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

Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

lavabit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 321 posts

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#181

Post by jasonlotito »

mburns wrote: post #167
abalone wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument against the ability to wiretap child pornographers and terrorists is "no, sorry". That's not a very complete argument.

His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. It says so in his next sentence. The 'no, sorry' is him discarding the emotional plea that often justifies invading a person's privacy in the first place ("please, won't somebody think of the children!").

> His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy.

Except there is no right to engage in total privacy. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy.

Maybe his argument is that he thinks people should have a right to total privacy?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#182

Post by jasonlotito »

kbenson wrote: post #168
abalone wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument against the ability to wiretap child pornographers and terrorists is "no, sorry". That's not a very complete argument.

That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should be trivial to explain why.

> That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument.

Except the burden lies with those wanting to add a right to privacy to the list of rights we have. The right to privacy simply doesn't exist. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy.

> If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should be trivial to explain why.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask you why you want to change the laws and protections we have now, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to be required to stand up to the questions being asked.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#183

Post by jlgreco »

jasonlotito wrote: post #180
jlgreco wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should privacy be restricted to select mediums?

That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game.

Ooookaayyy... I'll try again:

Assuming that you don't oppose privacy categorically, do you disagree that "people should have the ability to engage total privacy through any means of communication they so choose." If so, why?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#184

Post by SilasX »

orclev wrote: post #4

To my understanding this is what I would expect to happen. He handed over the cert to the FBI, so from a security standpoint it's useless now and should be considered compromised.

So does that mean the CAs will start penalizing sites if they give out their private key and -- pursuant to a court order -- don't tell anyone that they've given it out?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#185

Post by kbenson »

abalone wrote: post #177
kbenson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should be trivial to explain why.

Just so I understand, you want me to explain why it is just to wiretap child pornographers and murderers. Is that right?

If they are to be brought into a conversation not specifically about them as examples, yes.

Whether it's wiretapping or execution, when referencing those crimes you're making a personal evaluation of the actions without referencing any criteria for for how you judged them. To do so is to play to people's emotions about the crimes you referenced rather than the actual item for discussion, which is when wiretapping is justified, and specifically for what crime.

I view it as equally manipulative to state "we can all agree that murder is bad and wiretapping should be justified in some cases" as to say "we can all agree that changing traffic lanes without signalling does not justify wiretapping" when the actual question has nothing to do with either crime.

This is just a case of Godwin's law writ small, so it's harder to spot.

(An alternative argument is that for any extended powers of the state, we should have statistics to back them up. If wiretapping is ineffective for a crime or it's benefit is outweighed by it's downsides, maybe that should be taken into consideration. In the end, I'm basically I'm for questioning generally unquestioned positions.)

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#187

Post by kbenson »

jasonlotito wrote: post #182
kbenson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should be trivial to explain why.

> That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. Except the burden lies with those wanting to add a right to privacy to the list of rights we have. The right to privacy simply doesn't exist. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy. > If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should…

I think you misunderstood me, or extrapolated a position far beyond anything implied in my statement.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#188

Post by frenger »

MustBeAShill wrote: post #152
guelo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you are wrong is that you ignore the dragnet aspect. In meat space people would not accept their snail mail being read without probable cause. Recent polls show that people are more concerned about the spying than terrorism.

Do you mean like how the U.S. Postal service has been recording senders and recipients for decades? It's not a good analogy.

They have? And of the whole world as well?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#189

Post by sbarre »

abalone wrote: post #176
mburns wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. It says so in his next sentence. The 'no, sorry' is him discarding the emotional plea that often justifies invading a person's privacy in the first place ("please, won't somebody think of the children!").

Well, what about the children? Serious question. I say it's an incomplete argument because there is no mention of how we should go about prosecuting child pornographers and terrorists, rescuing missing persons when phone/email records are our only clue, and so on. There's just "no, sorry", the right to privacy trumps these things under all possible circumstances. The question remains.. why? Why is a world with ideall…

Do you believe that we should all give up our right to privacy just in case it allows us to save a few people here and there?

I know that makes me sound like a dick at first glance, but do you really believe that if you answer "yes" to the question above, we are guaranteed that this system will never be abused?

I think the answer to that has already been provided in light of recent events.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#190

Post by mburns »

abalone wrote: post #176
mburns wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. It says so in his next sentence. The 'no, sorry' is him discarding the emotional plea that often justifies invading a person's privacy in the first place ("please, won't somebody think of the children!").

Well, what about the children? Serious question. I say it's an incomplete argument because there is no mention of how we should go about prosecuting child pornographers and terrorists, rescuing missing persons when phone/email records are our only clue, and so on. There's just "no, sorry", the right to privacy trumps these things under all possible circumstances. The question remains.. why? Why is a world with ideall…

We should prosecute crimes the way we always have: presumed innocence until proven otherwise with evidence.

A right to be able to communicate privately doesn't make Plain Old Telephone calls not be easily traced, or make the police useless.

How about this example, to clarify the issue:

However pedophiles (or terrorists) get their content, be it a darknet site or the sneakernet, under the 5th amendment a person can refuse to give a password to decrypt harddrives with potential illegal content that could incriminate them in a crime.

Following your logic, should we not rescind the 5th amendment, so that people have to prove they don't have exploitative images of children?

Post reply on HN