How about the 4th amendment? Or even the principle of it if you aren’t in the US. No other argument is needed. If you argue against this you seriously need to re-evaluate your motives.
Ridiculous question.
Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
41–50 of 255 posts
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#42> how do you respond when someone brings up concerns of E2EE platforms being used for child sexual abuse imagery or terrorism? These are only a tiny part of uses of encryption. Ask anyone if he would like to have his bank transfers, or his credit card credentials in plain text. End to end encryption allows the whole internet to act as a commerce platform. Encryption allows journalists and activists in strict, control…
You are confusing E2EE encryption with encryption in transit/rest in the commerce example. The majority of transactions today are encrypted in transit and (you would hope) encrypted at rest so that the bank and selected parties can access the data (including the customer). There is no bank that would encrypt financial data using E2EE so that only the customer and merchant could access it, which is the analogy here on…
Correct. Nice catch.
I still think that full E2E is a fundamental human right.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#43If an encryption back door exists, one can assume that it will be exploited. The same applies to private key encryption where a company holds private keys instead of individuals holding their own.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#44Compare it to an envelope in the regular mail. How would they feel if every post office along the way opened their mail, made a photocopy, and put it back in a new envelope before passing it on?
Because that's the way things currently are with e.g. Facebook Messenger, Gmail, etc.
E2E is when your envelopes are only opened by their final recipient.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed…
They're not designed to maim or kill, just to accelerate a piece of mass. Police regularly use beanbags and target shooting is an olympic sport. Designing firearms spans all of STEM and keeps people employed well. If the US government wanted to reduce the lethality of firearms, they would ban calibers, not accessories. Even so, a .22LR olympic pistol is enough to take down a bodybuilder with one critical hit. So olym…
You can do the same with e2e encryption. It’s not secrecy, it’s literal 1s and 0s.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guns are directly linked to the actions of those bad actors. A private tunnel of communication is not so directly linked to the actions of child abusers (nor the images they share on these platforms).
If you use E2E as a means to sell or auction a person against their will, wouldn't that directly link the technology to their illegal action? Also, distributing child porn is itself a crime, separate from the abuse. So you would be directly using E2E in a crime that way. Are you implying that some laws hold less moral or legal value? If so, what are the differentiating factors in that decision?
(Don’t) Try to use the sole function of a gun on yourself without harming yourself. Now use WhatsApp on yourself and see what happens. Do you do nothing because you have to think up something to write? The act of writing up the auction is the first part of the crime. Even if you don’t go through with selling a human you may or may not have, you may still be charged for having written that message and sharing it somehow.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#47Funny how the same people who argue that "you can't ban guns, bad people will get guns anyway" are now in favor of banning encryption.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#48Sometimes I don't want people to see my stuff. If I use end-to-end encryption, people can't see my stuff. QED
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#49I believe the federal government's concern (and those of various law enforcement agencies, etc.) is not with E2EE in general but with their desire for a specific (and, in my opinion, deeply flawed) implementation where they have an ability to read these messages. While law enforcement might be happy with a system that requires a warrant or some other paperwork, the US federal government appears to be demanding unfettered access to these messages.
In my opinion, the federal government's unfettered access to people's messages is entirely new with the advent of the internet. They didn't enjoy this level of access when people communicated by written letters nor when they spoke to each other over analog telephones. I believe the questions is less about the mechanism (E2EE) and more about the reach of the federal government and law enforcement and how comfortable we, as citizens, are with them having this kind of access to all of our communications.
In terms of people who are willingly breaking the law, they will always have access to communication methods that the federal government and law enforcement cannot easily surveil. Right now many E2EE mechanisms are the easiest way for these people to communicate privately. If the federal government gets their way and gains access to their communication, and starts to crack down on these crimes then these people will move to another communication medium. Perhaps even back to traditional letters.
There are many reasons to oppose an E2EE system where the federal government and law enforcement have a "backdoor" that lets them read all of these messages. For instance, it won't be long before another organization (perhaps even foreign) figures out how the mechanism works and gains access to every person's communications; the security provided by such a system will have a limited term and we may not know when that terms ends.
In my opinion, the most important issue is granting this level of power to the government and law enforcement. I think this could really be an existential threat to democracy in the US.
Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed…
It is exactly the same with guns. Mind you i come from country with relatively hard to get gun licenses.
What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)?
Also over here modern black-powder guns are legal, without license. And they are both VERY dangerous(way more dangerous in a crowds) and relatively cheap. There is a legal requirement that you have to load the bullet as separate parts(gunpowder, bullet etc).. but what's going to stop a criminal from going on rampage and from preparing them in advance?
Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue. Why they go on rampage? Why some people need it for personal defence(dangerous neighbourhoods? work-related?)? Why do we need to cull the wild animals from time to time?
Heck, if someone wants to go on rampage people they don't need guns, in a big crowd chef knife will be as deadly. And you can legally buy a machete too, or chainsaw, or axe, or whatever.
Bombs can be made from household items and there are plenty of instructions online. There is a schematic of timed detonator on Wikipedia on Casio watch page (google Casio terrorist watch).
It all boils down to proper culture of handling weapons, and not treating them as toys.
The difference between impaling strips and guns is simple: one is used, legally, in specified areas(shooting range, countryside for hunting, at home for defence etc.), while other is mounted permanently and used in public space. One shouldn't keep the gun assembled while transporting it - except if it is for personal defence.
I seriously have no issue with people using impaling spikes in wreck racing, as long as they are within regulation of the race. but on public road? hell no.
In a perfect would we wouldn't need guns at all, as there would be no reason for them to exist.