I have a feeling in 10 years I will be a criminal in the whole anglosphere.
Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
141–150 of 209 posts
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#142Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical objec…
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people).
I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#143Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical objec…
“..because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works.”
Sorry but it doesn’t even work for physical objects. Guns are completely illegal in some cities (NYC, SF and Chicago, unless you have connections), so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? Or, research compliance rates when states have retroactively made certain firearms illegal and asked for citizens to turn them in or face the risk of criminal charges.
The War on Drugs has also been highly ineffective at preventing motivated individuals from obtaining certain physical objects.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#144Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical objec…
“..because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works.” Sorry but it doesn’t even work for physical objects. Guns are completely illegal in some cities (NYC, SF and Chicago, unless you have connections), so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right? Or, research compliance rates when states have retroactively made certain firearms i…
> so I suppose there’s no gun crime there, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
It works when implemented country-wide. Countries like Germany have much stricter gun laws, and as a result lower gun violence.
Obviously, the method doesn't work, when someone who wants a gun can just drive a couple hours and get one at some gun show without even leaving the country.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#145Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical objec…
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people). I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
> it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
And how shall "goverment sanctioned encryption" be distinguished from "non sanctioned encryption"? The point of (good) encryption is to make the result look like stochastically random bytes.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#146Everytime someone invokes an argument how taking something away by law prevents some form of crime, my answer is a simple fact: Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Now, in some cases, that isn't a problem: Guns are an obvious example, because they take resources and knowledge to manufacture, and are physical objects that can be tracked. Taking these away by law works. But encryption isn't a physical objec…
That's oversimplifying it. Banning encryption is a form of censorship (because words don't need to be manufactured), and censorship, as far, as I can tell, does have an effect. For example, criminals who abuse children to produce pornography aren't going to follow laws against having child pornography. Does it follow that laws against the posession of child pornography have no effect in curbing abuse? I think they do…
Difference: There are perfectly legal reasons to generate encrypted traffic;
All payment processing (ATMs, credit cards, online shops) generate encrypted traffic. Sending legal documents, technical data, company internals, contracts, etc. generated encrypted traffic. Sending sensible personal information like medical, indurance or financial records generates encrypted traffic.
Most of these cannot be sent unencrypted, without breaking fundamental processes in our society.
And there simply is no reliable way to differentiate between encryption used for legal or illegal reasons.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#147I feel like they missed the primary point which is that E2E encryption is the primary thing protecting everyone from hackers/criminals/other-governments. Without it the criminals WILL have access to your systems and data and then you can basically say goodbye to anything being valuable at all. Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. A criminal can literally infiltrate and search through every unsecured compute…
>Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. It is a poor metaphor because locks prevent invasion not enable privacy. Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. Encryption is the fundamental unit of network privacy.
> Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal.
This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's oversimplifying it. Banning encryption is a form of censorship (because words don't need to be manufactured), and censorship, as far, as I can tell, does have an effect. For example, criminals who abuse children to produce pornography aren't going to follow laws against having child pornography. Does it follow that laws against the posession of child pornography have no effect in curbing abuse? I think they do…
Difference: There are perfectly legal reasons to generate encrypted traffic; All payment processing (ATMs, credit cards, online shops) generate encrypted traffic. Sending legal documents, technical data, company internals, contracts, etc. generated encrypted traffic. Sending sensible personal information like medical, indurance or financial records generates encrypted traffic. Most of these cannot be sent unencrypted…
I'm not seeing there is no difference, I'm saying that the methds to curb it are the same.
Pretending that you don't understand the argument of the other side ("it won't work because only criminals") won't get you any closer to a dialogue with those who say it.
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#149How would you ever secure a server without encryption?
How would "they" (corrupt politicians) ever hide their corruption without encryption.
Oh no wait it's of course not them who are abusing it, ever. It's only "them" as in the others that are criminals. It's not like they are not humans, no they are of course better humans who never error, who never steal, who are always honest and straightforward.
Never mind NSA and the likes still recording every little data fragment we transmit. That's fair and just, because they're the good guys. They would of course never spy into my sex video chat with my girlfriend.
It's the age of struggle of the rulers vs the oppressed. Ideally it wouldn't be like this, but ultimately that's what it is.
Less privacy is never the better option.
I wonder how we can ... change ... I know: end to end encryption and encryption in general should be a basic human right in the information age.
It opens the bigger question, do we need to be ruled at all. I say yes we need rules but do we need oppression, censorship and removal of privacy?
Isn't that what all the western propagandists accuse Russia/Putin of, correctly I might add?
Re: Earn-IT threatens encryption and therefore user freedom
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people). I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
> it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet. And how shall "goverment sanctioned encryption" be distinguished from "non sanctioned encryption"? The point of (good) encryption is to make the result look like stochastically random bytes.
If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it.
You could claim you are sending packets of random bytes for no reason to a friend, but I doubt any jury would believe you.