5 ms·

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will no

by sklivvz1971 10y ago

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc. outside of the affected apps. That software won't stop to exist, nor the mathematics that powers it will stop working. The sad part is that the people who will be disproportionally affected will be the common people who have nothing to hide anyways, and do not have the technical means, or the will, to protect themselves. TLDR: useless and damaging.

watbe 10y ago
It provides a sort of scapegoat for attacks. The government can't be seen as doing nothing against the threat of terrorism, so when the adversary uses encryption to cover their tracks, the government can point and say 'we did our best to outlaw their method of communication'.
- arethuza 10y ago
  The "Politician's syllogism": We must do something This is something Therefore, we must do this.
- huherto 10y ago
  It must be this. Even politicians will be greatly impacted. Since anything can be used against them. Even the most innocent text message if leaked. And none of them is guaranteed to have control over it.
  - type0 10y ago
    That's why they will probably pass exception laws that allow political elites to use encryption and the tyranny will be inevitable.
vidarh 10y ago
I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment: > (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly. While there are areas covered by networked, government operated cameras, they are not the norm.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > not networked They will be once they upgrade to the "Internet of Things".
  - kuon 10y ago
    insecam.org Many of those camera should be private, I think it's our duty as technicians to protect the users of those devices.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    Only for a year or so, until the vendor is acquired by a large company and all their devices are bricked ;)
- nxzero 10y ago
  UK is being watched by a network of 1.85m CCTV cameras. EDIT: Curious how stating a fact is worth downvotes. What am I missing?
  - saintwind 10y ago
    You can't state facts that go against the hivemind here, otherwise a downvote will occur.
    - CarolineW 10y ago
      It's demonstrably not a fact, and it doesn't add to the discussion. Add constructively to the discussion and contrary opinions are not only tolerated, but engaged.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> TLDR: useless and damaging. You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts that support that mass-surveillance or measures compromising encryption have ever been effective at saving lives.
- nine_k 10y ago
  How about illegal drugs trade? Well, literally anything, including planning a murder or even a burglary. Noble goals, aren't they? And, of course, political insurgency, mass disobeyance, etc, etc — just as a side effect. What the powers that be try to sell us is security without compromises. Security above all, no matter the price (as long as it makes the powers more powerful). I think there is a real value in lower security, when civil rights and mere privacy of millions of people are put above the police's ability so solve a particular crime. You see, keeping everyone in a max security prison would be most efficient in thwarting any crime at all, but we're not doing that, at least yet, at the expense of some crimes being committed. The society already demonstrates that this compromise is acceptable. But the power always tends to push the other way.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
ythl 10y ago
> It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. Governments will always wage war on law abiding citizens, taking away freedoms in exchange for securities until the citizens are secure but no longer free.
- noarchy 10y ago
  >Governments will always wage war on law abiding citizens, taking away freedoms in exchange for securities until the citizens are secure but no longer free. And even then, such a notion of "security" might seem dubious to those who are conscious of having lost said freedoms.
probably_wrong 10y ago
> They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc. outside of the affected apps. That software won't stop to exist "Dangerous hacker arrested, found in possession of illegal hacking tools. An unnamed officer said 'we couldn't have done it without our metadata analysis'" If the tools for encrypting your data are illegal, they dont need to decrypt your data anymore.

watbe 10y ago

It provides a sort of scapegoat for attacks. The government can't be seen as doing nothing against the threat of terrorism, so when the adversary uses encryption to cover their tracks, the government can point and say 'we did our best to outlaw their method of communication'.

arethuza 10y ago
The "Politician's syllogism": We must do something This is something Therefore, we must do this.
huherto 10y ago
It must be this. Even politicians will be greatly impacted. Since anything can be used against them. Even the most innocent text message if leaked. And none of them is guaranteed to have control over it.
- type0 10y ago
  That's why they will probably pass exception laws that allow political elites to use encryption and the tyranny will be inevitable.

vidarh 10y ago

I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment: > (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly. While there are areas covered by networked, government operated cameras, they are not the norm.

pdkl95 10y ago
> not networked They will be once they upgrade to the "Internet of Things".
- kuon 10y ago
  insecam.org Many of those camera should be private, I think it's our duty as technicians to protect the users of those devices.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Only for a year or so, until the vendor is acquired by a large company and all their devices are bricked ;)
nxzero 10y ago
UK is being watched by a network of 1.85m CCTV cameras. EDIT: Curious how stating a fact is worth downvotes. What am I missing?
- saintwind 10y ago
  You can't state facts that go against the hivemind here, otherwise a downvote will occur.
  - CarolineW 10y ago
    It's demonstrably not a fact, and it doesn't add to the discussion. Add constructively to the discussion and contrary opinions are not only tolerated, but engaged.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> TLDR: useless and damaging. You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts that support that mass-surveillance or measures compromising encryption have ever been effective at saving lives.

nine_k 10y ago
How about illegal drugs trade? Well, literally anything, including planning a murder or even a burglary. Noble goals, aren't they? And, of course, political insurgency, mass disobeyance, etc, etc — just as a side effect. What the powers that be try to sell us is security without compromises. Security above all, no matter the price (as long as it makes the powers more powerful). I think there is a real value in lower security, when civil rights and mere privacy of millions of people are put above the police's ability so solve a particular crime. You see, keeping everyone in a max security prison would be most efficient in thwarting any crime at all, but we're not doing that, at least yet, at the expense of some crimes being committed. The society already demonstrates that this compromise is acceptable. But the power always tends to push the other way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ythl 10y ago

> It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. Governments will always wage war on law abiding citizens, taking away freedoms in exchange for securities until the citizens are secure but no longer free.

noarchy 10y ago
>Governments will always wage war on law abiding citizens, taking away freedoms in exchange for securities until the citizens are secure but no longer free. And even then, such a notion of "security" might seem dubious to those who are conscious of having lost said freedoms.

probably_wrong 10y ago

> They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc. outside of the affected apps. That software won't stop to exist "Dangerous hacker arrested, found in possession of illegal hacking tools. An unnamed officer said 'we couldn't have done it without our metadata analysis'" If the tools for encrypting your data are illegal, they dont need to decrypt your data anymore.