5 ms·

I really sympathize with the desire to have my computing device extremely protected against scrutiny because I like to think of it as an extension of my own mem

I really sympathize with the desire to have my computing device extremely protected against scrutiny because I like to think of it as an extension of my own memory and cognitive ability etc and don't want to worry about maintaining an airgap between in-brain capacity and external capacity for liability reasons. However I am not very optimistic that this line of argument is going to fly. Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? As long as we, in principle, give the legal system a mandate to investigate crimes, there is always going to be a point where arguments around reasonable suspicions are going to prevail against privacy concerns. Ultimately I don't think it's realistic to hope to create a comfortable relationship with a malevolent judicial establishment by adding some hoop or other for them to jump through before they get to fuck you over.

Zak 8y ago
> Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? The law already imposes those requirements, in theory. A warrant should only be issued, according to the US Constitution, if evidence is presented to a judge that it's more likely than not the search authorized by the warrant will find evidence of a crime. That usually means a non-consensual search is only allowed when there's already significant evidence of guilt. If that sounds like a fairly high standard, you're right. It was intended to be. If it sounds like a higher standard than is often used in practice... well, you may be right about that too.
- ben0x539 8y ago
  Yeah, so I think that imposing similar requirements for compelled decryption is not the way forward. There is limited use in instituting high standards if you fundamentally can't trust the people interpreting those standards.
  - Zak 8y ago
    I'd like to see more work on systems with plausible deniability. Many legal jurisdictions already have compelled decryption
sandworm101 8y ago
Because there are other ways to get decryption keys. Old fashioned "over the shoulder" techniques still work: cameras, informants, even spyware. They just require effort. This is really about cops wanting easy and ready access rather than committing to oldschool detective work. It is akin to cops wanting to measure a car's speed by directly accessing the data from it's speedometer. That may be far easier than hiding in a bush with a radar gun, but so is the price of constitutional rights.
- ben0x539 8y ago
  Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I mean, but do we want this to be a thing the legal system does openly as part of its mandate? I'm also not sure if I want the government installing cameras in all public spaces so they can, uh, catch speeding cars and definitely do nothing else, maybe uploading car telemetry when you're on public roads is an okay price to avoid that.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I very much want to end up in a world in which they have to contend with the rest of the computer industry's efforts to secure systems. That's a world in which a few high-profile targets might have to worry about having zero-days burned on attacking them, but most people are safe.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Too late. They are already doing that and will continue to do so even if they get everything they want in telemetry. The solution is to push back on everything because they never yield power unopposed.

Zak 8y ago

> Why do you need to search my car for illegal drugs if you can't already prove that I have them? Why do you need insight into my finances if you can't already prove that I am evading taxes? The law already imposes those requirements, in theory. A warrant should only be issued, according to the US Constitution, if evidence is presented to a judge that it's more likely than not the search authorized by the warrant will find evidence of a crime. That usually means a non-consensual search is only allowed when there's already significant evidence of guilt. If that sounds like a fairly high standard, you're right. It was intended to be. If it sounds like a higher standard than is often used in practice... well, you may be right about that too.

ben0x539 8y ago
Yeah, so I think that imposing similar requirements for compelled decryption is not the way forward. There is limited use in instituting high standards if you fundamentally can't trust the people interpreting those standards.
- Zak 8y ago
  I'd like to see more work on systems with plausible deniability. Many legal jurisdictions already have compelled decryption

sandworm101 8y ago

Because there are other ways to get decryption keys. Old fashioned "over the shoulder" techniques still work: cameras, informants, even spyware. They just require effort. This is really about cops wanting easy and ready access rather than committing to oldschool detective work. It is akin to cops wanting to measure a car's speed by directly accessing the data from it's speedometer. That may be far easier than hiding in a bush with a radar gun, but so is the price of constitutional rights.

ben0x539 8y ago
Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I mean, but do we want this to be a thing the legal system does openly as part of its mandate? I'm also not sure if I want the government installing cameras in all public spaces so they can, uh, catch speeding cars and definitely do nothing else, maybe uploading car telemetry when you're on public roads is an okay price to avoid that.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > Do we really rather want to end up in a world where the government is in the business of undermining computer security at large to get its spyware everywhere it wants it? I very much want to end up in a world in which they have to contend with the rest of the computer industry's efforts to secure systems. That's a world in which a few high-profile targets might have to worry about having zero-days burned on attacking them, but most people are safe.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Too late. They are already doing that and will continue to do so even if they get everything they want in telemetry. The solution is to push back on everything because they never yield power unopposed.