2 ms·

You are right, there would be many petty criminals who would be caught because they'd talk about their crimes in plaintext. There would be a reduction in petty

by nindalf 11y ago

You are right, there would be many petty criminals who would be caught because they'd talk about their crimes in plaintext. There would be a reduction in petty crime, while leaving major crime pretty much untouched. That sounds like a good thing... except it might not be in society's interest to eliminate petty crime, as Snowden explains here [1]. [1] - http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana http://nindalf.com/OverconfidentArowana

ikeboy 11y ago
Would you consider any crime which the settlement is in the hundreds of millions "petty"? If not, then http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-spoofers-bits-and-gold http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-s... is a counter-example. See also http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-agricole-kept-its-sudan-business-quiet http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-..., http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-had-some-very-special-interns http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-... and http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-payments-and-quiz-cheating http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-... Clearly neither being really smart nor having a lot at stake will prevent someone from sending sensitive things over email. As for terrorists, a short search turns up https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=terrorists+using+unencrypted+communications&source=bl&ots=Qg8l6CiIzv&sig=TXeeEvf24M3H4hRyX41qfT10j-M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIp5aiu4yYyQIVSDk-Ch0jNgwb#v=onepage&q=terrorists%20using%20unencrypted%20communications&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=.... I think if you claim that major criminals' encryption usage would be unaffected by making it difficult to use, you need to support that at least as well as I've just argued for the opposite.

by nindalf 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

Would you consider any crime which the settlement is in the hundreds of millions "petty"? If not, then http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-spoofers-bits-and-gold http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-s... is a counter-example. See also http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-agricole-kept-its-sudan-business-quiet http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-..., http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-had-some-very-special-interns http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-... and http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-payments-and-quiz-cheating http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-... Clearly neither being really smart nor having a lot at stake will prevent someone from sending sensitive things over email. As for terrorists, a short search turns up https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=terrorists+using+unencrypted+communications&source=bl&ots=Qg8l6CiIzv&sig=TXeeEvf24M3H4hRyX41qfT10j-M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIp5aiu4yYyQIVSDk-Ch0jNgwb#v=onepage&q=terrorists%20using%20unencrypted%20communications&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=.... I think if you claim that major criminals' encryption usage would be unaffected by making it difficult to use, you need to support that at least as well as I've just argued for the opposite.