8 ms·

As stated, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party encryption at a national/global level. IMO, authorities should have a way to decryp

As stated, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party encryption at a national/global level. IMO, authorities should have a way to decrypt the encryption used by the masses, when needed. Further, it's clear that policy makers will typically push for such a mechanism. If such three-party systems are to be deployed, it would further your privacy cause to help to develop such a system, if your efforts to push back without compromise do not bear fruit.

deogeo 7y ago
Is it also irresponsible to allow cars and houses without always-listening microphones planted in them?
- thestartup 7y ago
  Not relevant to the topic.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Why not? People could say anything to each-other in private - shouldn't the authorities have a way of finding out what was said, when needed? How does the medium of communication change things?
    - thestartup 7y ago
      The topic is about encryption, not microphones.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        The topic is government access to private communications - encryption is an implementation detail.
        thestartup 7y ago
        No, the name of the G7 document is "Combating the use of the internet for terrorist and violent extremist purposes". Scanning the PDF, there doesn't appear to be any discussion about microphones placed in vehicles or residences.
        BubRoss 7y ago
        Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it. Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?
        thestartup 7y ago
        > Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it. The analogy breaks down when considering that direct communication in a confined private space is not the same thing at all as creating virtual private / untraceable spaces on a global encrypted communication network, as it pertains to natsec. > Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication? It depends on context. Confined private spaces aren't the same thing as remote communications through the internet or airwaves. Globally deployed mass 2-party strong encryption meant to entirely lock out the ABC's at scale isn't the same thing as not stopping those who seek to use already-available 2-party strong encryption tools. Designing a system that still allows an "in case of emergency break glass" mechanism to stop terrorism/acts of horror is a good, responsible policy. FWIW, I completely disagree with the actions of Edward Snowden. He should be executed. It would be something if the NSA really is fighting to give privacy back to the people (stolen by corporate and entrenched government interests) while still being able to protect us. What a tough challenge that must be, to secure our comms while still having a way to perform sigint. God bless patriots who can see the bigger picture.
        BubRoss 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

Is it also irresponsible to allow cars and houses without always-listening microphones planted in them?

thestartup 7y ago
Not relevant to the topic.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Why not? People could say anything to each-other in private - shouldn't the authorities have a way of finding out what was said, when needed? How does the medium of communication change things?
  - thestartup 7y ago
    The topic is about encryption, not microphones.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      The topic is government access to private communications - encryption is an implementation detail.
      - thestartup 7y ago
        No, the name of the G7 document is "Combating the use of the internet for terrorist and violent extremist purposes". Scanning the PDF, there doesn't appear to be any discussion about microphones placed in vehicles or residences.
        BubRoss 7y ago
        Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it. Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?
        thestartup 7y ago
        > Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it. The analogy breaks down when considering that direct communication in a confined private space is not the same thing at all as creating virtual private / untraceable spaces on a global encrypted communication network, as it pertains to natsec. > Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication? It depends on context. Confined private spaces aren't the same thing as remote communications through the internet or airwaves. Globally deployed mass 2-party strong encryption meant to entirely lock out the ABC's at scale isn't the same thing as not stopping those who seek to use already-available 2-party strong encryption tools. Designing a system that still allows an "in case of emergency break glass" mechanism to stop terrorism/acts of horror is a good, responsible policy. FWIW, I completely disagree with the actions of Edward Snowden. He should be executed. It would be something if the NSA really is fighting to give privacy back to the people (stolen by corporate and entrenched government interests) while still being able to protect us. What a tough challenge that must be, to secure our comms while still having a way to perform sigint. God bless patriots who can see the bigger picture.
        BubRoss 7y ago