5 ms·

I'm not seeing any sort of "gigantic public debate." Sure, it looks that way from within our tech bubble, but let's be real: the overwhelming majority of people

I'm not seeing any sort of "gigantic public debate." Sure, it looks that way from within our tech bubble, but let's be real: the overwhelming majority of people in the United States do not give a shit and could not care less. And among the remaining small minority, encryption is way down on the list of issues they care about and choose to spend time and mental energy on. Further complicating things is the fact that this is a complex topic and most people (including almost all lawmakers and law enforcement agencies) are too ignorant to understand the important nuances, and they have no interest in changing that because, frankly, encryption is hard.

peteretep 11y ago
When you look at how well protected Americans health records are, and how judges have said a search of your person doesn't extend to your phone, I think you are entirely wrong to suggest this doesn't extend beyond the tech industry.
- ohyeshedid 11y ago
  You're correct as everything is dependent on the tech industry. That's part of why this is such an important fight for Apple, because it directly effects just about any industry that requires privacy these days.
ohyeshedid 11y ago
Exactly. People are already aware. It's being covered in all forms of media, across all demographics. Awareness and understanding are wildly different concepts. People are aware, they just don't understand. The public can't be properly educated in the matter, because it's so nebulous and complex that it requires dedication to understand it. That goes for most of the issues we face as a society.
- studentrob 11y ago
  That's so defeatist. How do you know unless you try? You are the one with the knowledge. Try!
  - ohyeshedid 11y ago
    No, its acknowledgement that sometimes the few are left to defend the rights of many. This is how it works in a lot of areas. If Apple loses this round, our best hope is they push this debate to the SCOTUS and set the proper precedent there. Educating the masses isn't going to change much, as we have no say in the current system. Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology? Do you think they understand the intricacies of encryption? Would they even be able to name standard cypher suites? No, because that's not part of their education or job function. They rely on the few, their advisors, just like they do with most major issues. I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about?
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > If Apple loses this round, our best hope is they push this debate to the SCOTUS [editing what I wrote, I missed something you said] I believe our best hope is to start informing the public about encryption so that when more laws about encryption start appearing, then they are knowledgeable enough to let their representatives know how they feel about it. The idea is to inform enough so that the government is unable to spread FUD and an alarmist view that we will be safer when US phones have back doors. Because we won't. Other encryption tools exist that are not governable by the US. [end edit] > Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology? No. I've been thinking this for 8 years since patent trolls started becoming a nuisance. I'm happy to see we now have a couple of computer science graduates as representatives, including Ted Lieu who has been pretty vocal on this DOJ vs. Apple case. > because that's not part of their education or job function Hmm. They're supposed to have advisors or lobbyists for this. My argument is, in part, tech is missing a sufficient amount of those in the White House and DC. There can and should be more. > I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about? Sorry hold up a moment here. Since when is providing facts muddying the waters? In most of my comments I'm citing sources directly. I also welcome debate. There literally are laws on the table at the state level in NY and CA that would require phone manufacturers to only sell phones that are decryptable when they are sold. Is it muddying the waters to call these anti-encryption bills? What would you call them? I certainly wouldn't call what I wrote extremist. I'm sorry if you're offended by what I wrote. I have no control over that. You are the one claiming the populace can't be educated. I have difficulty seeing how a person who clearly benefited from some form of education growing up can stand by this particular viewpoint. However, I do respect your opinion, and I apologize if I missed some of your remarks and mischaracterized your position. HN doesn't have any notification system for comments, so I probably miss some. I can't be expected to read every comment from one user before I respond to one of their comments can I? Please feel free to email me if you would like to discuss it further, or I can talk on the phone. I'm not trying to manipulate anybody. I'm saying, let's put facts on the table and let people decide for themselves. If some people choose to ignore the facts, that's fine. If some technologists don't want to participate in sharing the facts, that's fine. But what's wrong with encouraging technologists to try? Again I welcome criticism of any of the words I write. If I'm being biased in some way I want to know about it, because if I appear biased here on HN then it will be more obvious to the layperson.
studentrob 11y ago
> too ignorant to understand the important nuance Lindsey Graham came around. Sam Harris changed his point of view after a fairly combative initial stance against technologists. We will never know if we can inform the public unless we try. There are some good analogies out there supporting encryption. Use them. I recommend the one from Sam Harris' third video on the subject. There is also the whack-a-mole argument. Honestly, the biggest thing standing in the way of the public being informed is not the unwillingness of the public to listen. It's the technologists' unwillingness to try to educate them. I understand your trepidation. In life, we scientists are often ignored. But sometimes we are right and I do feel if we push hard here we can figure out ways to reach people.
- hobs 11y ago
  The technologists are constantly ignored by the populace, and major news outlets have been braying about this for years, Snowden being the most recent gigantic newsworthy event where it was in-arguably shown the united states spies on us way more than it lets on, and we should choose encryption if we value our privacy. What is the outcome of this major revelation? Much of the public thinks no different than before in regards to government spying or encryption, and security practices are not fundamentally different even after years of media advertising what happened. Many people don't even know the significance of Snowden. We should definitely push harder for the correct stance on encryption but I cant help and think your hope is a bit pollyannish. How many interviews did Tim Cook give again? How many news outlets brayed this at the top of their lungs? https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+apple+fbi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=apple+fbi&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+apple+fbi&ie=...
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Snowden and the NSA dragnet are a bit more abstract than a personal right to encryption on a device in ones ownership.
    - tremon 11y ago
      How so? To me, dragnet surveillance is a lot easier to explain and conceptualize to non-techies than personal encryption. And I use encryption on all my devices (except my android phone, it's still running 4.x)
lolidaisuki 11y ago
It doesn't even seem like "gigantic public debate" among the technological groups. There is very minimal amount of actual debating happening.

peteretep 11y ago

When you look at how well protected Americans health records are, and how judges have said a search of your person doesn't extend to your phone, I think you are entirely wrong to suggest this doesn't extend beyond the tech industry.

ohyeshedid 11y ago
You're correct as everything is dependent on the tech industry. That's part of why this is such an important fight for Apple, because it directly effects just about any industry that requires privacy these days.

ohyeshedid 11y ago

Exactly. People are already aware. It's being covered in all forms of media, across all demographics. Awareness and understanding are wildly different concepts. People are aware, they just don't understand. The public can't be properly educated in the matter, because it's so nebulous and complex that it requires dedication to understand it. That goes for most of the issues we face as a society.

studentrob 11y ago
That's so defeatist. How do you know unless you try? You are the one with the knowledge. Try!
- ohyeshedid 11y ago
  No, its acknowledgement that sometimes the few are left to defend the rights of many. This is how it works in a lot of areas. If Apple loses this round, our best hope is they push this debate to the SCOTUS and set the proper precedent there. Educating the masses isn't going to change much, as we have no say in the current system. Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology? Do you think they understand the intricacies of encryption? Would they even be able to name standard cypher suites? No, because that's not part of their education or job function. They rely on the few, their advisors, just like they do with most major issues. I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about?
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > If Apple loses this round, our best hope is they push this debate to the SCOTUS [editing what I wrote, I missed something you said] I believe our best hope is to start informing the public about encryption so that when more laws about encryption start appearing, then they are knowledgeable enough to let their representatives know how they feel about it. The idea is to inform enough so that the government is unable to spread FUD and an alarmist view that we will be safer when US phones have back doors. Because we won't. Other encryption tools exist that are not governable by the US. [end edit] > Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology? No. I've been thinking this for 8 years since patent trolls started becoming a nuisance. I'm happy to see we now have a couple of computer science graduates as representatives, including Ted Lieu who has been pretty vocal on this DOJ vs. Apple case. > because that's not part of their education or job function Hmm. They're supposed to have advisors or lobbyists for this. My argument is, in part, tech is missing a sufficient amount of those in the White House and DC. There can and should be more. > I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about? Sorry hold up a moment here. Since when is providing facts muddying the waters? In most of my comments I'm citing sources directly. I also welcome debate. There literally are laws on the table at the state level in NY and CA that would require phone manufacturers to only sell phones that are decryptable when they are sold. Is it muddying the waters to call these anti-encryption bills? What would you call them? I certainly wouldn't call what I wrote extremist. I'm sorry if you're offended by what I wrote. I have no control over that. You are the one claiming the populace can't be educated. I have difficulty seeing how a person who clearly benefited from some form of education growing up can stand by this particular viewpoint. However, I do respect your opinion, and I apologize if I missed some of your remarks and mischaracterized your position. HN doesn't have any notification system for comments, so I probably miss some. I can't be expected to read every comment from one user before I respond to one of their comments can I? Please feel free to email me if you would like to discuss it further, or I can talk on the phone. I'm not trying to manipulate anybody. I'm saying, let's put facts on the table and let people decide for themselves. If some people choose to ignore the facts, that's fine. If some technologists don't want to participate in sharing the facts, that's fine. But what's wrong with encouraging technologists to try? Again I welcome criticism of any of the words I write. If I'm being biased in some way I want to know about it, because if I appear biased here on HN then it will be more obvious to the layperson.

studentrob 11y ago

> too ignorant to understand the important nuance Lindsey Graham came around. Sam Harris changed his point of view after a fairly combative initial stance against technologists. We will never know if we can inform the public unless we try. There are some good analogies out there supporting encryption. Use them. I recommend the one from Sam Harris' third video on the subject. There is also the whack-a-mole argument. Honestly, the biggest thing standing in the way of the public being informed is not the unwillingness of the public to listen. It's the technologists' unwillingness to try to educate them. I understand your trepidation. In life, we scientists are often ignored. But sometimes we are right and I do feel if we push hard here we can figure out ways to reach people.

hobs 11y ago
The technologists are constantly ignored by the populace, and major news outlets have been braying about this for years, Snowden being the most recent gigantic newsworthy event where it was in-arguably shown the united states spies on us way more than it lets on, and we should choose encryption if we value our privacy. What is the outcome of this major revelation? Much of the public thinks no different than before in regards to government spying or encryption, and security practices are not fundamentally different even after years of media advertising what happened. Many people don't even know the significance of Snowden. We should definitely push harder for the correct stance on encryption but I cant help and think your hope is a bit pollyannish. How many interviews did Tim Cook give again? How many news outlets brayed this at the top of their lungs? https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+apple+fbi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=apple+fbi&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+apple+fbi&ie=...
- ethbro 11y ago
  Snowden and the NSA dragnet are a bit more abstract than a personal right to encryption on a device in ones ownership.
  - tremon 11y ago
    How so? To me, dragnet surveillance is a lot easier to explain and conceptualize to non-techies than personal encryption. And I use encryption on all my devices (except my android phone, it's still running 4.x)

lolidaisuki 11y ago

It doesn't even seem like "gigantic public debate" among the technological groups. There is very minimal amount of actual debating happening.