4 ms·

We will fight this battle over and over every few years until we lose, just like every battle for our civil rights.

by aftbit 11y ago

VonGuard 11y ago
Agreed, but I really feel like this time, the public vaguely understands and has more of a stake in it than before. Now, keep in mind, this is just as important to the day-to-day user as it was in the cypherpunk days, but now, everyone has a device in their hands that they can touch, and know is related to this. The public knows how precious its data is, now. The last time this fight occurred... the last two times this fight occurred, actually, no one in the public had any clue what we were all talking about.
- jlgaddis 11y ago
  > ... no one in the public had any clue what we were all talking about. Unfortunately, most of them still don't. You're right that "everyone has a device in their hands that they can touch, and know is related to this" but most of them still don't understand the significance of it -- if they are even aware of it at all! My girlfriend is, I think, fairly representative of the "younger generation", for example. She's 21, not really that "techy" (despite having an iPad and iPhone), and is constantly using Facebook, Snapchat, and probably a handful of other apps that I've never even heard of. The first she became aware of any of this was after Tim Cook's "A Message to Our Customers". That evening, she was sitting on the couch on her phone and asked me, "Did you see this message thing from Apple?" My initial response was, "How did you hear about it?". "It's all over Facebook." She knows, now, that it's an important issue to me. I've explained it to her as much as she cared to listen and she's seen and asked about the multitude of EFF stickers on my laptops (after seeing someone on TV with some of the same stickers). She doesn't really care that much, though, and, as far as I know, pretty much none of her friends (all within a couple years of her age) do either. As long as they get what they want, they're content. It doesn't affect them directly and so it gets none of their attention. Most of them have other, more important (to them) things that do affect them directly and, because of that, are much more relevant to their daily lives.
- dave2000 11y ago
  > I really feel like this time, the public vaguely > understands and has more of a stake in it than before. Black people are literally shot dead, on camera, for no reason by the police and no-one gives a shit. People (mostly, but not exclusively, black ones) have their lives effectively ended by drug policy - policy that's only now being tweaked around the edges with limited leniency towards users of 1 specific drug. You seriously think there'll be any meaningful, effective outcry when encryption is banned? Suck it up; it's coming. I reckon a)4 years, b) the next big terrorist attack to hit a major western country or c) any attack to hit any country where encryption provides any protection at all to the alleged attackers, whichever comes first.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mordocai 11y ago
    An interesting thing about this is that successfully organizing in any fashion (violent or peaceful) against something like police shooting people for no damn reason pretty much requires encryption. So encryption is needed to effectively fight... well... anything that the government is doing. I'll continue using open source software(developed out of the US if necessary) that uses proper encryption with no known backdoors and hope that is good enough.
CM30 11y ago
Or until we win, since there's no point assuming the worst for everyone involving rights and democracy. Given it a few decades, and all the people who hate on encryption and rights (most of whom seem to be fairly old and out of touch) will be gone.
- __jal 11y ago
  The desire of others to stick their nose in your business will never go away. Long term, you can't argue with math, and the busybodies will lose on encryption. But as a smart man said in a different context, in the long run we're all dead, so fighting now is important for those of us who care about our privacy now. The other important point is that since the 90s, the snoops have been getting steadily better in spite of crypto becoming more widely used. Or at least that's true of the NSA; in the Apple case, it seems to me that the FBI is saying that they suck at tradecraft. Whether or not that's true is a different question.
  - CM30 11y ago
    There's one solution to the latter. Shut down the agencies. Then distribute whatever systems they've been working on so they can be defended against. It'd be unpopular for some (imagine if a more liberal party actually shut down the NSA or GCHQ, and then open sourced everything), but it'd certainly make an impact.
mtgx 11y ago
> just like every battle for our civil rights Eh. Only if you look at the past 15 years perhaps. But I think over the past 60 years it's been quite the opposite. We fought for civil liberties until we won, for the most part.
- TDL 11y ago
  Very much agreed. If you look back even further, the past 500 years, what you will see is the systematic expansion of rights and freedom.
mineshaftgap 11y ago
Defeatists are so hip.
mmanfrin 11y ago
Claiming that history is a progression of civil rights losses is a monumentally myopic statement. Recent tumultuous fights over the application and scope of law as it comes to new technology is not an indication of the trend. Human rights and freedoms have progressed hugely in the past centuries.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  I think the parent post was meant more in terms of decades than centuries.
mc32 11y ago
This may be an unpopular take but I think it has some merit. Cryptography is not the answer to surveillance. It has its place but that place is not to keep everyone's data secret _and_ irretrievable as plaintext except by its holder (never mind owner), if they retain the key. The answer will be legal and political. I cannot see the endgame where all data is forever gone, with the exception where people proactively plaintext their data for future generations. Let's say instead of iPhone contacts or chat conversations we begin keeping tax records, transactions, commerce, etc. secret, except for the person or entity encrypting the data (who may or may not be the owner). What if the heirs need that data or third parties, lawfully? What about discovery in court cases? What if someone comes up with malware which encrypts your data and you have no backup? How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data? I'm not saying don't encrypt on transmission, or even at rest, simply (or complicatedly) that we have a way to data once it's lawfully determined it can be should be made available to second and third parties, including the public.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. Without encryption, legal and political constructs protecting privacy are nigh unenforceable. Similarly, most records of importance to my heirs or a court case aren't solely held by me. Purchases are recorded by at least myself and the vendor, potentially with an intermediary like my CC or bank. My tax records are retained by both myself and the IRS. In the case of a gov't case against me, they have those records. In the case of heirs needing access, they can petition the government if I failed to provide other access for some reason. The malware example, this already happens. It can happen with or without cryptography being legal or pervasive. > How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data? Who wants everything encrypted? I cannot think of a single person that's not at a very extreme ideological position that would argue for that.
- Htsthbjig 11y ago
  "What if the heirs need that data or third parties, lawfully?" Law states that banks have to give a notice to heirs when the original owner dies. "What about discovery in court cases? What if someone comes up with malware which encrypts your data and you have no backup?" Then you lose all your data. How is that a problem? You ask the bank-government for new credentials. And you learn to make copies for the next time. Not the end of the world. It's not really that different from loosing your keys, maybe you will have to destroy your old lock and buy a new one.

We will fight this battle over and over every few years until we lose, just like every battle for our civil rights.

by aftbit 11y ago

We will fight this battle over and over every few years until we lose, just like every battle for our civil rights.

Agreed, but I really feel like this time, the public vaguely understands and has more of a stake in it than before. Now, keep in mind, this is just as important to the day-to-day user as it was in the cypherpunk days, but now, everyone has a device in their hands that they can touch, and know is related to this. The public knows how precious its data is, now. The last time this fight occurred... the last two times this fight occurred, actually, no one in the public had any clue what we were all talking about.

jlgaddis 11y ago
> ... no one in the public had any clue what we were all talking about. Unfortunately, most of them still don't. You're right that "everyone has a device in their hands that they can touch, and know is related to this" but most of them still don't understand the significance of it -- if they are even aware of it at all! My girlfriend is, I think, fairly representative of the "younger generation", for example. She's 21, not really that "techy" (despite having an iPad and iPhone), and is constantly using Facebook, Snapchat, and probably a handful of other apps that I've never even heard of. The first she became aware of any of this was after Tim Cook's "A Message to Our Customers". That evening, she was sitting on the couch on her phone and asked me, "Did you see this message thing from Apple?" My initial response was, "How did you hear about it?". "It's all over Facebook." She knows, now, that it's an important issue to me. I've explained it to her as much as she cared to listen and she's seen and asked about the multitude of EFF stickers on my laptops (after seeing someone on TV with some of the same stickers). She doesn't really care that much, though, and, as far as I know, pretty much none of her friends (all within a couple years of her age) do either. As long as they get what they want, they're content. It doesn't affect them directly and so it gets none of their attention. Most of them have other, more important (to them) things that do affect them directly and, because of that, are much more relevant to their daily lives.
dave2000 11y ago
> I really feel like this time, the public vaguely > understands and has more of a stake in it than before. Black people are literally shot dead, on camera, for no reason by the police and no-one gives a shit. People (mostly, but not exclusively, black ones) have their lives effectively ended by drug policy - policy that's only now being tweaked around the edges with limited leniency towards users of 1 specific drug. You seriously think there'll be any meaningful, effective outcry when encryption is banned? Suck it up; it's coming. I reckon a)4 years, b) the next big terrorist attack to hit a major western country or c) any attack to hit any country where encryption provides any protection at all to the alleged attackers, whichever comes first.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mordocai 11y ago
  An interesting thing about this is that successfully organizing in any fashion (violent or peaceful) against something like police shooting people for no damn reason pretty much requires encryption. So encryption is needed to effectively fight... well... anything that the government is doing. I'll continue using open source software(developed out of the US if necessary) that uses proper encryption with no known backdoors and hope that is good enough.

CM30 11y ago

Or until we win, since there's no point assuming the worst for everyone involving rights and democracy. Given it a few decades, and all the people who hate on encryption and rights (most of whom seem to be fairly old and out of touch) will be gone.

__jal 11y ago
The desire of others to stick their nose in your business will never go away. Long term, you can't argue with math, and the busybodies will lose on encryption. But as a smart man said in a different context, in the long run we're all dead, so fighting now is important for those of us who care about our privacy now. The other important point is that since the 90s, the snoops have been getting steadily better in spite of crypto becoming more widely used. Or at least that's true of the NSA; in the Apple case, it seems to me that the FBI is saying that they suck at tradecraft. Whether or not that's true is a different question.
- CM30 11y ago
  There's one solution to the latter. Shut down the agencies. Then distribute whatever systems they've been working on so they can be defended against. It'd be unpopular for some (imagine if a more liberal party actually shut down the NSA or GCHQ, and then open sourced everything), but it'd certainly make an impact.

mtgx 11y ago

> just like every battle for our civil rights Eh. Only if you look at the past 15 years perhaps. But I think over the past 60 years it's been quite the opposite. We fought for civil liberties until we won, for the most part.

TDL 11y ago
Very much agreed. If you look back even further, the past 500 years, what you will see is the systematic expansion of rights and freedom.

mineshaftgap 11y ago

Defeatists are so hip.

mmanfrin 11y ago

Claiming that history is a progression of civil rights losses is a monumentally myopic statement. Recent tumultuous fights over the application and scope of law as it comes to new technology is not an indication of the trend. Human rights and freedoms have progressed hugely in the past centuries.

tobltobs 11y ago
I think the parent post was meant more in terms of decades than centuries.

mc32 11y ago

This may be an unpopular take but I think it has some merit. Cryptography is not the answer to surveillance. It has its place but that place is not to keep everyone's data secret _and_ irretrievable as plaintext except by its holder (never mind owner), if they retain the key. The answer will be legal and political. I cannot see the endgame where all data is forever gone, with the exception where people proactively plaintext their data for future generations. Let's say instead of iPhone contacts or chat conversations we begin keeping tax records, transactions, commerce, etc. secret, except for the person or entity encrypting the data (who may or may not be the owner). What if the heirs need that data or third parties, lawfully? What about discovery in court cases? What if someone comes up with malware which encrypts your data and you have no backup? How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data? I'm not saying don't encrypt on transmission, or even at rest, simply (or complicatedly) that we have a way to data once it's lawfully determined it can be should be made available to second and third parties, including the public.

Jtsummers 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. Without encryption, legal and political constructs protecting privacy are nigh unenforceable. Similarly, most records of importance to my heirs or a court case aren't solely held by me. Purchases are recorded by at least myself and the vendor, potentially with an intermediary like my CC or bank. My tax records are retained by both myself and the IRS. In the case of a gov't case against me, they have those records. In the case of heirs needing access, they can petition the government if I failed to provide other access for some reason. The malware example, this already happens. It can happen with or without cryptography being legal or pervasive. > How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data? Who wants everything encrypted? I cannot think of a single person that's not at a very extreme ideological position that would argue for that.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"What if the heirs need that data or third parties, lawfully?" Law states that banks have to give a notice to heirs when the original owner dies. "What about discovery in court cases? What if someone comes up with malware which encrypts your data and you have no backup?" Then you lose all your data. How is that a problem? You ask the bank-government for new credentials. And you learn to make copies for the next time. Not the end of the world. It's not really that different from loosing your keys, maybe you will have to destroy your old lock and buy a new one.