resides can be obtained, that is not possible. I fail to see the difference.

I agree, the legal system doesn't do well when it comes to recovering cash from entities that can hide it. You can get a legal judgment against a company, but if it's fly-by-night, it winds up being a worthless piece of paper, and can become very difficult to recover.