[HN Gopher] Privacy is ok ___________________________________________________________________ Privacy is ok Author : TangerineDream Score : 155 points Date : 2022-12-29 21:07 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.tbray.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.tbray.org) | grammers wrote: | Totally agree with this. Yes, with privacy it's hard to | 'eavesdrop' on the bad guys, but isn't it allowed to whisper? Why | should having privacy be ok in real life, but not when you | communicate digitally? So far no one has offered an honest | explanation why we must monitor everything online, usually it's | about protecting kids or defending against terrorists, but is | this really it? It doesn't convince me. I'm happy using apps like | Signal and Tutanota, and I believe everyone should do the same. | clucas wrote: | I'm totally against mandated backdoors, and I am pro-privacy. | But we should acknowledge that the communication environment we | live in now is materially different than it has been in the | past. The past ~15 years is the first time in human history | it's been possible for humans to communicate (1) instantly, (2) | across any distance, (3) with no possibility of eavesdropping | (given the right software), and (4) via devices that are cheap | and _ordinary_ (i.e. expected to be owned and carried by just | about anyone). | | Again, I think the harm of mandating backdoors far outweighs | the benefit, but imagine your job is to make sure people aren't | organizing mass terror attacks. I think you can take a look at | the above environment and get a little worried, in a way you | wouldn't be about people just whispering to each other in- | person. When we say "no backdoors," we are truly making a | tradeoff. | [deleted] | jagged-chisel wrote: | > Blackman says "The company's proposition that if anyone has | access to data, then many unauthorized people probably will have | access to that data is false." What on earth makes him think | that?! | | This is exactly the answer I want, too. | bdominy wrote: | Most people are just learning that their online conversations are | not as private as they believed, but the real-life consequences | for that lapse is almost zero which is why there is not more | demand for secure solutions. What does affect you, however, is | the harvesting of your contact info as spam, robocalls, identity | theft, and a multitude of scams all begin with the gathering of | those details. E2EE is gaining ground with the public and my hope | is for all channels between individuals online to eventually be | protected. | nix23 wrote: | And also: | | https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2015/03/30/Maoris | | Beautiful art...but i had a 5 minutes giggle about the comment at | the end of the page...gosh sometimes i still love the | internet's....backflash to the 2000's. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | History has shown us time and time again that when privacy is | given away because "bad people can use it", without fail turns | out to be detrimental to the law abiding citizens, with little to | no impact to criminals. In many cases it further pushed the | government into a dictatorial, even totalitarian regimes. | | This has happened with speech, journalism, gatherings, | associating with people, religion, self defense, and many more. | | The very definition of a criminal is someone who ignores some | laws, performs illegal (not legal) acts, including the laws that | supposed to correct them. | | People need to stop voting on _purely_ emotion, and vote _more_ | with logic and ethics. | | edit: add qualifier of "purely" & "more", as to acknowledge the | responses and the nuanced problem around the overall topic. | wolverine876 wrote: | > History has shown us time and time again that when privacy is | given away because "bad people can use it", without fail turns | out to be detrimental to the law abiding citizens, with little | to no impact to criminals. In many cases it further pushed the | government into a dictatorial, even totalitarian regimes. | | I agree with the conclusion, but I wonder about the claims and | reasoning. | | Can you give us examples? I don't recall that many 'bad people | can use it' arguments that led to what is described. I doubt | it's led a liberal democracy to become authoritarian, and under | existing authoritarian regimes, there is little or no privacy | to give away. | | Finally, the biggest privacy threat in free countries now isn't | government but corporations. | datagram wrote: | As far as privacy goes, the USA Patriot Act is probably one | of the better examples of "we have to erode privacy to catch | criminals": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invoc | ations_of_t... | | As for general "bad people can use it" scenarios, US airport | security would be my go-to example. Everyone has to take | their shoes off at airport security, even though the | Deparment of Homeland Security's own tests have shown that | that terrorists could still still easily sneak weapons and | explosives through security: | https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa- | screeners... | whakim wrote: | I don't think blanket statements like this are true, and I | don't think they're a healthy way to frame the debate. To take | a non-trivial example, requiring cars to bear license plates - | something almost everyone accepts, at least in the United | States - has a lot of upsides like enforcement of traffic laws. | Sure, perhaps traffic cameras aid totalitarian states in | tracking the movements of citizens, but I think most people | agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms | of privacy. | | This is a long way of saying that, even as a strong privacy | advocate, it's worth noting that the tradeoff _is real_ and the | terms of debate ought to be over whether the tradeoff is a good | one or not. In the case of encryption, this is a difficult | question for us to answer because we 're essentially asking how | many crimes _might have been prevented_ or _might have gone | unpunished_ had the perpetrators used encrypted communications. | That being said, I think the security state would be hitting us | over the head with these statistics if they could actually make | a coherent case - the fact that Reid Blackman is instead making | a fallacious comparison between encryption and the nuclear | launch codes suggests that the figures don 't add up. | FigmentEngine wrote: | false and dangerous analogy. knowing your number plate is | comparable to knowing your phone number, rather than the real | analogy of bugging your converation in the car. the number | plate yields metadata about journeys, not the actual | conversation. | | "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a | problem with barcodes on milk" | w0m wrote: | > "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a | problem with barcodes on milk" | | I mean; unless you pay cash for ~everything your spending | habits have generally been wide open since the 50s in the | name of convenience. | pdonis wrote: | _> I think most people agree that license plates are a good | societal tradeoff in terms of privacy._ | | I think most people have never even considered the matter in | those terms; they just accept that license plates are how we | do things and don't bother asking why. | | When you actually ask why, your claimed upsides don't, IMO, | actually amount to much. Enforcement of traffic laws? Most of | those are revenue sources for local jurisdictions, not | improvements in safety. If someone does no harm when | violating a traffic law, there's nothing actually worth | enforcing from a safety perspective; and if someone _does_ do | harm, how much help is a license plate in tracking them down? | What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave | the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but | get found later because their license plates were known? A | large enough fraction that license plates for everyone are | justified taking into account the privacy downsides? | | This, btw, is the same logic you apply yourself in the latter | part of your post. And your conclusion? | | _> I think the security state would be hitting us over the | head with these statistics if they could actually make a | coherent case_ | | Which means that, since they're not, there actually _isn 't_ | a case. And I agree with that--both for license plates _and_ | for encryption backdoors. And for other claims that we need | to give up our privacy for some other supposed benefit. | nl wrote: | > What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents | leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get | there, but get found later because their license plates | were known? | | As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car | behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist | had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction | is close to 100%. | | So yes, it is a trade-off and in this case I agree with the | OP that is is worth it. | ghaff wrote: | If hit and runs were known to be virtually untrackable, I'd | guess you'd have a lot more hit and runs. | sanderjd wrote: | Yeah I don't find your argument here compelling at all. | | You're right that I hadn't thought about license plates in | these terms before, but now that I have, I'm convinced that | they are a very good trade-off. So no, I don't think people | only accept this because they haven't thought about it. I | think enough people thought about it and accepted it long | enough ago that we simply don't really need to think about | it anymore. It was something that was invented, worked | well, and thus faded into the unquestioned background. And | that's good! | whakim wrote: | License plates are the primary _enforcement mechanism_ for | traffic laws. Traffic laws (red lights, speed limits, etc.) | provably save lives, and surveys have shown that people 's | likelihood of obeying such laws correlates with their | perceived likelihood of being caught. | | I think your argument about tracking down people who didn't | _actually_ do any harm misses the point - you might not | _intend_ to cause harm but the behavior you exhibit may | simply lead to more harm if everyone did it. Should | drinking and driving be legal as long as you don 't hurt | anyone? | | I have made the same point with regard to a tradeoff | betweening traffic laws and encryption (intentionally, | since that's the point of my post - everything is a | tradeoff). But I think license plates enable a system | beyond "man in police car" which provably saves many lives. | Even if you disagree (and I think you'd almost certainly be | in the minority if you conducted a poll), the fact that | we're even discussing it proves the GGP wrong - privacy | tradeoffs aren't necessarily harmful ipso facto. | int_19h wrote: | And yet people don't like red light cameras. Case in | point: many municipalities in US ban them outright, in | most cases due to popular demand from their constituents. | marginalia_nu wrote: | > People need to stop voting on emotion, and vote with logic | and ethics. | | There is no purely logical reason to vote at all that isn't | fundamentally rooted in emotion. This is typically a desire for | something to change in one way, a fear that it will change in | another, or anger or indignation that it has already changed in | some detrimental way. | | Indeed, your own argument is based on the fear of dictators, | the looming threat freedom being taken away. | | Ethics too is rooted in emotion. When we look at something we | consider unethical, something unjust perhaps, we feel anger and | indignation. If we perceive such an event is about to happen, | we feel fear. If we perceive it has been averted, we feel | happiness. | Xeoncross wrote: | Who's logic and ethics? I think that is the heart of the issue. | | Hard for all of us to stand together apart. | schappim wrote: | I generally agree with you; governments have chipped away taken | a sledge hammer to privacy with The Patriot Act, NSA's mass | surveillance program, PRISM, and the UK's Investigatory Powers | Act etc. It is hard to quantify the chilling effects of losing | privacy, similar to being impossible to prove a negative as | there is no conclusive way to prove that something does not | exist or did not happen. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | History has also shown us time and time again that absolutism | isn't orthogonal with reality. Absolute privacy still results | in tyranny, you just won't see it coming until it's far too | late. | FigmentEngine wrote: | > Absolute privacy still results in tyranny, | | what are the examples of this, can't think of any? | from wrote: | I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that | "lawful intercept" only became lawful in the 1970s and that | the laws/modern law enforcement techniques you think are | saving us from anarchy are relatively new. In the UK wiretap | evidence isn't even admissible. | clnq wrote: | The argument that privacy is also terrible because it can | facilitate crime neglects to consider that many other ways | exist to encourage and obstruct crime and that nearly | everything facilitates crime to a degree. For example, car | ownership enables hit-and-runs, you can't have burglaries | without homes, and gun ownership... is a topic for another | thread, but you get the point. | spritefs wrote: | Whether or not privacy is "OK" according to some random closet | authoritarian NYT columnist is completely irrelevant | | If X columnist thinks encryption is a problem, they should be | willing to live with the consequence that the Texas govt would be | able to see the communications of women seeking out of state | abortions | | There is no way to eliminate privacy for "bad" actors only but | preserve it for "good" actors | zirgs wrote: | And there's no way to ensure that only "good" actors will be | able to use the backdoor. If there's a backdoor then "bad" | actors will find a way to exploit it. | nuancebydefault wrote: | > There is no way to eliminate privacy for "bad" actors only | but preserve it for "good" actors | | Exactly columnist's point. | Waterluvian wrote: | "...dangerous because bad people could use it to plan nefarious | activities..." | | My interpretation of the spirit of legislation like the U.S. | First Amendment is that "bad people" is impossible to objectively | define, so the price for freedom of speech is that sometimes | there are "bad people," and you just have to live with it. | | I'm not sure I've really come to understand what is going through | the minds of those who do want to police speech (and | communications and association). Are they fools who cannot see | where this leads? Do they believe that it will favour their | interests? Are they just so easily frightened that they aren't | sold on liberty anymore? | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | He absolutely hits the nail on the head, wrt the reasons we can't | have any type of backdoor - _ever_. | | Hate to be the one to tell the global law enforcement community | this, but, apparently, they seem to be entirely ignorant of it. | People have been having untapped correspondence between each | other since the dawn of language. That's THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Long | before Signal. | | All they do, is meet, or drop communications, in any of ten | thousand different ways, to each other. | | It could be a thumb drive, or it could be two people, idly | scratching the dirt (one of the stories behind the Christian | "fish"). | newaccount2021 wrote: | [dead] | Guthur wrote: | We have far more to fear from those that peddle fear than from | those we are told to be fearful of. | thomassmith65 wrote: | If a technology enables criminals to coordinate without any | hope of detection that seems worthy of some fear to me. | zirgs wrote: | That's the price you have to pay if you want to live in a | free country. | thomassmith65 wrote: | The point of the original article is that it's not black | and white. There is no, and never can be any, entirely free | country. I want to be free enough to have good privacy, but | not so free as to allow a crime ring to take over my town. | philippejara wrote: | if you are in a position a crime ring can take over your | town, no amount of surveillance will help, it will most | likely make the crime ring stronger by giving them access | to it, there's a joke here about the government being | already the crime ring I guess. | DocTomoe wrote: | Some people say that already has happened, and the crime | ring is called "the government". | p0pcult wrote: | >Some people | | Other people think those first people are complete | nutjobs. | sabellito wrote: | Anyone can host an e2e chat solution, trying to take Signal | down doesn't change anything for serious organised crime. | tmpburning wrote: | you are eating the pudding.... | tensor wrote: | This has always been true. The old fashion way of doing it | was called "getting together in person someplace private." | Yes Signal makes it a bit easier, but also general technology | makes it harder too. | [deleted] | weakfortress wrote: | And to think, two years ago the people who say this also | willfully handed over their privacy of their own bodies, their | own medical records, and their own movement in order to protect | themselves from a virus. We'll happily defend Signal, Bitcoin, | whatever else. But the second someone starts asking for your | (vaccine) papers suddenly destruction of privacy is okay for | the "common good". All it takes is one very well constructed | appeal to authority to destroy 100 years of work. No matter the | alleged "good" intentions. | | I bring this up because all privacy falters in exactly the same | way. Everyone is for it so long as <bad person> is not doing | something they don't like. To me, it's a binary choice. You are | either for privacy or you are not. There is not | "well...sorta...except". Tyranny comes in many forms. One of | those is waffling on such issues. As a demonstration, I'm sure | I'll immediately catch flak for this post and possibly even be | accused of being an "anti-vaxxer". These people are the same | people who will sell you and your privacy out the second it | becomes inconvenient to them. Worse, these people can vote. | | The average person will sell you and your privacy out the | second they think you're up to no good. Privacy is no good if | you know what people are up to. The dunning-kruger effect | especially among allegedly intelligent people in regard to this | subject has left a lasting impression on me. It's a paradox of | the pseudo-intellectual. | kelseyfrog wrote: | > To me, it's a binary choice. You are either for privacy or | you are not. | | This is called black and white thinking and it's generally a | intellectual dead end. Applying wanton black and white | thinking is a sign of a mind incapable of nuance, and rich, | deep thought. | timbray wrote: | You're not allowed to drive at twice the speed limit, nor to | smoke in enclosed public spaces, and, in certain pandemic | situations, you shouldn't be allowed to breathe | unobstructedly on strangers. Where's the privacy dimension?! | base698 wrote: | What level of risk do you believe allows massive | corporations to loot the government? | | 1 in 100,000? 1 in 10,000? | ls15 wrote: | I am glad to see, that in 2022 finally some widespread common | sense with regards to privacy seems to kick in. In my opinion, | most people who argue against privacy fall into one or both of | these two groups: 1) Idiots 2) | Assholes | | It is totally fine if people want to voluntarily give up their | own privacy, but as soon as they want to interfere with other | people's privacy they are essentially proposing to invade other | people's personal spaces against their will. At the very least, | they should have an extremely good reason for that, but they | typically are just fallaciously appealing to fear (think of the | children, the terrorists, ...) or employ other fallacies (nothing | to hide, you're on facebook anyway, you're not that interesting, | ...) in order to strengthen their case. | | I associate politicians who advocate privacy invasion with | corruption. Just like Eva Kaili, the EU Commision VP who was | caught having bags of cash from Qatar at home and who is one of | the main proponents of chat control. | | https://digitalcourage.de/blog/2022/kaili-chatcontrol-invest... | waboremo wrote: | I suppose the following group counts as idiots, but a lot of | them are naive rather than actively malicious. You'll see | people argue of things like oh who cares about privacy, I post | online all the time and nothing happens. Completely oblivious | to cases such as people using airtags to stalk people. Or | people using location data from dating apps to assault their | targets. Or widespread cases of people fearing their medical | data could easily be accessed by law enforcement in a post | Dobbs vs Jackson United States. | | This group is probably the most difficult to reason with | because they refuse to empathize with others in these cases. To | them, the idea of being targeted is something that happens to | other people, and even if they were targeted nothing would | happen besides maybe a nude leaking or whatever they consider | "sensitive but worthless". It's this combination of lack of | empathy mixed with a particular kind of data, not tech, | illiteracy. | Barrin92 wrote: | I didn't like the original post that much but I tink this one is | worse because it's almost entirely emotional. Statements like | this: | | _" When you say "law enforcement", who exactly do you mean? | Employees of the United States? Of Oregon? Of Crow Wing County, | MN? Of Italy? Of China? How are you going to sort out the | jurisdictional disputes, and how are you going to ensure that | only "good" law-enforcement organizations get to snoop?"_ | | are just knee-jerk. You sort it out the same way you do any issue | of public authority. Legislation, regulation, courts, etc. | Privacy is not binary. Technically it's perfectly possible to | design differentiated systems that can be adjusted and provide | transparent access when needed. And that's probably what we need | the most, not just when it comes to crime but also user choice. | Way too often these days you have extreme solutions on one end | that result in users opting for unsafe choices just due to | usability. There needs to be much more debate about how systems | are designed so that they give authority access when needed in a | way that has checks built in and protects users as much as | possible. | | Authority has legitimate interest in preventing crime, this has | wide public support in many cases, and individuals have | legitimate interest in privacy, but neither is limitless. Any | system designed for communication ought to reflect that or else | we're just wasting resources on ideological debates. | furyofantares wrote: | I'm in agreement with the conclusion but not sold by this | explainer. | | How do you sort jurisdiction, and how do you ensure Signal | employees can't snoop are problems, but if I was intent on trying | to find a solution to allow governmental snooping I would not | just throw my hands up at them. It's not actually fundamentally | impossible to make compromises here. | | First, "how do you sort out jurisdiction?" isn't really a | fundamental argument, it just sounds hard. And "Signal employees | would necessarily be able to snoop" is plain wrong, a snoopable | copy of each message could be encrypted such that it requires | cooperation between parties to snoop: Signal itself plus sender's | local and/or federal authority. | | Sender's rough location or origin is compromised here, but Signal | employees can't snoop. | | You could also require multiple agencies with potential | jurisdiction to cooperate in order to decrypt. If a federal | agency claims jurisdiction they would need to convince both | Signal and the local authority to unlock a message that the | federal authority can then decrypt. | | I have lots of concerns with such a scheme and I hate it a lot! | But I think it I would not be at all convinced by this explainer | if I felt we should strive for snoopabilty. | college_physics wrote: | Privacy is more than ok. Can there be democracy without privacy? | Can there be enterprize without privacy (commercial secrecy) | | That we have tolerated the "privacy is dead" mantra for so long | shows how weakened the reflexes of society, how lacking its | immune system. | | The bad guys will find ways to evade the rule of law no matter | what. Compromising the foundations of digital society with that | pretext might be too high a price to pay | guilhas wrote: | Not for serving politicians, companies with public money | contracts, listed companies CEOs, NGOs and charitable | organizations receiving or giving a relevant number of millions | in donations | | These people are far too corrupt to be left wandering by | themselves | Xeoncross wrote: | The 'government' is responsible for a couple orders of magnitude | more harm than 'criminals'. We're talking hundreds of millions | deaths worldwide over the last century. | | I'm much less concerned about the government knowing what the | 'criminals' are talking about (there are plenty of other ways to | track them) than I am with the government knowing what the | citizens are planning on standing up for/against. | robryk wrote: | What are you comparing with (both for government and for | criminals)? In case of criminals it's easier to imagine a | similar world where just criminals don't do crime; however, | that comparison fails to take into account indirect effects of | crimes (which are both negative -- e.g. costs spent on | protection against crime -- and positive -- more incentives to | influence the society so that crime is less beneficial). | | In the case of government, I find it hard to see what do you | mean by "same world, but without government". If everyone | behaved the same in absence of government, nothing would really | change. If we take into account changes in people's behaviour | due to lack of government, then how do we stipulate that no | government forms in that world? Are we imagining a world where | everyone knows that forming any government will end the world | and thus no one does that? In that case I'm hard pressed to | even guess the sign of the difference in magnitude of harm, let | alone its order of magnitude. | kodyo wrote: | Is there an organization you can think of other than a | government that is capable of bringing about a Chinese Great | Leap Forward, a Soviet Holodomor, or a German Holocaust? | | Money laundering and drug trafficking are rounding errors. | bbreier wrote: | East India Company | MarkPNeyer wrote: | ... which had an army bigger than Britain's. | theCrowing wrote: | He is right but I hate people talking about the government like | it's some random entity. You are able to vote, you can decide | who is the government AND here comes to the kicker you can even | be IN the government. You just prefer to not be, you prefer to | build artificial stuff to circumvent what your elected | government does. It's so counterintuitive. | onetimeusename wrote: | I don't really like this idea that voting will fix all | problems and dangers in government. In fact, voting could be | a cause of the danger. It is called tyranny of the majority. | tensor wrote: | And that's why governments are more complex than straight | democracy. I love how people bring up the tyranny of the | majority as some counter to modern democratic government, | all the while providing no viable alternative. | | What, do you want the tyranny of the minority? Are you | proposing some sort of fascism? | kodyo wrote: | Why would I want to be in the government unless I wanted to | impose my will on someone else? People like that are the | people I least want to be governed by. | spritefs wrote: | Correct in theory but completely wrong in practice | nibbleshifter wrote: | > AND here comes to the kicker you can even be IN the | government | | This is (in many cases) a lie. The system is set up in a way | that only the political class can realistically run for | political office. | theCrowing wrote: | proof it. the last election cycle tells a different story. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | More so to circumvent the dim-witted will of my neighbors. | kodyo wrote: | The idea that dim-witted neighbors get to have a say in how | you live your life is kinda gross. | theCrowing wrote: | And he thinks you are the dim-witted neighbor so to get an | actual idea if you or he is dim-witted you need outside | data. | britneybitch wrote: | https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2014/08/12/study-you- | have... | | > the preferences of the average American appear to have only | a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact | upon public policy | | What Signal is doing is infinitely more effective than voting | for this year's media-approved career politician. | theCrowing wrote: | And one simple bug or a bad actor could bring it all down. | thelamest wrote: | Counter: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page- | oligarchy-... (and it isn't a left vs right thing, Vox is | replying to a whole bunch of coverage from all angles; I've | mostly seen Gilens&Page posted from the left). | onionisafruit wrote: | I have the ability to participate in a handful of governments | by voting. There are countless government officials around | the world who might like access to my signal conversations. I | don't have any say for most of them. That's why I'm glad I | can use a service like Signal offers. | newZWhoDis wrote: | How do I vote out the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF? The politicians change | and they all stay the same or get more powerful | theCrowing wrote: | Well, get elected write a bill and find allies. That's how. | z3c0 wrote: | Who would have thought it could be so simple? | theCrowing wrote: | Nobody said it is easy and that's why you don't do it and | prefer to write sarcastic comments on the internet. | kragen wrote: | we have a working solution to the problem of the cia | snooping on political dissidents and for some reason you | want us to abandon it and switch to a solution that won't | work | | why is that | 8note wrote: | Using government is an effective solution. It's slow, but | it's a dedicated political campaign that overturned roe v | wade. | | Cryptography isnt a solution to this because wrench | attacks will continue to exist | theCrowing wrote: | No, you believe you have a working solution, but you | can't verify it. You know how you could verify it? | tensor wrote: | I don't think that poster is saying to ban Signal. A | minority of people want to ban Signal. As it is Signal is | legal and that's good. Democracy is also good. And yes | people should participate in democracy rather than simply | posting angry internet comments. Participating in | democracy is also good. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Wow, it's so simple and easy, how has no one thought of | that before and tried it? | theCrowing wrote: | Nobody said it is easy and that's why you don't do it and | prefer to write sarcastic comments on the internet. | umanwizard wrote: | Why aren't _you_ doing it, then? | | Oh, right, because it's impossible. | theCrowing wrote: | But I am, we fought a lot of battles and won over the | last years with the previous German government, got the | new one to adopt most of our (CCC) proposals and are now | fighting again because of some proposals are again | overreaching. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Simplistic "but hard" proposals beget sarcastic replies. | I could enumerate some reasons why what you said is | overly simplistic and ignores some harsh realities but I | expect the response to be another variant of "no one said | it would be easy". I guess no one is allowed to have an | opinion on a topic without being prepared to martyr | themselves for it? | theCrowing wrote: | So as with the topic at hand you assume a certain outcome | even in discussions you try to derail with low effort | jibs, got it. | eternalban wrote: | This is a classic problem. You have political and | institutional elements in every system. (In the old days, | the institutional elements were the clerics of various | religions.) | | _A_ solution is to indoctrinate bureaucratic elements of | government to follow political leadership, but this trick | only works in authoritarian systems, like USSR, and | requires periodic show trials and executions, or in the | military (thus: bootcamp). | | This is one of the areas where machine intelligence could | end up saving the day for humanity. Bureaucracies can | potentially be replaced in toto by informational systems at | some point. I think only then will we get to try actual | democracy democracy. | 8note wrote: | Your vote is one vote among many. You need to convince | everyone else to vote with you too, including the | politicians that get elected. | | Otherwise, you need to run for yourself. | | You won't get what you want done if you don't participate, | and voting is the bare minimum of participation you can do | kodyo wrote: | Voting does fuck all and everybody knows it. The only | beneficiaries of the ability to vote are the tyrants who | get to blame the result of their depravity on the people | they oppress: the "voters." | from wrote: | There are 2 million civilian federal employees (nearly all of | which are unfireable) and many who spend all their days | promulgating rules that make everyone else's lives more | expensive, more annoying, and involve more government forms. | Elections do not replace these people. | chimineycricket wrote: | I think it's idealist to think any of these things will help | even one bit with the problems Parent is talking about. | theCrowing wrote: | And it's not idealist to believe the opposite? | chimineycricket wrote: | No because that's not ideal. But it is realistic. | theCrowing wrote: | agree to disagree. | Xeoncross wrote: | The world seems to have a number of governments that don't | respond kindly to criticism from their own citizens, so that | leaves other governments the job of restraining them. | schappim wrote: | For those who haven't read the post, the summary of Tim's Post | is: Reid Blackman's article in the NYTimes argues | that Signal App is dangerous because bad people could use it to | plan nefarious activities and the legal authorities wouldn't be | able to eavesdrop on them. However, it is impossible to address | the downside of the app without completely shattering the upside | of protected privacy. Blackman's claims about Signal's ideology | are irrelevant because the math doesn't care - people are | justified in wanting privacy, and there have been no credible | proposals for taking away just the bad people's privacy. Signal | is not the only end-to-end encrypted way to communicate, but it | is a great piece of software and privacy is good. | | I'm really torn on this issue, as I understand both sides of the | privacy debate. I am both a strong proponent of privacy, but I'm | also an ecommerce business owner. | | Unfortunately, the same tools I use personally (VPNs, disposable | email addresses, parcel lockers, etc.) are also utilized by | fraudsters to make fraudulent orders. At this time, crypto | payments appear to be the only viable way I can guarantee my | customers' privacy and protect my business; however, the real- | world market penetration for crypto is too low, and there are | numerous other issues. | | This puts me in the sad position where "[complete] Privacy is NOT | OK" for my business. I am currently exploring 3D Secure 2, what | other options do I have? | tredre3 wrote: | > At this time, crypto payments appear to be the only viable | way I can guarantee my customers' privacy and protect my | business | | How does crypto protect your business? | ls15 wrote: | There is no chargeback | sabellito wrote: | How would having a backdoor to Signal help with your fraud | issue? Are you sure you're a strong proponent of privacy? | schappim wrote: | I am attempting (poorly) to emphasize that this conversation | requires more nuance. It is possible to be pro-privacy while | simultaneously understanding why it is sometimes necessary to | reveal private information. | sabellito wrote: | I understand what you're saying, and I also would love a | middle-ground. | | However, as the article explains better than I could, | there's no way to get the upsides of privacy while | mitigating the downsides. | PaulKeeble wrote: | Even if signal puts in a backdoor to allow wiretapping (and | criminals) access the next thing that happens is someone makes | another application that doesn't have it. Communication | applications based on encryption aren't "hard" in the sense the | maths is well established and a root of online business and a | leaky system is worthless to businesses and many customers. Those | that don't care will carry on with signal, everyone else will | leave. | [deleted] | hwestiii wrote: | Ticking time bomb, 2022 Edition? | eointierney wrote: | Privacy is a fundamental Human Right. Only as the Law and all | practices comply do they obtain our legitimacy. All else is | nonsense | nhchris wrote: | An unaddressed point: These things are usually framed as a | _change_ - communications are "going dark", law-enforcement is | powerless, radical privacy-first ideology, etc... | | But it's not a change - conversations were private-by-default | back when they mostly happened offline (yes, a govt. agent could | have been eavesdropping, just as they can still plant a bug or an | infiltrator today), and encryption is just restoring what we used | to have before conversations moved online. | masterof0 wrote: | The feds have been working hard to push the "freedom isn't free" | agenda in order to persuade the public that Chinese style is | acceptable if we are the ones doing it. You can see the effort on | YouTube(through major podcasts and channels), TikTok, now the New | York Times, among other places (for example, the ex-CIA guy that | trended in YT for a while, who claims the government needs to | surveil us to "keep us safe", and the CIA is "good", Snowden is a | traitor, and all the deep state talking points, etc...). Straight | propaganda, such as the one coming from Tass or XinHua news, is | insane. | yieldcrv wrote: | I really need to cancel my NY Times subscription | | They haven't really had much variation in content since the | invasion of Ukraine, and the only variation are these random | WTF-who-paid-for-this articles | Nicksil wrote: | > [...] now the New York Times [...] | | Also this: (Note: This is under the _opinion_ section, | however.) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34176590 | philippejara wrote: | It never fails to amaze me how people are currently ok with | effectively wiretapping communication, compared to how it was | treated back when wiretapping was a thing. That you have the NYT | blatantly publishing something this brazen while ignoring | completely the repeated surveillance scandals in the last decade | is mind boggling. I know I should be charitable but there's no | explanation I can find other than they're trying to create a | second "x man bad" with elon for the guaranteed traffic now that | trump is effectively neutered and irrelevant. | | Even during the heyday of the patriot act the mentality didn't | seem _this_ bad for americans, granted that could be my memory | failing. | Jorengarenar wrote: | >they're trying to create a second "x man bad" with elon now | that trump is effectively neutered and irrelevant. | | Where did you get that Elon and Trump here from? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-29 23:00 UTC)