7 ms·

I think this point of view isn't just wrong it's actively harmful. It completely ignores what happened - which is that various government agencies skirted arou

I think this point of view isn't just wrong it's actively harmful. It completely ignores what happened - which is that various government agencies skirted around constitutional law, subverted public discussion of the matter [0] and have still not been brought into adequate compliance (Since it's incredibly hard to demonstrate standing and not have the case squashed [1]). And after all this the author is saying the problem is that the users aren't part of the political process? I would say until powers and programs employed by government agencies are brought into accountability (let's not forget the CIA monitoring the computers of it's own oversight committee [2]) and a transparent debate is allowed to take place, there is precisely nothing better to do and encryption everywhere is precisely the correct populist and democratic way to fight it. >Just this past week Kazakhstan announced that a "state root certificate" would have to be installed on all computers wanting to use SSL/TLS/HTTPS out of the country. Yes backwards nations like Kazakhstan might be implementing "state root certificates" but this is just clearly demonstrative that the power is on the side of the users in this debate. Isn't having these kinds of crazy measures on ballot in Western countries precisely forcing the political process the lack of which the author of this paper is criticizing? [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-top-u-s-intelligence-officials-repeatedly-deny-nsa-spying-on-americans-over-the-last-year-videos/#521129b121d3 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-t... [1] https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel [2] https://theintercept.com/2014/03/05/congress-intelligence-community-whos-overseeing/ https://theintercept.com/2014/03/05/congress-intelligence-co...

rocqua 10y ago
I think a very important point was raised though. Before crypto, basically all guarantees where conditional on a judge's say so. With crypto this changes. The issue also comes up, in a clearer way, with crypto currencies. There is no way to deal with fraud or mistaken tranfers in bitcoin. That loss of intervention hurts, and we gotta think about it. Even though no government has given a satisfactory solution, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem in need of solving.
- Semiapies 10y ago
  Before crypto, basically all guarantees where conditional on a judge's say so Tell that to J. Edgar Hoover.
  - rocqua 10y ago
    That just shows they were conditional on things beyond a judge's say so. I.e. security can also be broken by people willing to break the law.
    - Semiapies 10y ago
      One day I will actually see someone write a response starting with "that just shows" that doesn't boil down to "My being wrong shows that I'm actually right. Somehow."
- wongarsu 10y ago
  >There is no way to deal with fraud [...] in bitcoin Don't we have an extensive legal system to deal with fraud? The fact that a lot of payment providers elect to deal with fraud themselves probably shows that that legal system isn't working as smoothly as it should; but that's really something that should be fixed in the legal system, not in the payment channel.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible. With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episode-680-anatomy-of-a-scam http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo...).
    - icebraining 10y ago
      With cash, unless the wallet in which it resides can be obtained, that is not possible. I fail to see the difference.
stinkytaco 10y ago
Well, two things: 1. I've always maintained that privacy is a political and social problem, not just a technological one. Nothing stops a more powerful actor from breaking encryption with a rubber hose if they really want to. Technological solutions are still needed since there's a variety of actors involved, only some of which will obey the political doctrine. 2. I often wonder if encryption will make us think of privacy a bit like we think about rule breaking in sports. Since there's an official, we assume that you can break the rules if you don't get caught, at least on the field. There's no ethical pressure to "do the right thing" because we've offloaded that burden to the officiating crew. Has technology become a bit like the official in this case? Our physical spaces have strong and protected rights, at least in the US, but our digital ones do not, and that may be because we are protecting them in other ways.
- kefka 10y ago
  How does a rubber hose work when the people are talking via Tox or via .onion sites?
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    Rarely does encryption exist in a complete vacuum. Just as we cannot necessarily listen to every one on one conversation, those conversations become important when related to something occurring withing the "physical" world. I think we've seen that Tor does not protect you from someone who's determined to find you (see: Silk Road).
    - kefka 10y ago
      Indeed, at least with Tox, all I need is a separate key exchange, somewhere. In person works wonders. So does random email, or instant message, or you name it. At least for communications that need that layer of security and anonymity, it's certainly there. And as I implied, rubber hoses won't work on anonymous and encrypted digital identities "somewhere else". At least regarding Silk Road, that's because he made amateur mistakes by posting his real name and then changing it on StackExchange, about making a e-commerce .onion website. And that was the beginning of his fuckups, with the final one by paying for an assassination attempt.
thatonecriminal 10y ago
I agree that this point of view is actively harmful. Users not being part of the political process, realistically, is part of the political process design. The average user doesn't have the time or money to lobby like a corporation with clear financial incentives to inhibit Progress in Congress.
phkamp 10y ago
To "backwards nations" you can add the following, all of which have floated laws to weaken/backdoor/ban crypto: France UK USA Russia
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  Put USA at the top. Clipper chip says "Hi".

rocqua 10y ago

I think a very important point was raised though. Before crypto, basically all guarantees where conditional on a judge's say so. With crypto this changes. The issue also comes up, in a clearer way, with crypto currencies. There is no way to deal with fraud or mistaken tranfers in bitcoin. That loss of intervention hurts, and we gotta think about it. Even though no government has given a satisfactory solution, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem in need of solving.

Semiapies 10y ago
Before crypto, basically all guarantees where conditional on a judge's say so Tell that to J. Edgar Hoover.
- rocqua 10y ago
  That just shows they were conditional on things beyond a judge's say so. I.e. security can also be broken by people willing to break the law.
  - Semiapies 10y ago
    One day I will actually see someone write a response starting with "that just shows" that doesn't boil down to "My being wrong shows that I'm actually right. Somehow."
wongarsu 10y ago
>There is no way to deal with fraud [...] in bitcoin Don't we have an extensive legal system to deal with fraud? The fact that a lot of payment providers elect to deal with fraud themselves probably shows that that legal system isn't working as smoothly as it should; but that's really something that should be fixed in the legal system, not in the payment channel.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible. With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episode-680-anatomy-of-a-scam http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo...).
  - icebraining 10y ago
    With cash, unless the wallet in which it resides can be obtained, that is not possible. I fail to see the difference.

stinkytaco 10y ago

Well, two things: 1. I've always maintained that privacy is a political and social problem, not just a technological one. Nothing stops a more powerful actor from breaking encryption with a rubber hose if they really want to. Technological solutions are still needed since there's a variety of actors involved, only some of which will obey the political doctrine. 2. I often wonder if encryption will make us think of privacy a bit like we think about rule breaking in sports. Since there's an official, we assume that you can break the rules if you don't get caught, at least on the field. There's no ethical pressure to "do the right thing" because we've offloaded that burden to the officiating crew. Has technology become a bit like the official in this case? Our physical spaces have strong and protected rights, at least in the US, but our digital ones do not, and that may be because we are protecting them in other ways.

kefka 10y ago
How does a rubber hose work when the people are talking via Tox or via .onion sites?
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  Rarely does encryption exist in a complete vacuum. Just as we cannot necessarily listen to every one on one conversation, those conversations become important when related to something occurring withing the "physical" world. I think we've seen that Tor does not protect you from someone who's determined to find you (see: Silk Road).
  - kefka 10y ago
    Indeed, at least with Tox, all I need is a separate key exchange, somewhere. In person works wonders. So does random email, or instant message, or you name it. At least for communications that need that layer of security and anonymity, it's certainly there. And as I implied, rubber hoses won't work on anonymous and encrypted digital identities "somewhere else". At least regarding Silk Road, that's because he made amateur mistakes by posting his real name and then changing it on StackExchange, about making a e-commerce .onion website. And that was the beginning of his fuckups, with the final one by paying for an assassination attempt.

thatonecriminal 10y ago

I agree that this point of view is actively harmful. Users not being part of the political process, realistically, is part of the political process design. The average user doesn't have the time or money to lobby like a corporation with clear financial incentives to inhibit Progress in Congress.

phkamp 10y ago

To "backwards nations" you can add the following, all of which have floated laws to weaken/backdoor/ban crypto: France UK USA Russia

theandrewbailey 10y ago
Put USA at the top. Clipper chip says "Hi".