3 ms·

Buried in the article below the clever though not original point that encryption is not math, is a much more important point: This debate should really be abou

by natch 11y ago

Buried in the article below the clever though not original point that encryption is not math, is a much more important point: This debate should really be about whether or not people have the right to have secrets. If your answer is "no" then you ought to explain how you square that with the fact that many of our everyday activities can be considered criminal in some jurisdictions.

tptacek 11y ago
I understand where the sentiment is coming from, but the point you are making here is incoherent. Your argument is literally this: people need encryption so that they can conceal evidence of crimes. I think next time you pose this argument, you should remove the bit about how your actions might be illegal in some jurisdiction or other. It isn't doing the work for you that you think it is.
- chm 11y ago
  I perceived his point as more subtle than what you make it out to be. The whole debate is about what's grey vs what's gray. I don't think there's a clear cut answer either way to the question "Is encryption an inviolable right?" The exercise here is to try and find a border between gray and grey, preferably avoiding any knee-jerk reaction such as backdooring every encryption scheme. Note that I'm assuming such a border exists, which is, to be honest, not on such solid ground. It might very well be that this is an "all or nothing" deal, considering the nature of encryption...
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Encryption is part of reality, like gravity. We can say "government agents have been able to vault fences for hundreds of years." So fences should only be four feet high, so they can't conceal crimes or prevent entry? Government is limited by reality, math, physics, the height of walls, the fact that telepathy isn't a thing, etc. Encryption is just one more limitation.
- natch 11y ago
  Ugh, I have a bad typo in the first line, and unfortunately can no longer edit: "not math" should have been "just math." But that doesn't seem to be what you're remarking on. I'm not sure what you see as the problem with my argument. Some people, if private messages were read by people around them or by their local law enforcement, could be sentenced to death, in certain jurisdictions. For "crimes" like being Christian, Muslim, atheist, Gay, etc. How is that a good thing? How is it a bad thing that people want to protect themselves with encryption? Or if you're saying you get the argument and I'm just doing a bad job of making it, yes, maybe so, but maybe it's a hard side of the argument to take. Any suggestions on how to put it better? Or maybe you're saying it's entirely the wrong argument to make, tactically. I'm still not sure why. Having not heard a reason for not making this argument, I think it's good to make it because it seems to be discussed too little.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument. You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. That's... not a convincing argument under current circumstances. Yes, there are people who are being prosecuted for things that, morally, shouldn't be crimes. But the current encryption battle is in the US, and most Americans perceive those "shouldn't be crimes" situations to be in other countries "way over there somewhere". They don't want murderers, rapists, and pedophiles in their neighborhood to get away with crimes due to encryption, and they're more worried about that then they are about homosexuals under ISIS. So it's a bad argument, politically, because it reduces political support for encryption rather than increases it. Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You did a better job with that point than I did.
ikeboy 11y ago
Is the position "people have the right to have secrets, but companies don't have the right to help them" coherent (not saying I endorse it)? We already accept that phone companies can (be forced to) allow wiretapping with a warrant. They aren't allowed to prevent the government from wiretapping. So why would a company be permitted to sell devices with encryption? You also need to weaken "allowed to have secrets" to "allowed to have secrets in the presence of a warrant".
- natch 11y ago
  I'm starting with the unstated premise that we all have secrets in our heads. Then as many have pointed out, that these devices are becoming extensions of our minds. So I can see those companies thinking that they have a corporate responsibility to protect their users. Especially if not doing so puts their users in danger. I don't assume that freedom loving countries like the US are the only countries where warrants are issued. Some warrants are issued in other countries, some of them with oppressive laws, and device makers need to think about users in those countries as well, not just about US users. A somewhat scary discussion, but one that we might see sometime, would be is there some kind of metric we can apply to governments to see whether their judicial process is up to snuff in terms of protection of rights, where we then create systems that respect only those warrants from jurisdictions that meet a standard of rights protection. In other words build into whatever solution a recognition that not all warrants are created equal. Not that this would surmount the security issues of having a backdoor that could be hacked. That's such a devastating flaw in the anti-Apple side that I'm not sure it can be overcome without the help of blinders.

by natch 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

I understand where the sentiment is coming from, but the point you are making here is incoherent. Your argument is literally this: people need encryption so that they can conceal evidence of crimes. I think next time you pose this argument, you should remove the bit about how your actions might be illegal in some jurisdiction or other. It isn't doing the work for you that you think it is.

chm 11y ago
I perceived his point as more subtle than what you make it out to be. The whole debate is about what's grey vs what's gray. I don't think there's a clear cut answer either way to the question "Is encryption an inviolable right?" The exercise here is to try and find a border between gray and grey, preferably avoiding any knee-jerk reaction such as backdooring every encryption scheme. Note that I'm assuming such a border exists, which is, to be honest, not on such solid ground. It might very well be that this is an "all or nothing" deal, considering the nature of encryption...
Zigurd 11y ago
Encryption is part of reality, like gravity. We can say "government agents have been able to vault fences for hundreds of years." So fences should only be four feet high, so they can't conceal crimes or prevent entry? Government is limited by reality, math, physics, the height of walls, the fact that telepathy isn't a thing, etc. Encryption is just one more limitation.
natch 11y ago
Ugh, I have a bad typo in the first line, and unfortunately can no longer edit: "not math" should have been "just math." But that doesn't seem to be what you're remarking on. I'm not sure what you see as the problem with my argument. Some people, if private messages were read by people around them or by their local law enforcement, could be sentenced to death, in certain jurisdictions. For "crimes" like being Christian, Muslim, atheist, Gay, etc. How is that a good thing? How is it a bad thing that people want to protect themselves with encryption? Or if you're saying you get the argument and I'm just doing a bad job of making it, yes, maybe so, but maybe it's a hard side of the argument to take. Any suggestions on how to put it better? Or maybe you're saying it's entirely the wrong argument to make, tactically. I'm still not sure why. Having not heard a reason for not making this argument, I think it's good to make it because it seems to be discussed too little.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument. You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. That's... not a convincing argument under current circumstances. Yes, there are people who are being prosecuted for things that, morally, shouldn't be crimes. But the current encryption battle is in the US, and most Americans perceive those "shouldn't be crimes" situations to be in other countries "way over there somewhere". They don't want murderers, rapists, and pedophiles in their neighborhood to get away with crimes due to encryption, and they're more worried about that then they are about homosexuals under ISIS. So it's a bad argument, politically, because it reduces political support for encryption rather than increases it. Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    You did a better job with that point than I did.

ikeboy 11y ago

Is the position "people have the right to have secrets, but companies don't have the right to help them" coherent (not saying I endorse it)? We already accept that phone companies can (be forced to) allow wiretapping with a warrant. They aren't allowed to prevent the government from wiretapping. So why would a company be permitted to sell devices with encryption? You also need to weaken "allowed to have secrets" to "allowed to have secrets in the presence of a warrant".

natch 11y ago
I'm starting with the unstated premise that we all have secrets in our heads. Then as many have pointed out, that these devices are becoming extensions of our minds. So I can see those companies thinking that they have a corporate responsibility to protect their users. Especially if not doing so puts their users in danger. I don't assume that freedom loving countries like the US are the only countries where warrants are issued. Some warrants are issued in other countries, some of them with oppressive laws, and device makers need to think about users in those countries as well, not just about US users. A somewhat scary discussion, but one that we might see sometime, would be is there some kind of metric we can apply to governments to see whether their judicial process is up to snuff in terms of protection of rights, where we then create systems that respect only those warrants from jurisdictions that meet a standard of rights protection. In other words build into whatever solution a recognition that not all warrants are created equal. Not that this would surmount the security issues of having a backdoor that could be hacked. That's such a devastating flaw in the anti-Apple side that I'm not sure it can be overcome without the help of blinders.