Didn't we already do the crypto wars? I guess we need to go through this again for those who missed it.
Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
391–400 of 592 posts
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is such a lazy argument I mean, I agree with you on the argument completely, but I disagree that it’s a lazy argument. It’s an extremely effective argument, relative to its factual content. The west is culturally conditioned to accept terrorism as justification and child abuse justifiably gets people riled up. What’s lazy is people who can’t be arsed to look at complex things from multiple angles.
Also isn't "This is such a lazy argument" like 100 times more lazy, because there's nothing backing up why it was lazy in the first place.
“Think of the children!!” Has become de-facto lazy I think. Not really more you can say about it.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Second Great CryptoWar: https://reason.com/2013/03/12/the-second-great-crypto-war/ > "The proponents of this process use fear tactics to win support, what the four cypherpunks dub "The Four Horsemen of the Info-pocalypse: child pornography, terrorism, money laundering, and the War on Some Drugs." In other words, laws passed to go after child pornographers, terrorists, money launderers, and drug dealers end up chi…
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…
Basic human rights prevent people being jailed on sight. Some of them are criminals. Some of those rights are constantly challenged, yet no one questions their general value. Privacy, thus end to end encryption is a basic human right. There shouldn't be any reason to require proof of this. What we have here is simply the fear of the loss of an extremely powerful tool.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Second Great CryptoWar: https://reason.com/2013/03/12/the-second-great-crypto-war/ > "The proponents of this process use fear tactics to win support, what the four cypherpunks dub "The Four Horsemen of the Info-pocalypse: child pornography, terrorism, money laundering, and the War on Some Drugs." In other words, laws passed to go after child pornographers, terrorists, money launderers, and drug dealers end up chi…
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…
Those four examples are not sufficient reason to deny good encryption to anyone...and denying good encryption to anyone is denying good encryption (privacy) to everyone.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#395> 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…
> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children.
I completely agree. Now can we talk about guns just lying around the home?
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#396> 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…
I wonder why they don't use this argument to advocate gun control.
I love how so many people instantly associated that argument with gun control :)
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're both rich information gathering sources with potential for abuse.
But the specific question is, do you keep a phone in your home? If so, how is that better than having Alexa in your home?
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other. But two potential sources is surely better than one when it comes to surveillance.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#398I'm in favor of the government being capable of seeing and viewing 100% everything. 110%.
The infrastructure should be there. If there's a court order or lawful authorization, info should be accessible without delay.
But
The way to do that would be more systems of review for when it's used, generally making the standards more strict, less ambiguous.
But
The problem is there are side effects to changing the law that can give away methods and also put convictions at risk. There's other ramifications we may not know about until it was put in effect, but they could be negative. I bet that's one reason there isn't as much movement in the area.
There was an article in the news recently that right now in USA the case law considers unopened email to be discarded.
GDPR went into effect in EU. That is another aspect that US doesn't a similar thing for (does it need one? I don't see people bringing it up often, convince me otherwise?)
My point is, backdoors are more of a hypothetical thing. The legal framework around them and making them better is more productive use of your time.
That would involve people coming together and nuancing what the types of privacy are and whether it involves US people, foreign countries, drug dealers, etc.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#399The problem is deeper than just protecting your data against the government: One of the products these guys sold to corrupt goverments was a tool to plant CP on people's computers. https://hacked.com/italian-hacking-team-hacked/ How do you like those apples? I can't think of a technical defense against a threat like that that doesn't involve disconnecting all the computers in my house and throwing them away.
> a tool to plant CP on people's computers.
This tool is not described in the article you've linked. Do you have an additional link for those of us who want to read more about this?
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#400Earlier 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…
> I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. They're not. A number of horrible things will happen as a result of pervasive end to end encryption. However. You have to run the numbers here. On the one hand, perhaps a bit more crime, some of which horrible. On the other hand, the privacy of everyone . It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live tel…
> You have to run the numbers here. On the one hand, perhaps a bit more crime, some of which horrible. On the other hand, the privacy of everyone.
It's not just a matter of "many small harms > few large harms" though. Not having privacy can lead to severe harms.
If the bad guys break into a system that allows them to effectively wiretap everybody, now they can snoop around and find blackmail targets. "I know what you did, have sex with me or everyone will know. Or send money. Or give me your employee access badge."
Results: Rape, financing child sex trafficking, facilitating an act of terrorism. Or any of the less visceral but nonetheless widespread and significant consequences like major financial fraud or corporate espionage.
And that's just blackmail. What about the suicides of people who get doxxed? Or the people in violent relationships whose abuser is in law enforcement or in a criminal enterprise that has compromised the surveillance apparatus? Or the mental health epidemic which results when people know their communication is exposed to people they don't trust to see their true selves and then self-censor into performance-art conformists riddled with anxiety and loneliness?
Privacy is about keeping perverts in law enforcement from reading the sexting that should only be between you and your spouse, but it's also about keeping the country and the people safe from terrorists and foreign powers, keeping victims safe from abusers and allowing people to satisfy the human need to be themselves in communications with people they trust.
Privacy isn't a trade off against security, it's a necessary component of having security.