571–580 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not substantiated, it's speculation. There's still a possibility it was an actual, non-coerced suicide.
Wrong. It's a substantiated theory, because there's lots of evidence suggesting this theory is correct. But it is not a fact, you're right there's stil la possibility it was an actual suicide, but I'm right in calling it a substantiated theory that Epstein was "suicided"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. It's a substantiated theory, because there's lots of evidence suggesting this theory is correct. But it is not a fact, you're right there's stil la possibility it was an actual suicide, but I'm right in calling it a substantiated theory that Epstein was "suicided"
There is no evidence at all suggesting it is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not accurate at all.
In early 2018, Apple forced their users to opt-in to migrating iCloud encryption keys and data to Chinese data centers: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh... Chinese government nationalized the data centers six months later, gaining access to all the encryption keys and user iCloud data at rest: https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...
Apple does business in China the way they have to do business in China. I don't agree with that, but I'm also quite sure they have not given my iCloud keys to China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook relies on the fact that most Facebook messages are not end-to-end encrypted to detect illegal activity. Forget the last 1% – how would Facebook continue to detect the 99% without access to decrypted message contents?
Client-side detection. You can probably argue that it can be evaded easily because it is client-side, but most people won't bother + it isn't like FB has an open API with a ton of third party FB clients. I spent less than a minute thinking about this, but there are probably tons of other strategies they can employ. People familiar with the domain, I would actually love to hear your takes on this, as the topic is fair…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. There is no convenience that would ever convince me to have an always on listening device in my home. PRISM was proof that governments pressure tech companies to become sources. How to build a program to retain power: 1) Make new tech that is very convenient but has potential to become surveillance vector. -> e.g, Phone with voice recordings, fingerprint Face ID, location data, network of friends. Smart TV, sma…
> There is no convenience that would ever convince me to have an always on listening device in my home. Many smartphones have this, and will respond to "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri". Do you view this differently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos is a new kind of crime, which whispering would not have aided.
Why should anyone give a shit? Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I for one am not willing to give up any freedoms in order to prevent the sharing of such vile material. Perhaps the creation, but not the sharing.
This is contradicted by the evidence we have to the contrary, in particular the model of supply and demand identified in child porn markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sharing creates demand. Producers increase supply. You should read more about this issue. NYT just did a bunch of great articles that will give you perspective.
Sharing only creates demand if money or other videos (or other things of interest to the original perpetrator) are given in exchange. And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. Sometimes I wonder if what people really want is just to stop the transmission of child porn so they can go back to pretending it doesn't…
This runs contrary to the fact that people share things not just for monetary profit, but for other videos/pictures in exchange, and voyeuristic/exhibitionist reasons.
Detecting child abuse pictures is not incompatible with end-to-end encryption if the detection is done locally. Facebook (or other messenger app owners) could train a good classification model to detect child abuse pictures on large servers and provide the model to smartphones locally. Before sending pictures, the app would run the trained model (which is cheap computationally). If if detects pictures of abuse with a…
I want to applaud you for thinking outside the box though.
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…
> 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…
I think this kind of dark-sounding reasoning only holds up when you phrase it not as “a mere inconvenience” but as tyranny, which is what encryption and privacy in general protect against.
I support personal rights to privacy, and believe that we should find ways to enforce laws without violating privacy. Representative governments need the ability to alter their own power structure in order to function, and yet human power structures naturally resist change, including by spying on those who conspire against them: therefore, privacy is essential for representative government. Representative government’s alternative is tyranny, which we know creates incalculably-large-scale suffering.
Human nature is at the root of why privacy is costly and also why it is necessary; however, much evidence suggests that the set of aspects of human nature we express is mutable and dependent on environment.
While I would never argue that we can remove those aspects of our nature, I believe we can alter our environment to reduce how frequently we express the more sinister ones.
In short, I’d rather work on reshaping our environment, including and especially our culture, to make privacy less necessary and costly, than to debate whether it is either. It is both, and it will always be both, but we can make it less of both, or more of both, with our culture. Same for guns.