Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A duty in one community may very well be a prohibition in another. I think the standard example of this is whether you marry your brother's widow. On the other hand, there is a large list of phenomena that are observed in every documented culture, such as marriage.
> large list I am no anthropologist myself but I remember hearing that this list is actually rather small. Religion was an example that was given and I would believe marriage. How many others, though?
Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
211–220 of 240 posts
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't think we were restricting the discussion to modern western cultures. In some cultures, marrying your brother's widow has been required; we generally see this as being part of the social safety net in that culture. In some cultures, marrying your brother's widow is prohibited because it counts as incest. I don't know how I would describe the state of this variable in modern western cultures. In modern America…
So looking at the wiki entry on Levirate marriage[1] I see that it's been more common than I remembered, a quick look around didn't turn up any cultures where it would be flatly forbidden as incestuous (I picked modern western as an example where like you say it would seem unusual, but I can also imagine scenarios where it'd be seen as heartwarming, making sure the widow and children were housed and fed etc.) 1: http…
> a quick look around didn't turn up any cultures where it would be flatly forbidden as incestuous
This seems to be fairly well documented without even a need to leave the Jewish tradition: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-priestly-repudiation-of...
> Despite the great store Deuteronomy places on this practice, the Priestly Torah seems not to endorse yibbum. It legislates the following blanket prohibition:
> [Lev 18:16] Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother.
> Here the text forbids a brother from marrying his brother’s wife, ostensibly even after the brother has died. No exception is noted for the brother’s childless widow.
> This problem so bothered the Sages, that they list it within a collection of contradictions in the Torah whose reconciliation is a feat so intangible “that the mouth is unable to utter and the ear unable to hear"
> The cumulative evidence suggests that P/H did not consider yibbum an option, and likely repudiated it. Perhaps the Priestly authors did not feel that incest should have any exceptions—yibbum, which involved a woman marrying her brother-in-law, is at its core incest with an “indulgence.”[5]
> [5] The Sages seem aware of this problem. See, for instance, Tosefta Yebamot 6:10 (cf. Yeb. 39b):
> A man who goes in unto his childless sister-in-law for the sake of beauty or for the sake of property is to be considered as if he is committing incest
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#213In short: since the EU is trying to introduce legislation to monitor private communication, the author states that it's a moral duty of everyone to start encrypting their communications (instant messaging in particular), as a form of civil disobedience. It works when many (preferably most) people disobey.
Unfortunately this doesn't work because a _lot_ of will people legitimately will tell you they "have nothing to hide" and would tell you they'd let 3-letter agencies in the U.S. go through their phone with a fine-tooth comb (at least, until they're actually being faced with that reality and try to get out of it). The only reason we currently have any message encryption is because a few tech companies have made the de…
WhatsApp uses the Signal protocol for its end-to-end encryption. The Signal Protocol was developed by Trevor Perrin and Moxie Marlinspike for Open Whisper System, their Open Source initiative.
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#214If you suddenly die, would you want your family or heirs to access your data (photos, writings, communicatinos, projects, documents, whatever)? If yes, how to achieve that without compromising the security of encryption of all your data?
You share your private key with them. Either before dying (that requires a lot of trust, I wouldn't recommend it), or after being dead through a will.
Not secure to have the key printed in ones will.
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
You share your private key with them. Either before dying (that requires a lot of trust, I wouldn't recommend it), or after being dead through a will.
Not secure to have the key printed in ones will.
Secure is relative here. In this case, it would exist in one additional place (besides your possession) if the whole key was stored on the document.
You can also break up keys into multiple parts, such that you need N pieces of M total to recover the key. e.g. N = 2, M = 3: you derive three subkeys, two of which are needed to recover the key. Or, you could require the key stored in the will, plus any number of other keys for recovery.
Cryptographers have spent a long time doing math to make these kinds of key systems possible. I've gone down many a wikipedia rabbithole in the past about such problems.
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
So looking at the wiki entry on Levirate marriage[1] I see that it's been more common than I remembered, a quick look around didn't turn up any cultures where it would be flatly forbidden as incestuous (I picked modern western as an example where like you say it would seem unusual, but I can also imagine scenarios where it'd be seen as heartwarming, making sure the widow and children were housed and fed etc.) 1: http…
> a quick look around didn't turn up any cultures where it would be flatly forbidden as incestuous This seems to be fairly well documented without even a need to leave the Jewish tradition: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-priestly-repudiation-of... > Despite the great store Deuteronomy places on this practice, the Priestly Torah seems not to endorse yibbum. It legislates the following blanket prohibition: > [Lev…
That's certainly interesting, both required and forbidden is a case I hadn't expected. I suppose it'd be more practical then to look at historical records and see if the practice was non-existent, or just rare (presumably it wouldn't ever have been common).
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#217>If you don't have something to hide someone else might have something to hide I don't find it ethical to fight for the privacy just to protect criminals.
Your argument assumes a just state that will not outlaw things like dissent against the government, being LGBTQ, etc. Plus, having something to hide does not automatically mean you are doing something criminal. I do nothing criminal, but I still have things to hide.
>Your argument assumes a just state that will not outlaw things...
No, once things are outlawed you should stop doing them. Any prior messages don't matter since the law can't apply retroactively. I am assuming ex post facto laws are prohibited.
>Plus, having something to hide does not automatically mean you are doing something criminal.
If you the reasoning for hiding is because you don't want the government to see it then it is likely criminal.
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#218>If you don't have something to hide someone else might have something to hide I don't find it ethical to fight for the privacy just to protect criminals.
It is not criminal to want privacy, any more than it is to want a firearm.
There is a difference between standard privacy where your information is not accessible anyone you know or anyone in the public versus a level of privacy where not even the legal system with a court order can get the information.
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Norway is not in the EU. You are right, thank you! I just fixed that. > Coming from a Spaniard? Go fuck yourself. I was already fixing the error, and writing in my head the kind answer above. I hadn't seen this nasty comment. Why the ad hominem? I'm ranking governments — not individuals — according to international reports I've seen. Those classifications are debatable, of course. There might be bias, or nuances I'…
> How on Earth is it relevant that I'm a Spaniard? He probably can't trust you because _he's known too many Spaniards_. (Sorry for being off-topic, but I really could resist making that reference to the greatest movie of all time;-).) More on topic: > Hungary and Poland, are still immature barely-liberal regimes with more than a whiff of political repression I don't know what reports you've read, but I don't think we…
> I don't know what reports you've read
I used these reports, which I already knew before writing this post:
• Both Poland and Hungary are classified as “flawed democracies” by The Economist. Only 24 countries are considered to be “full democracies” (and this is irrelevant, but Spain happens to be among them). https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/DI-final-version...
• On a scale of 0–100 on political freedom, Freedom House gives Poland 81 points and Hungary 66 points. (This is irrelevant, but Spain gets 90 points.) https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort...
• The UN's Human Development Index ranks Poland #34 and Hungary #46. (This is irrelevant, but Spain ranks #27.) https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-do...
• Amnesty International on Poland: “Access to abortion was further limited. Criminal charges were used to curtail freedom of expression. The authorities continued to erode the independence of the judiciary. Freedom of peaceful assembly was restricted. Violations of LGBTI rights persisted.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/...
• Amnesty International on Hungary: “Discrimination against LGBTI and Roma people persisted. Women’s sexual and reproductive rights suffered significant rollback. Teachers were denied the right to strike. Pushbacks of refugees and migrants continued in violation of EU law. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Hungary had violated the ban on collective expulsions. Other judgments from the Court were not fully implemented. […] The European Parliament declared in September that Hungary could not be considered a full democracy.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/...
Re: Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How on Earth is it relevant that I'm a Spaniard? He probably can't trust you because _he's known too many Spaniards_. (Sorry for being off-topic, but I really could resist making that reference to the greatest movie of all time;-).) More on topic: > Hungary and Poland, are still immature barely-liberal regimes with more than a whiff of political repression I don't know what reports you've read, but I don't think we…
> I don't know what reports you've read I used these reports, which I already knew before writing this post: • Both Poland and Hungary are classified as “flawed democracies” by The Economist . Only 24 countries are considered to be “full democracies” (and this is irrelevant, but Spain happens to be among them). https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/DI-final-version... • On a scale of 0–100 on political freedom,…
They classify Hungary as a "flawed democracy" because people living in Hungary do not support Western values as much as they would like them to do. I would take those classifications with a pinch of salt. Both the Hungarian government and the Hungarian people are seeking to keep their cultural values, and/or traditions. Telling them to do this and that to undermine it is going to be responded to with criticism. Of course the West and especially the EU hates them. In fact, Hungary is being extremely hated for staying neutral with regarding to the Ukraine-Russia war, and refusing to send weapons or money for weapons to Ukraine. Yes, Hungary is hated because of its pacifist views. Now, would you ever take anyone seriously if they hated Hungary for not supporting and refusing to fuel the war? They think that Hungary is a flawed democracy because (and maybe for other reasons as well) the Hungarian people (!) keep voting for Orbán.