4 ms·

Is absolute security really something that anyone desires from a general purpose instant messenger? The government might read my WhatsApp messages - so what? T

by planb 10y ago

Is absolute security really something that anyone desires from a general purpose instant messenger? The government might read my WhatsApp messages - so what? They have been able to listen to my phone calls for ages. If there's something I want to keep private (and there is - it's not like "I have nothing to hide"), I will simply not use WhatsApp or any other communication channel I don't fully trust. I don't care as long as the owner of the coffee shop I'm currently I cannot read my messages.

oolongCat 10y ago
I think the point is not "having something to hide". I think the point is more like how much information we are letting corporations and governments have about us. For instance, something that really gets on my nerves is when I search for something on amazon and when I am reading a blog post about something completely unrelated to my amazon search, I see an advert related to my search. This is just really annoying, its not like I want to hide the fact I am looking for a new TV its just that its really annoying and its an invasion of my privacy. Its just like having a helpful but nosy neighbor who gets the mail for you. Also, just like you said, if someone has something to hide they will find alternatives to hide it, but why inconvenience us, the law abiding citizens, why invade whats our own business?
- planb 10y ago
  Right, but this is exactly what I meant by "absolute security". I want a reasonable level of privacy so for example Amazon or my neighbor cannot get that information, but I don't care if there /might be/ a government backdoor. In exchange I get the convenience of being able to communicate with almost anyone I know in one app.
imaginology 10y ago
But you are part of a very tiny proportion of users smart enough to realize this. And it doesn't address the issue of someone sending private (or incriminating) messages to you, which would still link you as a "person of interest". If I send you a message containing the word "bomb", for example, that could get both our accounts flagged.
- planb 10y ago
  Incriminating stuff can be sent to my mail address unencrypted. So I don't even have to use any proprietary messenger to be 'flagged'.
  - briandear 10y ago
    That's correct. If a terrorist calls your phone -- even if it's a wrong number, you're part of the spider web.
summerdown2 10y ago
> Is absolute security really something that anyone desires from a general purpose instant messenger? I think the problem is that security is an ongoing conversation between the government and the people. My guess is that most people, if pushed to a firm position, would probably agree with: a) The government should have the right to look at communication to stop bad things. b) The government should have to individually prove before an independent court that any one use of that power is justified. The difficulty is that the government unilaterally broke (b) by having a rubberstamp court and a policy that let them collect everything and choose when to look at it. And the response to the government's action is to start looking to redress this privately. I.e. a market solution to a perceived deficit of privacy. I suspect that if they had kept (b) intact, there would be much less call for absolute security, and much less of a solid argument for it.
vsgxvhdxh 10y ago
The thing is that is not how it works. If the encryption can be broken it can be broken. If the government can read your messages so can the coffeeshop.

by planb 10y ago

oolongCat 10y ago

I think the point is not "having something to hide". I think the point is more like how much information we are letting corporations and governments have about us. For instance, something that really gets on my nerves is when I search for something on amazon and when I am reading a blog post about something completely unrelated to my amazon search, I see an advert related to my search. This is just really annoying, its not like I want to hide the fact I am looking for a new TV its just that its really annoying and its an invasion of my privacy. Its just like having a helpful but nosy neighbor who gets the mail for you. Also, just like you said, if someone has something to hide they will find alternatives to hide it, but why inconvenience us, the law abiding citizens, why invade whats our own business?

planb 10y ago
Right, but this is exactly what I meant by "absolute security". I want a reasonable level of privacy so for example Amazon or my neighbor cannot get that information, but I don't care if there /might be/ a government backdoor. In exchange I get the convenience of being able to communicate with almost anyone I know in one app.

imaginology 10y ago

But you are part of a very tiny proportion of users smart enough to realize this. And it doesn't address the issue of someone sending private (or incriminating) messages to you, which would still link you as a "person of interest". If I send you a message containing the word "bomb", for example, that could get both our accounts flagged.

planb 10y ago
Incriminating stuff can be sent to my mail address unencrypted. So I don't even have to use any proprietary messenger to be 'flagged'.
- briandear 10y ago
  That's correct. If a terrorist calls your phone -- even if it's a wrong number, you're part of the spider web.

summerdown2 10y ago

> Is absolute security really something that anyone desires from a general purpose instant messenger? I think the problem is that security is an ongoing conversation between the government and the people. My guess is that most people, if pushed to a firm position, would probably agree with: a) The government should have the right to look at communication to stop bad things. b) The government should have to individually prove before an independent court that any one use of that power is justified. The difficulty is that the government unilaterally broke (b) by having a rubberstamp court and a policy that let them collect everything and choose when to look at it. And the response to the government's action is to start looking to redress this privately. I.e. a market solution to a perceived deficit of privacy. I suspect that if they had kept (b) intact, there would be much less call for absolute security, and much less of a solid argument for it.

vsgxvhdxh 10y ago

The thing is that is not how it works. If the encryption can be broken it can be broken. If the government can read your messages so can the coffeeshop.