Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#31

Post by maxerickson »

chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

"red flag" has a pretty strong connotation of "worth consideration all on its own".

Like in your example, I bet recent association with known drug traffickers is so much of a stronger signal that looking at encryption or felony history is basically worthless. Associating with known criminals is worthy of the label 'red flag'.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#32

Post by Miner49er »

matwood wrote: post #25
r00fus wrote: post #6

Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with this, since the government has been fighting/arguing against the populace having strong encryption for awhile.

The title of this post was changed, but the title originally pointed out that the author of this article is Trump's pick for director of the CIA.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#33

Post by maxerickson »

er0l wrote: post #19

good luck putting a red flag on the 1 billion WhatsApp users

Dear WhatsApp-

Per [whatever law they pass], please stop providing server capacity for any versions of your software that are not compatible with [unintentionally ironic name for surveillance system].

Thanks.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#34

Post by davidw »

_qbxp wrote: post #23

This, along with Sessions who sided with the FBI in the San Bernadino case, makes me very worried about the future of online privacy and communications encryption. Can somebody please allay my fears. Besides the EFF, where can I donate to have most impact in terms of preventing the requirement of government backdoors in consumer hardware or software?

The ACLU is a pretty good place to donate to as well.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#35

Post by jameskilton »

nine_k wrote: post #26
bborud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Not really. And frankly, it scares me that this is even confusing to people.

Can you please elaborate?

You can't kill people with encryption. In fact, encrypted communications has saved many lives.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#38

Post by shawn-furyan »

r00fus wrote: post #6

Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.

Down voted. I don't think this is a constructive question. Encryption wasn't even a minor policy stance of the 4 most major parties' nominees for president.

It's not very reasonable to blame pointedly question voters for actions their candidate didn't take a stance on.

[edit], thought better of using the word 'blame'. It's not an accurate characterization, but didn't want to erase the history of having initially chosen that word either.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#39

Post by chrissnell »

Miner49er wrote: post #16
chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

This argument is similar to the "nothing to hide" argument. People shouldn't be flagged just for wanting privacy.

Not really. I'm saying that it's one of many factors, some typically benign (like "gun owner"), and some not benign ("has a brother fighting for IS in Syria"). To do a better job at intelligence, our government needs to look at these holistically.

My argument also extends to things like the TSA. We all like to complain about having to wait in line for security at the airport. Why can't they do better threat assessment? Well, it needs a holistic approach. Why should I, chrissnell, an officer in the Army Reserve, with no criminal record whatsoever, be subjected anything more than a magnetometer at the airport? If the TSA would look at my profile holistically, they would see that I am not a significant threat and that should mean that I would be able to go on my way without interference.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#40

Post by yup123 »

chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

I imagine that if criminals know that a product has a backdoor they'll start meeting in person, then what?
Post reply on HN