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

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#211

Post by palmotea »

ziddoap wrote: post #209
palmotea wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those are both reasoned arguments. The emotional argument... Rationality and emotionality are not mutually exclusive, and I would say there are very, very few arguments that are devoid of emotion. The the GP was using "emotional" to dismiss the kind of arguments you're saying are reasoned.

> The the GP was using "emotional" to dismiss the kind of arguments I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening. Such as the three examples I gave, which are, in almost every case, used to win an argument without having to consider any possible nuance of the situation. Often, it's a completely thought-stopping appeal, because everything is simply count…

> I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening.

My point is that's pretty much all arguments, except maybe some very obtuse ones no one really cares about.

> Or, in your case, subtlety alluding to me being tolerant of CSAM (which was wildly inappropriate, albeit a great example of why I generally just don't talk to people who use those types of arguments).

That's not what I was doing. I was giving an example to show it's a trade-off driven by priorities and values. But if you want to be super-logical about it, supporting strong privacy-preserving uses of encryption necessarily implies a certain level of tolerance for CSAM, unless you support other draconian measures that are incompatible with privacy. Privacy can be used for good and bad.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#212

Post by ziddoap »

palmotea wrote: post #211
ziddoap wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The the GP was using "emotional" to dismiss the kind of arguments I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening. Such as the three examples I gave, which are, in almost every case, used to win an argument without having to consider any possible nuance of the situation. Often, it's a completely thought-stopping appeal, because everything is simply count…

> I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening. My point is that's pretty much all arguments, except maybe some very obtuse ones no one really cares about. > Or, in your case, subtlety alluding to me being tolerant of CSAM (which was wildly inappropriate, albeit a great example of why I generally just don't talk to people who use those types of argument…

>My point is that's pretty much all arguments, except maybe some very obtuse ones no one really cares about.

There is a distinct difference between a person having emotions while arguing, and using an appeal to emotion as a rhetorical tactic. I do not agree that "pretty much all arguments" contain an appeal to emotion (again, as a purposeful fallacious rhetorical tactic), even though all arguments obviously will have people feeling some sort of emotion.

Even looking through this entire thread, most of the disagreements here do not contain appeals to emotions.

I'm sure that any book on logic and rhetoric from the last few centuries would explain it better than I can. The wiki page has some good explanations and examples as well.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#213

Post by [deleted] »

chupasaurus wrote: post #49
pyfon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guantanamo Bay was a thing though. Remember you are not banning all air. And of course the definition of terrorist is will vary based on what politicians want. US recently sent some "Terrorists" to a gulag for example.

> Remember you are not banning all air. Nope, it's about exactly that. This policy would work only for law-abiding citizens which terrorists are not, that's the point. Added: The current gulag expeditions in US nor Guantanamo have nothing to do with US citizens, which is a big difference from GGP's comment.

[deleted]

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#214

Post by pyfon »

9rx wrote: post #27
pyfon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in general, shit security is legal, good security is a crime? A warehouse with shutters and bulky padlocks, a night security guard and camera system is a crime? A bank vault is a crime? Safety deposit boxes?

> A warehouse with shutters and bulky padlocks, a night security guard and camera system is a crime? No, why would it be? The security guard isn't going to wage war with the police/military when they want in. The guard will politely comply to any legitimate (and probably even illegitimate) request for access. > A bank vault is a crime? Safety deposit boxes? Banks are heavily regulated by the government. They especial…

Ok you make good points. Now for the doozy: is thinking (without transcribing for the government) illegal.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#215

Post by procaryote »

wulfstan wrote: post #143
procaryote wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This requires the device manufacturer to have the capability to decrypt the data (to be able to do so when all this process is properly observed) If they have the capability to decrypt the data, a court can compel them to do so, disregarding the process you suggest. A cyberattack could achieve it without a court order. This can't be solved technically.

It requires decryption by means beyond the sole supply of a user-owned key. That doesn't require a manufacturer to be capable of decrypting it. I suspect that there are many ways that can be achieved, all technical ;-)

describe one.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#216

Post by 9rx »

pyfon wrote: post #214
9rx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A warehouse with shutters and bulky padlocks, a night security guard and camera system is a crime? No, why would it be? The security guard isn't going to wage war with the police/military when they want in. The guard will politely comply to any legitimate (and probably even illegitimate) request for access. > A bank vault is a crime? Safety deposit boxes? Banks are heavily regulated by the government. They especial…

Ok you make good points. Now for the doozy: is thinking (without transcribing for the government) illegal.

> is thinking (without transcribing for the government) illegal.

Thinking without a willingness to share what you thought with the government when it feels it needs to know (e.g. in court) is illegal. Full transcription is not always legally required, but it is in some specific contexts where there have been problems getting proper disclosure. Again, laws are created to deal with actual problems, not imagined problems.

I'll note that encryption isn't illegal today. While there are some outlier cases where it has been a challenge to government, it hasn't become a big enough problem to do anything about yet. But if it reaches the point where it is deemed sufficiently problematic, it will become illegal in some kind of fashion. What that looks like is obviously to be seen. It won't necessarily be a blanket ban on all encryption, or even a ban on encryption at all, but most people are not capable of imagining anything else, so here we are.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#217

Post by hilbert42 »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #167
hilbert42 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Prehaps not. See my reply to giantg2.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#218

Post by hilbert42 »

jack_h wrote: post #145
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 I wish people understood the American system at a philosophical level. What you call "American freedoms" are largely based off of negative rights, i.e. John Locke. Our bill of rights use specific language like "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated". It's inherently freedom from state action. Over the past 100 years a diffe…

"Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction."

I'm pretty certain you're correct but I won't attempt to justify it detail here as we have to bring out the political philosophy texts on mass.

In the light of the English Civil War many thought about politics and freedoms Locke being one, his contemporary [almost] Thomas Hobbes with a different position—the Leviathan. Rights, freedoms and social contract theory was still raging nearly a century later with Rousseau whingeing about man being born free but everywhere he's in chains—opening line of the Social Contract. And there's still no universally agreed consensus.

Over the centuries political philosophy has covered almost every conceivable interpretation/position about the rights and powers of the State versus individual freedoms, so it's not for the want of options/choices. Dichotomies still remain because the citizenry is composed of people with wide range of political beliefs many of which are incompatible (this has always been the situation).

We shouldn't expect a consensus.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#219

Post by hilbert42 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #109
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'm not sure the US population ever really believed in fundamental freedoms. They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago. There are living people from that time, and you can't believe in any human right and have an apartheid at the same time.

"They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago."

For many of us outside the US there's a dichotomy here. The North won the bitterly contested Civil War and freed the slaves but never really afforded them true freedoms. Why?

The perception from the outside is that conscience over slavery per se drove the North to war and not concern for the fact that slaves were actually people who were suffering enslavement and or unfairly treated.

Edit: Given the Civil War why was the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later necessary?

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#220

Post by giantg2 »

hilbert42 wrote: post #185
giantg2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right…

No doubt 'perception formed by media biases' has played a significant part and it's been exacerbated by modern communications and social media etc. but I'd contend there's more to it than just that. What I didn't mention was that I've been to the US many times and I've relatives there, and I've even worked there and these factors have also influenced my perception. Let me put it this way, if the Greatest Generation,…

You're referencing a book that is specifically written to convince people of the good parts of that generation. I highly doubt it's giving a balanced view or objectively looking at rights/freedoms expanding or contracting.

Let's just take some examples. What about interment camps during WW2, deporting communist supporters shortly after, racial segregation, performing human subject experiments on black people and biological weapons research on the public without consent, and much higher abuse of power or corruption in politics and in policing. Which freedoms existed then that don't exist today?

Post reply on HN