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

Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–255 of 255 posts

Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?

#251

Post by jonathanstrange »

criddell wrote: post #235
jonathanstrange wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because hardware devices for encrypting phone calls in real-time are not as easy to produce as text encryption software or stick-it notes with random numbers on them.

What does that have to do with whether or not a wiretap serves a reasonable purpose? Today, it would be incredibly easy for Apple to have encrypted voice calls as well.

A law must be enforceable, otherwise it is useless. A law for wiretapping voice phones is enforceable, because only few criminals have the capability to build their own hardware encryption devices for secure real-time voice scrambling. A law for wiretapping into text chat software is not enforceable, because anyone halfway skilled in cryptography can produce his own encryption layer on top of the wiretapped text chat. The worst inconvenience a criminal would suffer from such a law is that they would need to use the copy&paste function of their device.

A law that by design is not enforceable, serves no reasonable purpose.

Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?

#252

Post by nqzero »

toast0 wrote: post #139
nqzero wrote: post #120

i'm going to go against the grain here and propose an alternative arrangement medium term, i don't see how democracy can function if E2EE becomes the norm (esp in the context of cryptocurrency). influence-buying, disinformation, collusion, bribes, bullying, etc become much much easier, and policing would become nearly impossible instead, ban E2EE but allow each person to have multiple identities (with technical means…

End to end encryption allows for the ends to exchange information without fear of the intermediaries leaking the information to others. Even if it weren't connected to your identity, you may send pictures you wouldn't want seen by anyone you didn't send them to. You wouldn't want to send forbidden thoughts if your local government was known to repress them. A government could certainly track down your multiple identi…

in the 1st world, I agree that terrorism is a negligible risk. but at least anecdotally, that math appears to be less sound in the rest of the world - i at least imagine that in much of the middle east, expressing a nominally legal but unpopular idea would likely result in you being killed. and i think that it's fairly accepted that in mexico speaking out against the drug cartels is risky

i'm thinking of MvPI for the USA (and presumably similar places). and it would require a society-level commitment to transparency for it to be sufficient (which may not be practical).

as for pictures, there would be technical means to obscure faces, tattoos, voices, etc.

as for the govt tracking you down, there would need to be an elaborate system of checks and balances - access to the unobscured data would require blockchain-like keys from multiple parties and would be publicly visible

Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?

#253

Post by asdkhadsj »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #241
asdkhadsj wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)? I covered that in hunting rifles. Various types of rifles have legitimate uses. However, it's an argument not in good faith to say that anything with a possible sport should be legal. I can't make a rocket launcher sport and demand that rocket launchers bec…

AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1]. 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles

I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool.

A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting.

How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife?

I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places.

I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.

Re: Ask HN: What are your arguments in favor of end-to-end encryption?

#254

Post by giantg2 »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #253
agensaequivocum wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1]. 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don'…

"I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc."

Can you explain what those limitations are? Your mention of use cases and what is neccessary may conflict with others'. For example, quick follow up shots are necessary when hunting multiple feral hogs to reduce their environmental impact.

Post reply on HN