I see this as an existential threat to human civilization. It poses a very significant risk of creating power asymmetries between the politically connected elite and the masses that lead to highly unstable social hierarchies where states have total control over their population.
Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
211–220 of 299 posts
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because there is a deeper agenda than just "protecting children". If you read the Edward Snowden book (permanent record) then you'll note that he talks about what the NSA/CIA is actually doing with their signals intelligence programs. It isn't about national security, it is about espionage on a global scale. They want information on what foreign governments, journalists, domestic organizations (not just terror…
> Instead of having a massive data collection system, you now have to go back to more traditional methods that require much more effort to implement - like hacking a target's computer directly. Which is more amenable to accountability. Usually this requires a warrant or approval of some kind. > If that happens then the USA will lose its edge in terms of obtaining critical information and that will be a treat to their…
Because the US will pressure other countries to do the same thing. If enough countries agree then it'll be easier and easier to push it onto the rest.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#213Of course, if a child predator really wants to conceal their communication and it's not built into the chat service, they can do so using, say, PGP and some sort of steganography. On the other hand, that law enforcement agencies can catch criminals today using e.g. Messenger means that there are criminals that are not careful or savvy enough to do so. IMO end-to-end encrypted chat should be regarded as private eye-to…
I understand that child predators are thrown around a lot as an example of why backdoors are needed - but, in reality, it's the worst example.
The crimes that warrant a violation of public privacy would need to be those that create _systemic_ risk. Like on the order of the 9-11 attacks that were so disruptive to the entire country that they merit a (temporary) privacy sacrifice.
Child predators are used for their emotional bait, because everyone agrees they are hated, but for all the horror they inflict, they do not cause a systemic problem.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#214throughout history, bad people protected themselves from good people using the same technologies by which good people protected themselves from bad people.
if you remove the former, you also lose the latter. there’s nothing more to it. anyone advocating for removing the former must first be clear that they are abdicating the latter. any other framing is a lie.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#215This reminds me of the cypherpunk movement in the early 1990's (more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk ). We have seen this kind of threat before. We need organizations like the EFF and ACLU more than ever.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#216"It is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws; we need to protect ourselves with mathematics." -- Bruce Schneier
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#217This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…
> Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys
A police officer's job is only easy in a police state.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many years of reading on HN, I used to just accept that encryption is the best thing. And from a point of view of what will happen, that’s what will happen. But should we as a society want this? I would argue these days that it is far better to be able to reconstruct a conversation and prove someone said something. In case things go wrong, we have to have a way to establish truth, and prove things, so we can have fai…
> Now, if we have governments that punish people for being dissidents or engaging in victimless crimes, the answer is to fix the government and the laws, and not to sneak around. You might as well be saying that instead of having democracy and elections, the answer is to fix the government and the laws. You are putting the cart before the horse here: Sufficiently powerful individuals are the precondition for fixing t…
Perhaps it is the opposite — we would gradually replace all functions of government with technology :)
We already have, to a large extent. The post office. Printing and letters patent and many kinds of licenses. Many kinds of clerks. And so on.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but you can order physical abuse over the internet. I really don't want to bother you with how dark some of the darker stuff on the internet is but you're going to have to trust me on this without having to become more explicit or you risk losing your breakfast and then some. The digital can definitely be a pre-cursor and active element in the physical.
Sure, but then we're not talking about the vast majority of digital transgressions are we? That is, the simple (re)distribution of child pornography — ghastly enough as that is — not the few who actively seek out and order new abusive material from those who actually produce the stuff. This debate is about proportionality. How many children can live a marginally better live by giving up strong encryption and privacy…
Anti-encryption stances will also concentrate power, and thereby make for less stable societies. That in turn will harm the rate of economic development, which is what brings children out of poverty where they are most vulnerable to child trafficking rings.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many years of reading on HN, I used to just accept that encryption is the best thing. And from a point of view of what will happen, that’s what will happen. But should we as a society want this? I would argue these days that it is far better to be able to reconstruct a conversation and prove someone said something. In case things go wrong, we have to have a way to establish truth, and prove things, so we can have fai…
>the answer is to fix the government and the laws, and not to sneak around It would be nice if someone “fixed” some governments (and some crimes as a side quest), but 1) condemning privacy only makes this harder than de-facto almost impossible. 2) “prove someone said something” is not how our earth-wide culture works. We are basically based on the fact that conversations are private to some extent. Did you find yours…
What if we apply the same radical transparency to government as well? No more secret courts or meetings, even black ops must be revealed after each limited operation is complete, everything must be out in the open. But leave democratic elections, for instance.
Would any government agree to unilaterally do this? I think the biggest danger will come not from the other governments but from losing the ability to be bribed and do unaccountable things.