3 ms·

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'r

by 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.
  - natch 11y ago
    Thanks to AnimalMuppet and thanks for confirming that this is what you meant. I understand what you are saying, and it's a good point for the current case, for a discussion with the general (non-techie) public. I'll keep that in mind. Quoting AnimalMuppet: >If you remove the last part ... then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. OK, that is precisely why I did NOT remove the last part, and it's precisely why the last part is important. The part about other jurisdictions having (sometimes) laws we might not all approve of. So, what I think I'm getting from you (you two) is that most people will just snip that last part off in their minds, and they'll be left with something they would never agree with. OK, fair enough, and thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes I think the general public wonders what the hell Apple's problem is, and why would they place SUCH a high value on (what is perceived as simply) privacy. My point about other jurisdictions is also just my own speculation on what kind of issues Apple is thinking about, in addition to the fundamental insecurity of effectively having a back door. It may not be a large part of their thinking, or maybe it is, I can see it both ways... On the one hand Tim is a corporate man, and on the other hand he's also running a company that goes out on limbs for corporate [edit: and social] responsibility.
- natch 11y ago
  The word secrets wasn't intended to imply a criminal secret. But then the sentence after that (in my message) made it sound like that's exactly what a secret was. Yeah, I see the problem. >Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it. This makes sense, yes. The obvious answer being safety from bad guys who might gain illicit access to information that allows them to do harm.

by natch 11y ago

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.
- natch 11y ago
  Thanks to AnimalMuppet and thanks for confirming that this is what you meant. I understand what you are saying, and it's a good point for the current case, for a discussion with the general (non-techie) public. I'll keep that in mind. Quoting AnimalMuppet: >If you remove the last part ... then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. OK, that is precisely why I did NOT remove the last part, and it's precisely why the last part is important. The part about other jurisdictions having (sometimes) laws we might not all approve of. So, what I think I'm getting from you (you two) is that most people will just snip that last part off in their minds, and they'll be left with something they would never agree with. OK, fair enough, and thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes I think the general public wonders what the hell Apple's problem is, and why would they place SUCH a high value on (what is perceived as simply) privacy. My point about other jurisdictions is also just my own speculation on what kind of issues Apple is thinking about, in addition to the fundamental insecurity of effectively having a back door. It may not be a large part of their thinking, or maybe it is, I can see it both ways... On the one hand Tim is a corporate man, and on the other hand he's also running a company that goes out on limbs for corporate [edit: and social] responsibility.
natch 11y ago
The word secrets wasn't intended to imply a criminal secret. But then the sentence after that (in my message) made it sound like that's exactly what a secret was. Yeah, I see the problem. >Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it. This makes sense, yes. The obvious answer being safety from bad guys who might gain illicit access to information that allows them to do harm.