4 ms·

The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. At which point the problem of "find the criminals" is reduce

by tgb 11y ago

The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. At which point the problem of "find the criminals" is reduced to the problem of "find the encryption users". Encrypting your tweets will make them relatively identifiable.

bad_user 11y ago
The output of good encryption algorithms is indistinguishable from noise. And you can embed noise in anything, like in images, or in audio or video streams. And this is a worst case scenario, assuming the US convinces the whole world to ban encryption, which is highly unlikely. I mean besides the terrorists meeting the old fashioned way, in person.
lukeschlather 11y ago
I'm pro-encryption, but I think your argument is lazy and not fact-based. We see from this article that criminals are not particularly skilled at hiding their communications. You and I both want a world where encryption is ubiquitous and easy to use. Where text messages are somehow encrypted-by-default. That does mean in this instance police would have had to use some other means to apprehend Abaaoud. That's a cost of everyone having privacy. Banning encryption will stop the majority of violent/petty criminals who are not educated and poorly funded from using it. I won't claim otherwise. I think the answer, as always, is educating people and making sure they have decent responsibilities and resources at their disposal so they won't want to do harm. People who can trust their government to give them privacy and protect their interests won't lash out.
- tgb 11y ago
  Sorry but I have no idea how that addresses my comment. Not that I disagree with what you're saying, it just seems orthogonal or as if you meant to reply to someone else.
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    > The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.
    - tgb 11y ago
      Oh yeah my post was half joking, half playing devil's advocate to the oversimplification of the tweet it was replying to. But either way, the point was that getting (only) non-criminals off encryption still makes spotting criminals easier, which I don't think is an oversimplification.
whoopdedo 11y ago
This is my response to the "but I have nothing to hide" argument. You may not have an obvious reason to want your identity hidden, nor may I. But someone else may have a legitimate reason. A whistleblower, a victim of domestic violence, a political refugee, a newspaper reporter investigating corruption in a police department. Do you think these people should be able to make use of encryption and anonymity? Of course. But if they are the only ones trying to stay private, that privacy is a spotlight shining on their actions. It draws the attention of people who would take advantage of them and threatens their ability to protect themselves. Privacy, anonymity, and encryption protect the people who need them only when they are pervasive. The same way vaccines protect people who are susceptible to infection. Saying "I have nothing to hide" is akin to not getting a flu shot because you feel healthy. That's not how it works. You need that herd immunity or the virus will find cracks to survive in. When you refuse a vaccine or allow invasion of privacy because you don't feel threatened you're putting yourself ahead of people who are most at risk of being harmed by the disease or put in danger by having personal details become known.
- prawn 11y ago
  Not to mention gay youths fearing the wrath of their community or family.

by tgb 11y ago

bad_user 11y ago

The output of good encryption algorithms is indistinguishable from noise. And you can embed noise in anything, like in images, or in audio or video streams. And this is a worst case scenario, assuming the US convinces the whole world to ban encryption, which is highly unlikely. I mean besides the terrorists meeting the old fashioned way, in person.

lukeschlather 11y ago

I'm pro-encryption, but I think your argument is lazy and not fact-based. We see from this article that criminals are not particularly skilled at hiding their communications. You and I both want a world where encryption is ubiquitous and easy to use. Where text messages are somehow encrypted-by-default. That does mean in this instance police would have had to use some other means to apprehend Abaaoud. That's a cost of everyone having privacy. Banning encryption will stop the majority of violent/petty criminals who are not educated and poorly funded from using it. I won't claim otherwise. I think the answer, as always, is educating people and making sure they have decent responsibilities and resources at their disposal so they won't want to do harm. People who can trust their government to give them privacy and protect their interests won't lash out.

tgb 11y ago
Sorry but I have no idea how that addresses my comment. Not that I disagree with what you're saying, it just seems orthogonal or as if you meant to reply to someone else.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  > The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.
  - tgb 11y ago
    Oh yeah my post was half joking, half playing devil's advocate to the oversimplification of the tweet it was replying to. But either way, the point was that getting (only) non-criminals off encryption still makes spotting criminals easier, which I don't think is an oversimplification.

whoopdedo 11y ago

This is my response to the "but I have nothing to hide" argument. You may not have an obvious reason to want your identity hidden, nor may I. But someone else may have a legitimate reason. A whistleblower, a victim of domestic violence, a political refugee, a newspaper reporter investigating corruption in a police department. Do you think these people should be able to make use of encryption and anonymity? Of course. But if they are the only ones trying to stay private, that privacy is a spotlight shining on their actions. It draws the attention of people who would take advantage of them and threatens their ability to protect themselves. Privacy, anonymity, and encryption protect the people who need them only when they are pervasive. The same way vaccines protect people who are susceptible to infection. Saying "I have nothing to hide" is akin to not getting a flu shot because you feel healthy. That's not how it works. You need that herd immunity or the virus will find cracks to survive in. When you refuse a vaccine or allow invasion of privacy because you don't feel threatened you're putting yourself ahead of people who are most at risk of being harmed by the disease or put in danger by having personal details become known.

prawn 11y ago
Not to mention gay youths fearing the wrath of their community or family.