3 ms·

This position invites a slippery slope which will lead to the identification of us all at all times. Especially, to suggest giving the power of traceability to

This position invites a slippery slope which will lead to the identification of us all at all times. Especially, to suggest giving the power of traceability to “official” law enforcement only is a really bad recommendation. Did you forget what happened at the NSA? Please don’t make these recommendations while using the name Vint Cerf, father of the Internet. It sends a bad signal as if you (supporting traceability) are not the minority here. I have had enough of my /heroes/ supporting backdoors. Please stop it. I hate working against you (supporting anonymity is clearly something you don’t wish to achieve). :(

cromulent 8y ago
> I have had enough of my /heroes/ supporting backdoors. Please stop it. He specifically mentions that he is against backdoors and excludes them from the topic.
- rasengan 8y ago
  > He specifically mentions that he is against backdoors and excludes them from the topic. While he put backdoors in quotes, his end argument is that "differential traceability" gives just that - a backdoor that only law enforcement has access to that can be used to identify the activities of every user. It doesn't matter who says it, or with what vocabulary used -- a backdoor is a backdoor, and I argue that tracking all netizens is going to be, as I said before, a slippery slope. THAT BEING SAID, let me just give an example where this is not a slippery slope and we do this and all goes well and nobody does anything shady within the small "privileged" group of surveillors -- imagine this identification/"differential traceability" system gets hacked.
mhneu 8y ago
What we've learned over the past year or two is that everything we all used to worry about NSA doing, Facebook is ACTUALLY doing. I was also one of those misled, and now know the NSA has controls and a democratic governance structure atop them (as do the other four agencies in UK, Canada, NZ, Aus) that restrict what they do for lawful, democratically-endorsed uses only. Surveillance capitalism at Facebook (good description here: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_ca.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_... ) is a bigger threat to democracies.
- rasengan 8y ago
  > lawful, democratically-endorsed uses only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
  - mhneu 8y ago
    Yes, but note from the page: those unauthorized accesses were reported and the employees were sanctioned including demotion, etc. On the private side, it can be worse, because the governance structure is not always there. https://bgr.com/2016/12/13/uber-privacy-and-security/ https://bgr.com/2016/12/13/uber-privacy-and-security/ Uber employees helped ex-boyfriends stalk ex-girlfriends, and were even able to access trip information for celebrities like Beyoncé, Reveal News explains. These revelations come from the company’s former in-house forensic investigator Ward Spangenberg. Agreed from comment above this one - it's a problem both for govts and for private industry. I think what democratic societies need is an agreed framework for how as a society we regulate such data collection (as Schneier argues in the link I posted above, or as Doctorow has recently argued.)
- mindslight 8y ago
  You don't have to put down one concern in order to draw attention to another. Commercial and government surveillance are both serious problems.

cromulent 8y ago

> I have had enough of my /heroes/ supporting backdoors. Please stop it. He specifically mentions that he is against backdoors and excludes them from the topic.

rasengan 8y ago
> He specifically mentions that he is against backdoors and excludes them from the topic. While he put backdoors in quotes, his end argument is that "differential traceability" gives just that - a backdoor that only law enforcement has access to that can be used to identify the activities of every user. It doesn't matter who says it, or with what vocabulary used -- a backdoor is a backdoor, and I argue that tracking all netizens is going to be, as I said before, a slippery slope. THAT BEING SAID, let me just give an example where this is not a slippery slope and we do this and all goes well and nobody does anything shady within the small "privileged" group of surveillors -- imagine this identification/"differential traceability" system gets hacked.

mhneu 8y ago

What we've learned over the past year or two is that everything we all used to worry about NSA doing, Facebook is ACTUALLY doing. I was also one of those misled, and now know the NSA has controls and a democratic governance structure atop them (as do the other four agencies in UK, Canada, NZ, Aus) that restrict what they do for lawful, democratically-endorsed uses only. Surveillance capitalism at Facebook (good description here: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_ca.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_... ) is a bigger threat to democracies.

rasengan 8y ago
> lawful, democratically-endorsed uses only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
- mhneu 8y ago
  Yes, but note from the page: those unauthorized accesses were reported and the employees were sanctioned including demotion, etc. On the private side, it can be worse, because the governance structure is not always there. https://bgr.com/2016/12/13/uber-privacy-and-security/ https://bgr.com/2016/12/13/uber-privacy-and-security/ Uber employees helped ex-boyfriends stalk ex-girlfriends, and were even able to access trip information for celebrities like Beyoncé, Reveal News explains. These revelations come from the company’s former in-house forensic investigator Ward Spangenberg. Agreed from comment above this one - it's a problem both for govts and for private industry. I think what democratic societies need is an agreed framework for how as a society we regulate such data collection (as Schneier argues in the link I posted above, or as Doctorow has recently argued.)
mindslight 8y ago
You don't have to put down one concern in order to draw attention to another. Commercial and government surveillance are both serious problems.