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

Encryption Is Not a Crime

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 222 posts

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#161

Post by OhMeadhbh »

netfortius wrote: post #124
i5heu wrote: post #34

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult". It puts the idea into the world that it could be a crime and maybe that it is the status quo. Much better IMHO is something like "Encryption is a fundamental right.", "Encryption protects everyone.", "Without encryption there is no democracy." and so on. Maybe "Don’t let them take your right to privacy."

The "is a right" hasn't worked in years. I'm a lot of areas. . I rather agree with the more specific and up to date "is not a crime".

Claiming a right is not the same as exercising the right, though typically the claim precedes the exercise. Also, are you suggesting you don't have the right to use encrypted communications? (assuming you're not in France, where the "right" to encrypted communications has never been explicitly recognized.)

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#162

Post by OhMeadhbh »

giantg2 wrote: post #122
i5heu wrote: post #34

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult". It puts the idea into the world that it could be a crime and maybe that it is the status quo. Much better IMHO is something like "Encryption is a fundamental right.", "Encryption protects everyone.", "Without encryption there is no democracy." and so on. Maybe "Don’t let them take your right to privacy."

I generally agree. My first thought was that if I encrypt your data without your permission, that would be a crime (eg ransomware).

I think you also have to delete the original information before it becomes a crime. Though monkeying around on someone elses' machine(s) without permission is criminal behaviour in most jurisdictions I've looked at.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#163

Post by 9rx »

15155 wrote: post #156
9rx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which high security vault can the government not gain access to under any circumstances? I expect you'll find decent explosives or a bulldozer will get them in just fine.

The issue isn't "gain access to" - it's "gain access to without destroying the contents." Explosives and bulldozers are likely to harm whatever was motivating the entry in the first place. The vault system can be engineered to ensure this conclusion, as well.

The question specifically asked which one(s) you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which high security value is the government not able to gain access to?

And, sure, if enough perfectly engineered vaults were impeding the government from carrying out the activities it wants to carry out, there would be calls to make building/using such a vault illegal too. In the real world, such vaults, if they exist at all, don't meaningfully get in the way. Thus there is no reason to think about it. We don't create laws on what theoretically might be a problem in some magical imagined world. We only create laws after something is identified as an actual problem.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#164

Post by OhMeadhbh »

kgwxd wrote: post #106
i5heu wrote: post #34

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult". It puts the idea into the world that it could be a crime and maybe that it is the status quo. Much better IMHO is something like "Encryption is a fundamental right.", "Encryption protects everyone.", "Without encryption there is no democracy." and so on. Maybe "Don’t let them take your right to privacy."

"Speech is not a crime"

Not all speech is non-criminal, at least in the US. Inciting speech has always been subject to prior-restraint and fraudulent commercial speech has always subjected the speaker to legal peril.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#165

Post by 1970-01-01 »

ziddoap wrote: post #150
1970-01-01 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go with the USPS. They have been sending daily communications where unencrypted info is the standard since 1775.

I'm not sure how this is answers my question at all. How many whistleblowers would have been killed without a secure way to blow the whistle? How many journalists and journalist sources would have been killed? Etc. These people aren't using the USPS for good reason. Point being, you are only doing one side of your calculation and presenting it as a full argument. But it's just a bad argument unless you calculate both…

That's a different question. You asked how many people would have been harmed if weaker/no encryption was the standard. The USPS is a message system where federal employees are able to intercept suspicious content, and there is no built-in encryption for mail. Voting by mail is a great example of how a critical message can be sent without relying on encryption. Whistleblowers can still encrypt documents on a flash drive, and drop it into a mailbox. There is nothing stopping them from doing so.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#166

Post by OhMeadhbh »

15155 wrote: post #142
kortex wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been a single instance where someone faced legal repercussions for not affirming someone's gender?

Legislation is currently in the works (and likely to pass): https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312 "Lose custody of your child" is very much a "legal repercussion."

You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#167

Post by OhMeadhbh »

hilbert42 wrote: post #75
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to

"I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms" Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.

It probably was never the country you once knew. The view of "american freedoms" is radically different depending on the viewer's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#168

Post by 15155 »

9rx wrote: post #163
15155 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't "gain access to" - it's "gain access to without destroying the contents." Explosives and bulldozers are likely to harm whatever was motivating the entry in the first place. The vault system can be engineered to ensure this conclusion, as well.

The question specifically asked which one(s) you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which high security value is the government not able to gain access to? And, sure, if enough perfectly engineered vaults were impeding the government from carrying out the activities it wants to carry out, there would be calls to make building/using such a vault illegal too. In the real world, such vaults, if they exist at all,…

> The question specifically asked which one you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which one is like that?

After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up:

Glass relocker mechanisms have existed (in reality) on safe doors for decades and will often result in the destruction of contents if triggered and opening is still required.

Governments are normally seeking evidence: a stack of cash or a quantity of bulk substances are substantially harder to rig to destroy (obviating evidence gathering) than documents or data.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#169

Post by 9rx »

15155 wrote: post #168
9rx wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question specifically asked which one(s) you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which high security value is the government not able to gain access to? And, sure, if enough perfectly engineered vaults were impeding the government from carrying out the activities it wants to carry out, there would be calls to make building/using such a vault illegal too. In the real world, such vaults, if they exist at all,…

> The question specifically asked which one you are talking about, not about your dreams. Which one is like that? After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up: Glass relocker mechanisms have existed (in reality) on safe doors for decades and will often result in the destruction of contents if triggered and opening is still required. Governments are normally seeking evidence : a stack of cash or a quantity o…

> After your five ninja edits, it's been hard to keep up

No need to reply within the first second. Take your time.

In fact, consider taking a lot more time as you still haven't named the specific vault, or set of vaults, that is causing such a big problem for the government. If we don't know what vault it is, even if your description is vague, how would anyone come to think of it as a problem? Laws are not created by some all-knowing deity. It is just people.

That such a vault might be theoretically possible to build is irrelevant.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#170

Post by OhMeadhbh »

kube-system wrote: post #126
gruez wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Put more simply: the modern internet doesn’t work without encryption, it is a fundamental part of the technology. Without it, anyone could log into any of your accounts, take your money, messages, photos, anything. I'm pretty pro encryption, but even this is pretty dishonest. Phones (ie. PSTN, not iPhones) aren't "encrypted" by any means, but there's plenty of sensitive information sent over it. Lawyers fax each oth…

I’m not saying every layer of the onion is individually encrypted. But there are plenty of layers that are. There is plenty of encryption used when you send any sort of message from an iPhone, even SMS. You can’t even turn the dang thing on and unlock it without encryption. Then when you send it, it’ll be encrypted by the radio before transmission. Then in transit it may or may not be encrypted at various points. And…

Another aspect is traditionally the administrative burden for state actors to receive permission to eavesdrop on POTS technology is relatively high. Or at least it was before the Patriot Act. I would argue it is still higher than eavesdropping on modern digital communications (IPCMS, Email, web browsing, etc.)
Post reply on HN