71–80 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.
That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem. I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made. Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will…
I work for a Bank and we use encrypted external email all the time. We have to for regulatory reasons. I'm sure it's the same for defence contractors, and it's a prudent precaution for governments and many other businesses and in many parts of the world.
Suspension of disbelief on security of escrow mechanism is a necessary pre-condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.
That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.
You could plan terrorist activity using postcards. Should we ban the Post Office? You could use phone calls from pay phones (where they still exist) and people used to do that all the time to plan crimes. You could go on vacation together and plan something. You could use voice or text chat in an online game to plan stuff. The people in charge of these organizations are not the suicide bombers; the head folks know fu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem. I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made. Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will…
I work for a Bank and we use encrypted external email all the time. We have to for regulatory reasons. I'm sure it's the same for defence contractors, and it's a prudent precaution for governments and many other businesses and in many parts of the world.
Increasingly we're seeing 'encryption' discussed in mainstream media as a tool that can only be used for nefarious ends. Kind of like how they talked about "cookies" in the late 90s and early 00s. It's unfortunate that there's no way [without a lot of money] to launch a campaign that highlights the fact that most sensitive online transactions rely on encryption - banking, purchasing, etc - to protect you from The Bad…
The reality is, of course, encryption was used in these attacks. These terrorists aren't stupid. That doesn't mean it needs to be banned the say way a randoms stabbing don't mean knives need to be banned. I think the people saying "No way, never no encryption has every been used for nefarious purposes" are just as bad as the other side. Having a sophisticated view of this stuff makes a lot more sense.
Encryption will be like the gun debate. It will flare up from time to time. Its an easy horse to beat because its too technical for the layperson to really have a good understanding of and clearly there are political elements that would love Clinton-era laws limiting key size and such. The reality is that this ship has long sailed away. The genie is long out of the bottle to control encryption like its 1993.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.
Surely you can see that they think the exact opposite. In order to do something like that, they have to convince themselves that they the good guys, and it has to be done to "purify the evil in the world" or something. The truth is that people are not inherently bad. Evil feeds on itself; if you insist on calling them bad, then you are falling into the same trap that they did. Hopefully you wouldn't act in such a hei…
I don't know about that. I'd argue that most people don't think of themselves as bad, but it doesn't make them not-bad. And humanity definitely has base instincts - if we didn't, we wouldn't need governments and police.
Even without having encryption in main stream applications, like WhatsApp, it's child's play to communicate secretly. There are so many open source applications that allow you to do this, it wouldn't even be a speed bump for criminals. Targeting main stream applications only hurts main stream users. NYT should write an article about that.
You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem. I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made. Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will…
I was ready to up-vote your argument because I agree with the first two paragraphs but the snark turned me off from supporting you. Leave it out next time and I you'll make a more convincing argument.
Increasingly we're seeing 'encryption' discussed in mainstream media as a tool that can only be used for nefarious ends. Kind of like how they talked about "cookies" in the late 90s and early 00s. It's unfortunate that there's no way [without a lot of money] to launch a campaign that highlights the fact that most sensitive online transactions rely on encryption - banking, purchasing, etc - to protect you from The Bad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.
Surely you can see that they think the exact opposite. In order to do something like that, they have to convince themselves that they the good guys, and it has to be done to "purify the evil in the world" or something. The truth is that people are not inherently bad. Evil feeds on itself; if you insist on calling them bad, then you are falling into the same trap that they did. Hopefully you wouldn't act in such a hei…