3 ms·

One strong point that comes out is reference to the transitory nature of governments, just because you trust yours now (!), does not mean you can trust future i

by tudorw 11y ago

One strong point that comes out is reference to the transitory nature of governments, just because you trust yours now (!), does not mean you can trust future incarnations, don't give this kind of power to an unknown.

gambiting 11y ago
Case in point - pre-ww2 governments collecting data about their citizens(religion, sexuality, race, political affiliation) which was then used to actually murder people by the Nazis. Just because the current government doesn't use the data in a malicious way doesn't mean the next one won't.
simonh 11y ago
Also asserting that your government has the right to certain powers over its citizens establishes the precedent that any government should have that right. If it's OK for the US or UK governments to have the keys to its citizens encryption, then it's ok for China, Russia, Iran, etc. Interestingly, the encryption system underlying WhatsApp was developed by the US government for people in oppressive states to use to avoid surveillance and restrictions on access to information.
revscat 11y ago
This is well known and, for the most part, internalized by the people. Governments, however, seem to believe the opposite: that the fundamental goodness of their pursuit of protecting the governed justifies almost all tactics. This is short-sighted and blatantly wrong.
studentrob 11y ago
Right. We need to inform each other and our representatives how we feel about this issue, and support our argument with facts. There is a lot each of us can do. I suggest focusing on the security and economic implications of passing legislation requiring backdoors in phones. The DOJ and Obama will not listen to the privacy angle. It must be shown that on balance, we will not be more secure because criminals will just change to use technology that is encrypted, and in the mean time we will have placed our user data within reach of hackers everywhere via a government-imposed weakness that phone makers like Apple will never be allowed to fix. They'll be required by law to maintain such a weakness.

by tudorw 11y ago

gambiting 11y ago

Case in point - pre-ww2 governments collecting data about their citizens(religion, sexuality, race, political affiliation) which was then used to actually murder people by the Nazis. Just because the current government doesn't use the data in a malicious way doesn't mean the next one won't.

simonh 11y ago

Also asserting that your government has the right to certain powers over its citizens establishes the precedent that any government should have that right. If it's OK for the US or UK governments to have the keys to its citizens encryption, then it's ok for China, Russia, Iran, etc. Interestingly, the encryption system underlying WhatsApp was developed by the US government for people in oppressive states to use to avoid surveillance and restrictions on access to information.

revscat 11y ago

This is well known and, for the most part, internalized by the people. Governments, however, seem to believe the opposite: that the fundamental goodness of their pursuit of protecting the governed justifies almost all tactics. This is short-sighted and blatantly wrong.

studentrob 11y ago

Right. We need to inform each other and our representatives how we feel about this issue, and support our argument with facts. There is a lot each of us can do. I suggest focusing on the security and economic implications of passing legislation requiring backdoors in phones. The DOJ and Obama will not listen to the privacy angle. It must be shown that on balance, we will not be more secure because criminals will just change to use technology that is encrypted, and in the mean time we will have placed our user data within reach of hackers everywhere via a government-imposed weakness that phone makers like Apple will never be allowed to fix. They'll be required by law to maintain such a weakness.