4 ms·

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Well, actually I do know, and the answer sucks and it's frustrating. But you're right -- in an ideal world, pretty mu

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Well, actually I do know, and the answer sucks and it's frustrating. But you're right -- in an ideal world, pretty much nobody would design a future where the worst of humanity can hide behind encryption to avoid accountability. The problem is that, with the current set of technologies that we have right now, we either give the cops (effectively) the ability to get everything on everyone, limited only by their discretion (ha!), or we give them nothing, and we give guys like Osama Bin Laden and Richard Spencer a place to hide. One of my biggest fears is that, if we give the voting public only these two options, then eventually they're going to side with Officer Friendly over Bin Laden and Spencer. Ultimately, it's going to be up to us as technologists to figure out something better.

katastic 9y ago
Unpopular but true comment warning: It's kind of alarming how easily you can throw Osama Bin Ladin (a guy who killed thousands of innocent Americans), with Richard Spencer who _says_ fucked up things. Richard Spencer (just like the Westboro Baptist Church) is probably a complete douchebag nutjob. But to so casually equate saying douchey things with the murder of thousands... that's exactly what leads to Officer Friendly getting more powers over every day, innocent citizens. Look at Russia and China. They're literally doing what you're suggesting by using thought crimes to justify massive surveillance and censorship of every forum and network to "protect society" from bad thoughts and damaging their "way of life". The very rights that allowed the civil rights movement to exist, are the ones you guys are casually trying to destroy. Daring to have an opinion the majority finds revolting. Freedom of Speech is literally a protection of minorities from the majority. Those in power don't need protection. [edit] 1 minute in, and yep, this is going down as I expected. Have a great day. =D
- cvwright 9y ago
  You're right - I picked Spencer because he's an easy target, especially on a board that generally leans to the Left. If there's some incident of racial violence that somehow traces back to him, I doubt the typical HN reader would object to the FBI getting a warrant to search his house or his car. And I suspect that most here wouldn't mind them getting a warrant for his phone under the same circumstances, if they can just bring themselves to admit it. > The very rights that allowed the civil rights movement to exist I think I see what you're saying here, but encryption wasn't really around in MLK's day. > are the ones you guys are casually trying to destroy. Whoa there, please don't lump me in with the authoritarians, especially the new Leftist flavor that's so popular lately. The case that I'm trying to make in this thread is that we've got to find a better balance that protects minority voices (like MLK, or Ben Shapiro, or Milo Yanawhatshisname or whoever Berkeley is rioting about this week) in a cryptographically strong way, while still allowing for some sort of accountability in extreme cases. If we fail at this - or worse, if we can't be bothered to try - then I'm afraid we're going to wind up stuck with something crappy like key escrow, and then the thought police are really going to have a field day.

katastic 9y ago

Unpopular but true comment warning: It's kind of alarming how easily you can throw Osama Bin Ladin (a guy who killed thousands of innocent Americans), with Richard Spencer who _says_ fucked up things. Richard Spencer (just like the Westboro Baptist Church) is probably a complete douchebag nutjob. But to so casually equate saying douchey things with the murder of thousands... that's exactly what leads to Officer Friendly getting more powers over every day, innocent citizens. Look at Russia and China. They're literally doing what you're suggesting by using thought crimes to justify massive surveillance and censorship of every forum and network to "protect society" from bad thoughts and damaging their "way of life". The very rights that allowed the civil rights movement to exist, are the ones you guys are casually trying to destroy. Daring to have an opinion the majority finds revolting. Freedom of Speech is literally a protection of minorities from the majority. Those in power don't need protection. [edit] 1 minute in, and yep, this is going down as I expected. Have a great day. =D

cvwright 9y ago
You're right - I picked Spencer because he's an easy target, especially on a board that generally leans to the Left. If there's some incident of racial violence that somehow traces back to him, I doubt the typical HN reader would object to the FBI getting a warrant to search his house or his car. And I suspect that most here wouldn't mind them getting a warrant for his phone under the same circumstances, if they can just bring themselves to admit it. > The very rights that allowed the civil rights movement to exist I think I see what you're saying here, but encryption wasn't really around in MLK's day. > are the ones you guys are casually trying to destroy. Whoa there, please don't lump me in with the authoritarians, especially the new Leftist flavor that's so popular lately. The case that I'm trying to make in this thread is that we've got to find a better balance that protects minority voices (like MLK, or Ben Shapiro, or Milo Yanawhatshisname or whoever Berkeley is rioting about this week) in a cryptographically strong way, while still allowing for some sort of accountability in extreme cases. If we fail at this - or worse, if we can't be bothered to try - then I'm afraid we're going to wind up stuck with something crappy like key escrow, and then the thought police are really going to have a field day.