4 ms·

> Everyone needs security, and privacy I'm so tired of this, no I don't, at least not as much as so many people think I need. No, I don't care if my Netflix p

by dimino 10y ago

> Everyone needs security, and privacy I'm so tired of this, no I don't, at least not as much as so many people think I need. No, I don't care if my Netflix password is easily crackable, and no I don't care if the US government reads my Skype chats! Why am I not allowed to make that choice, to use Skype and be okay with the convenience tradeoff? I agree that I should have the choice, but if I do choose to use something insecure with full knowledge of it's insecurity, can't I be free to do that?

meira 10y ago
Actually, if everybody knew that a channel is insecure, it would make it a lot less dangerous. The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option.
- dimino 10y ago
  > The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option. You'll have to elaborate on how this is A) true, and B) there are no options. I can think of a dozen better options than Skype.
  - meira 10y ago
    A) if you and your contact knows that a channel is compromised, you'll be able to adapt if needed. But if one thinks it is safe, the other don't care about its safeness and it happens to be a compromised channel, the first guy might be in trouble. (B) If the default option was something architecturally safer (like encrypted decentralized mail), they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service).
    - dimino 10y ago
      I was hoping you'd prove that most people consider Skype to be secure, for A, because that's what you claimed. As for B, there are many other options, I don't really know what you mean by "they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service)." Are you saying PGP is backdoored? Do you know something we don't?
mixmastamyk 10y ago
"I don't need free speech, don't have anything to say."
- dimino 10y ago
  "I don't need free speech all the time."
  - mixmastamyk 10y ago
    That's not how it works. If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them.
    - dimino 10y ago
      That isn't what's at stake here, however, so the hyperbole is unneeded.
      - mixmastamyk 10y ago
        History begs to differ. The loss of privacy and LE overreach is real, whether you care about it or not.
        dimino 10y ago
        Sorry, but a) that's not what I'm talking about, and b) there is no precedent for the Internet.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
        a) False, privacy is exactly what we're talking about. b) irrelevant. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable to others with power over you especially the government, eventually they will take advantage. Whether you or someone unluckier, and we should protect the weak. This has been recognized for centuries, try reading some Locke or Jefferson.
crpatino 10y ago
> I agree that I should have the choice, but if I do choose to use something insecure with full knowledge of it's insecurity, can't I be free to do that? But you are free to do that, aren't you? Last time I checked, cyber-police wasn't going around and giving people fines for not using a TOR client. As a matter of fact, given that you are at least aware of the concepto of "convenience tradeoff", you probably are in the minority that is qualified to exercise such freedom responsibly. You may still make a mistake and land in the "too little" (or, less likely, "too much") camp on any individual decision... but most of the time you should be making the right calls more often than not. When people in the know say "Everyone needs security and privacy", they are not talking about you. They are talking about the guy who has seen the Swordfish movie, though it was an embelished but otherwise accurate depiction of reality, and believe that a hacker is a younger version of Wolverine with super powered intuition that can type some gibberish @500wpm until they happen to run into your password. This people is not knowledgeable enough to reason about the tradeoffs (even if they know how to reason, the lack of priors and the wrong but otherwise sensible assumptions just kill them). We are talking about having minimally secure defaults, for the sake of those that cannot (or will not) set their own configurations.

by dimino 10y ago

meira 10y ago

Actually, if everybody knew that a channel is insecure, it would make it a lot less dangerous. The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option.

dimino 10y ago
> The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option. You'll have to elaborate on how this is A) true, and B) there are no options. I can think of a dozen better options than Skype.
- meira 10y ago
  A) if you and your contact knows that a channel is compromised, you'll be able to adapt if needed. But if one thinks it is safe, the other don't care about its safeness and it happens to be a compromised channel, the first guy might be in trouble. (B) If the default option was something architecturally safer (like encrypted decentralized mail), they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service).
  - dimino 10y ago
    I was hoping you'd prove that most people consider Skype to be secure, for A, because that's what you claimed. As for B, there are many other options, I don't really know what you mean by "they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service)." Are you saying PGP is backdoored? Do you know something we don't?

mixmastamyk 10y ago

"I don't need free speech, don't have anything to say."

dimino 10y ago
"I don't need free speech all the time."
- mixmastamyk 10y ago
  That's not how it works. If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them.
  - dimino 10y ago
    That isn't what's at stake here, however, so the hyperbole is unneeded.
    - mixmastamyk 10y ago
      History begs to differ. The loss of privacy and LE overreach is real, whether you care about it or not.
      - dimino 10y ago
        Sorry, but a) that's not what I'm talking about, and b) there is no precedent for the Internet.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
        a) False, privacy is exactly what we're talking about. b) irrelevant. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable to others with power over you especially the government, eventually they will take advantage. Whether you or someone unluckier, and we should protect the weak. This has been recognized for centuries, try reading some Locke or Jefferson.

crpatino 10y ago

> I agree that I should have the choice, but if I do choose to use something insecure with full knowledge of it's insecurity, can't I be free to do that? But you are free to do that, aren't you? Last time I checked, cyber-police wasn't going around and giving people fines for not using a TOR client. As a matter of fact, given that you are at least aware of the concepto of "convenience tradeoff", you probably are in the minority that is qualified to exercise such freedom responsibly. You may still make a mistake and land in the "too little" (or, less likely, "too much") camp on any individual decision... but most of the time you should be making the right calls more often than not. When people in the know say "Everyone needs security and privacy", they are not talking about you. They are talking about the guy who has seen the Swordfish movie, though it was an embelished but otherwise accurate depiction of reality, and believe that a hacker is a younger version of Wolverine with super powered intuition that can type some gibberish @500wpm until they happen to run into your password. This people is not knowledgeable enough to reason about the tradeoffs (even if they know how to reason, the lack of priors and the wrong but otherwise sensible assumptions just kill them). We are talking about having minimally secure defaults, for the sake of those that cannot (or will not) set their own configurations.