4 ms·

> "It's in nobody's interests that terrorists should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Since you can't distinguish between 'terror

by fredley 11y ago

> "It's in nobody's interests that terrorists should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Since you can't distinguish between 'terrorists', and anybody else, this effectively reduces to our old favourite: > "It's in nobody's interests that people should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."

x5n1 11y ago
Ultimately that's their biggest fear. That certain elements that are not friendly to their interests organize either themselves, or organize at the behest of a foreign government to undermine their control over the system. And it's a valid concern. Governments want to maintain their control. It doesn't take much to destabilize a State, they have done it many times they know this to be the case.
- balabaster 11y ago
  I think that largely depends on the State and Government. Growing up in England, I'd largely say that people have a sense of freedom [how true that is vs. media tainted perspectives is anyone's guess], that despite (allegedly) one of the most extensive surveillance networks in the world, people there don't generally sense a fear of being watched or oppressed... and it's not that people don't know they're on camera somewhere, we're all well aware that someone could be [albeit after the fact] watching our every [public] move, it's just that they don't tend to give it a second thought or care. I can't say this doesn't affect anyone's behaviour, but I don't feel that my feelings are atypical and it doesn't affect mine. It's only once there's a tipping point in the volume of people feeling of oppressed that revolutions arise and States destabilized... ...or bad actors use dirty politics to throw countries into financial turmoil, inject a sense of panic into the population and overthrow regimes that are not friendly to their agenda... or back the wrong frenemies and leave a pile of rubble and a want for revenge where there was once [reasonable] stability; even if that stability didn't look like they thought it should or didn't align with their own economic/political agenda. On another note, pencil & paper never got a virus that tunneled its way around the internet taking over thousands of computers to be used as a bot network for cyber attacks on industry... and when the power went out, I could still use my credit card to pay for things. Most stores appear to have forgotten that ability.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    All you have to find is a disgruntled minority with ideological differences and get them to do your bidding. There does not have to be a majority discontent for anything to actually happen. And often it's not really about some sort of change, but rather tying up the government of such countries in local affairs so that they don't have time to contemplate other affairs.
Already__Taken 11y ago
It's worse than that. It's anything else > "It's in nobody's interests that anything should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Forcing encryption backdoors compromises systems that do nothing but talk to systems. How'd you feel about a smart grid now that has knowingly insecure crypto.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Further, how do you feel about that knowing that the government has been compromised more than once. It's like let us install backdoors, but how do you know the government is actually secure. In Canada for instance we have had CSIS (our MI5) agents leave important documents in laptops which were then stolen. If backdoors exist anyone can potentially get to them by stealing information from the government.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    I saw a catchy sound-bite about this the other day, I think from a US politician: If you can't protect it, don't collect it. To me, that seems like a pretty good attitude to handling personal data responsibly.
hvidgaard 11y ago
The absolute most idiotic part is that any slightly intelligent person would use one of the multiple secure algorithms for encryption not controlled by authorities. In other words, there is nothing they can do short of making encryption illegal; good luck with that.
pfortuny 11y ago
Even that first premise is wrong in any state with the rule of law. Only crimes have to be prosecuted, not "people" or "communications" and prosecution is always something done "a posteriori." The above must be understood correctly: I am not advocating that one should not investigate possible criminal plans: because planning some kind of crime (like killing someone) with intent is, ipso facto, a crime. It is not PEOPLE that the law applies to. It is CRIMES. We incarcerate people because we do not know a better way to punish them for their crimes, not because we do not want them to be human beings. CRIME-PUNISHMENT, not MAN-JAIL.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  The trouble with this principle is that there is some damage you simply can't put right retrospectively, and in this case we really are talking about the government agencies whose remit is to try to prevent those things from happening in the first place. They do have a legitimate need to take preemptive actions in some cases, because otherwise people will quite literally die. The useful questions are about how we can help them to do their job and keep people safe from whatever real dangers are out there, but without doing more harm than good. In the case of encrypted communications, I'm not sure that will ever be possible, because the dangers of preventing everyone from communicating privately may far outweigh the danger from otherwise unanticipated acts of terror. The politicians want a middle ground solution where only good people have access to the information, but the technologists understand that no such ideal solution can exist here.
  - pfortuny 11y ago
    You are right. But. Suspicion about the existence of a crime (and plotting a crime with intent is by itself a crime) is (given enough evidence) reason enough to investigate. That is what you call "preemtive", I guess. And yes, I am willing to run more risks for the benefit of freedom. Because there are things which are more important than life. And freedom is one of them. By freedom I mean freedom of coertion, in this context.
    - Silhouette 11y ago

by fredley 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Ultimately that's their biggest fear. That certain elements that are not friendly to their interests organize either themselves, or organize at the behest of a foreign government to undermine their control over the system. And it's a valid concern. Governments want to maintain their control. It doesn't take much to destabilize a State, they have done it many times they know this to be the case.

balabaster 11y ago
I think that largely depends on the State and Government. Growing up in England, I'd largely say that people have a sense of freedom [how true that is vs. media tainted perspectives is anyone's guess], that despite (allegedly) one of the most extensive surveillance networks in the world, people there don't generally sense a fear of being watched or oppressed... and it's not that people don't know they're on camera somewhere, we're all well aware that someone could be [albeit after the fact] watching our every [public] move, it's just that they don't tend to give it a second thought or care. I can't say this doesn't affect anyone's behaviour, but I don't feel that my feelings are atypical and it doesn't affect mine. It's only once there's a tipping point in the volume of people feeling of oppressed that revolutions arise and States destabilized... ...or bad actors use dirty politics to throw countries into financial turmoil, inject a sense of panic into the population and overthrow regimes that are not friendly to their agenda... or back the wrong frenemies and leave a pile of rubble and a want for revenge where there was once [reasonable] stability; even if that stability didn't look like they thought it should or didn't align with their own economic/political agenda. On another note, pencil & paper never got a virus that tunneled its way around the internet taking over thousands of computers to be used as a bot network for cyber attacks on industry... and when the power went out, I could still use my credit card to pay for things. Most stores appear to have forgotten that ability.
- x5n1 11y ago
  All you have to find is a disgruntled minority with ideological differences and get them to do your bidding. There does not have to be a majority discontent for anything to actually happen. And often it's not really about some sort of change, but rather tying up the government of such countries in local affairs so that they don't have time to contemplate other affairs.

Already__Taken 11y ago

It's worse than that. It's anything else > "It's in nobody's interests that anything should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Forcing encryption backdoors compromises systems that do nothing but talk to systems. How'd you feel about a smart grid now that has knowingly insecure crypto.

x5n1 11y ago
Further, how do you feel about that knowing that the government has been compromised more than once. It's like let us install backdoors, but how do you know the government is actually secure. In Canada for instance we have had CSIS (our MI5) agents leave important documents in laptops which were then stolen. If backdoors exist anyone can potentially get to them by stealing information from the government.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I saw a catchy sound-bite about this the other day, I think from a US politician: If you can't protect it, don't collect it. To me, that seems like a pretty good attitude to handling personal data responsibly.

hvidgaard 11y ago

The absolute most idiotic part is that any slightly intelligent person would use one of the multiple secure algorithms for encryption not controlled by authorities. In other words, there is nothing they can do short of making encryption illegal; good luck with that.

pfortuny 11y ago

Even that first premise is wrong in any state with the rule of law. Only crimes have to be prosecuted, not "people" or "communications" and prosecution is always something done "a posteriori." The above must be understood correctly: I am not advocating that one should not investigate possible criminal plans: because planning some kind of crime (like killing someone) with intent is, ipso facto, a crime. It is not PEOPLE that the law applies to. It is CRIMES. We incarcerate people because we do not know a better way to punish them for their crimes, not because we do not want them to be human beings. CRIME-PUNISHMENT, not MAN-JAIL.

Silhouette 11y ago
The trouble with this principle is that there is some damage you simply can't put right retrospectively, and in this case we really are talking about the government agencies whose remit is to try to prevent those things from happening in the first place. They do have a legitimate need to take preemptive actions in some cases, because otherwise people will quite literally die. The useful questions are about how we can help them to do their job and keep people safe from whatever real dangers are out there, but without doing more harm than good. In the case of encrypted communications, I'm not sure that will ever be possible, because the dangers of preventing everyone from communicating privately may far outweigh the danger from otherwise unanticipated acts of terror. The politicians want a middle ground solution where only good people have access to the information, but the technologists understand that no such ideal solution can exist here.
- pfortuny 11y ago
  You are right. But. Suspicion about the existence of a crime (and plotting a crime with intent is by itself a crime) is (given enough evidence) reason enough to investigate. That is what you call "preemtive", I guess. And yes, I am willing to run more risks for the benefit of freedom. Because there are things which are more important than life. And freedom is one of them. By freedom I mean freedom of coertion, in this context.
  - Silhouette 11y ago