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

Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 592 posts

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#241

Post by bduerst »

jachee wrote: post #194
onli wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called laptop, smartphone and smart tv, is already available and we do know it's already watched and listened to.

Got any sources to cite for that watching and listening? Specifically Apple-related and North American examples?

>Specifically Apple-related and North American examples?

That's an oddly narrow goalpost. Apple shares user encryption keys with the Chinese government, for example, giving the Chinese government access to all iCloud pictures, messages, documents, videos, etc.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#243

Post by autoexec »

brunoTbear wrote: post #79
snarf21 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of that, so these crimes didn't exist before mobile phones? They just want to sit in the ivory tower and see everything. I'll also agree to this the day after Barr hands me his unlocked personal phone. I promise not to disclose anything I find.

You may be radically underestimating the degree to which the Internet has made it possible for people who abuse children to share content. In some cases, these crimes truly couldn't be perpetrated without the anonymity of the Internet, and the existence of these clustered communities of pedophiles encourages further abuse/exploitation. I love the Internet, and my career is in security. But we as a security/privacy/te…

Encryption or not, if "bad" people can access illegal content "good" people can too. It might take actual work instead of passively reviewing the private communications of every person innocent or otherwise, but it's not made suddenly impossible.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#244

Post by umvi »

danShumway wrote: post #182

> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. Oh, bull crap. By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated. Why stop at vetting baby-sitters or teachers? We ought to require mandatory background checks for every person who ever visits a family or goes into a public space that might contain children. Law enforcement also o…

> By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated

It's an appeal to emotion and a commonly used tactic of politicians to get what they want (and to convince people it's what they want too). Used all the time in gun control debate.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#245

Post by bduerst »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #193
bduerst wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So using data for optimization should be banned?

Obvious false equivalence. Just because we protect collecting/using certain data in certain contexts where we believe it does more harm than good doesn't mean we have to ban all data collection/use.

You specifically stipulated that the data optimization was bad - then why is data optimization of ads harmful? Doesn't serving relevant ads have more utility?

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#246

Post by saagarjha »

swagonomixxx wrote: post #233
SamBam wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that reasonable people can hold both f̶a̶c̶t̶s̶ things in their heads at the same time 1. Privacy is important and good 2. It has almost certainly contributed to an explosion in the production and sharing of child pornography and abuse The question is what is the moral way to reconcile the two, not to deny that either exists.

Great points. It definitely seems to me that those two are fundamentally opposites. Suppose we champion (1), then with perfect privacy gives a lot of leeway for criminals to commit crimes such as those you stated and more without being able to detect that they did them. However, without perfect privacy, every world citizen would be subjected to such monitoring, and we'll basically be exactly what 1984 is, with the me…

They’re not complete opposites, since criminals don’t always have perfect privacy: they leave other evidence that can be discovered with a warrant. On the flip side, mass surveillance will just create selective enforcement.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#247

Post by joe_the_user »

danShumway wrote: post #182

> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. Oh, bull crap. By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated. Why stop at vetting baby-sitters or teachers? We ought to require mandatory background checks for every person who ever visits a family or goes into a public space that might contain children. Law enforcement also o…

By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated.

Well, I think the aim is to create (or in this case, maintain) a emotional button that when pressed, create such an extreme picture in the person's mind that they instantly respond with "your freedom? versus this?, yeah screw your freedom, we gotta stop this."

The extreme the pictures shown on media, the more minachean the TV plot, etc, the stronger reaction.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#248

Post by autoexec »

rosybox wrote: post #59

For those of you opposed to this request from the government, what do you think the negative consequences are for end to end encryption? Do you think there are no negative consequences or are they just negligible? Just try and imagine what the cost might be, how broad the impact might be and who and how many would bear the brunt of those costs. Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends…

> Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important.

This is demonstrably false. Companies are very interested in your private communications and the buying and selling of your personal private data is a multi-billion dollar industry. Governments also have an interest in your data because they can flag you for whatever the current administration finds distasteful. That might mean identifying threats to those in power like activists, or (as we've seen in other places) attempts to hunt down whatever they consider "evil" like homosexuals

The issue isn't privacy vs security. Loss of privacy is also loss of security.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#249

Post by hashkb »

Remember - we don't actually need social media. Encrypted email is enough to protect your actual private communication so you can revolt or share a little illegal material with a few friends. It's not fair to ignore the network effect here. And what do we, as a society, gain from social media? Nothing! It's addicting us, wearing down our critical thinking, and it's stopping you from going outside.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#250

Post by hashkb »

kyboren wrote: post #217
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

Some crimes can also be aided by whispered in-person conversation. Should we require all in-person conversation to be shouted near a government office? The societal default used to be that substantially all conversations were inaccessible to the government except through testimony. Encryption does nothing to change the availability of information through testimony. Previously, remote conspirators could collaborate th…

Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos is a new kind of crime, which whispering would not have aided.
Post reply on HN