5 ms·

> if police work becomes effectively impossible It hasn't. That's a lie. Police/etc have far more resources available to them than they've had at any point in

by pdkl95 7y ago

> if police work becomes effectively impossible It hasn't. That's a lie. Police/etc have far more resources available to them than they've had at any point in history. The trail of digital exhaust we leave behind is only increasing, which makes OPSEC much harder[1]. End to end encryption doesn't prevent metadata analysis[2], network usage/timing analysis (e.g. [3]), or investigation of the massive amount of data that isn't end to end encrypted.. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1q4Ir2J8P8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1q4Ir2J8P8 [2] The NSA admits[4] metadata tells them far more than the message contents. [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/how-the-nsa... edit: [4] "We kill people based on metadata" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQiz0Vavmc

umvi 7y ago
Then why do you always read stories about the police having a hard time getting into terrorist's phones and going to extreme lengths to get into the phone? Shouldn't the metadata be more than enough for them? Like the San Bernadino shooter, for example[1] (jump to decryption section) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
- vaer-k 7y ago
  Once upon a time, people did not carry devices around that logged their every move, and police work was still regularly conducted. Currently, there does not exist any technology to read minds. If there were, do you think that the government should be allowed to surveil our thoughts? Do you, umvi, draw the line at encryption, or do you feel there should be no limit to government access to our personal lives?
  - umvi 7y ago
    I think there should be privacy by default, but that the government should be able to access our personal lives with a warrant.
    - vaer-k 7y ago
      Just to be totally clear, you mean that so long as the government has a warrant, they should be allowed access into our innermost thoughts and feelings?
      - umvi 7y ago
        They should be allowed to access what is on your computers, and if that's where you store your innermost thoughts and feelings, then yes. I personally store those inside my brain, though.
        vaer-k 7y ago
        I think I pretty clearly posited a thought experiment where mind-reading technology exists.
        umvi 7y ago
        In the case of non-existent-and-will-never-exist mind reading tech, then sure, I think the government should be able to examine your thoughts if they have a warrant.
        kelnos 7y ago
        In this hypothetical case, I really hope that people like you are kept far, far away from any ability to influence public policy and lawmaking. Beliefs like these are antithetical to a free society.
        umvi 7y ago
        The analogy is ridiculous though. Let's take the opposite stance and go to its logical conclusion: 1. Government should not be able to examine thoughts with mind reading tech, that's too private 2. Therefore, since computers hold our thoughts today in 2019, government should not be able to examine computers with tech, that's too private 3. Therefore, since diaries held our thoughts in 1925, government should not be able to examine diaries, that's too private 4. Therefore, since cave paintings held our thoughts in 30000 BC, tribe chief should not be able to look at cave paintings, that's too private
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > Then why do you always read stories about the police having a hard time getting into terrorist's phones Because media are very biased and police loves to cry wolf. Do you expect them to admit when they have too much information or power in general?
notacoward 7y ago
Also keyboard loggers, anything else that can intercept data at a point of use before/after encryption, and the good old rubber hose. Encryption is not a significant obstacle to specific surveillance. It's only an obstacle to mass surveillance. To put it another way, the regular police will be fine but the Secret State Police have a problem.

by pdkl95 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

Then why do you always read stories about the police having a hard time getting into terrorist's phones and going to extreme lengths to get into the phone? Shouldn't the metadata be more than enough for them? Like the San Bernadino shooter, for example[1] (jump to decryption section) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

vaer-k 7y ago
Once upon a time, people did not carry devices around that logged their every move, and police work was still regularly conducted. Currently, there does not exist any technology to read minds. If there were, do you think that the government should be allowed to surveil our thoughts? Do you, umvi, draw the line at encryption, or do you feel there should be no limit to government access to our personal lives?
- umvi 7y ago
  I think there should be privacy by default, but that the government should be able to access our personal lives with a warrant.
  - vaer-k 7y ago
    Just to be totally clear, you mean that so long as the government has a warrant, they should be allowed access into our innermost thoughts and feelings?
    - umvi 7y ago
      They should be allowed to access what is on your computers, and if that's where you store your innermost thoughts and feelings, then yes. I personally store those inside my brain, though.
      - vaer-k 7y ago
        I think I pretty clearly posited a thought experiment where mind-reading technology exists.
        umvi 7y ago
        In the case of non-existent-and-will-never-exist mind reading tech, then sure, I think the government should be able to examine your thoughts if they have a warrant.
        kelnos 7y ago
        In this hypothetical case, I really hope that people like you are kept far, far away from any ability to influence public policy and lawmaking. Beliefs like these are antithetical to a free society.
        umvi 7y ago
        The analogy is ridiculous though. Let's take the opposite stance and go to its logical conclusion: 1. Government should not be able to examine thoughts with mind reading tech, that's too private 2. Therefore, since computers hold our thoughts today in 2019, government should not be able to examine computers with tech, that's too private 3. Therefore, since diaries held our thoughts in 1925, government should not be able to examine diaries, that's too private 4. Therefore, since cave paintings held our thoughts in 30000 BC, tribe chief should not be able to look at cave paintings, that's too private
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Then why do you always read stories about the police having a hard time getting into terrorist's phones Because media are very biased and police loves to cry wolf. Do you expect them to admit when they have too much information or power in general?

notacoward 7y ago

Also keyboard loggers, anything else that can intercept data at a point of use before/after encryption, and the good old rubber hose. Encryption is not a significant obstacle to specific surveillance. It's only an obstacle to mass surveillance. To put it another way, the regular police will be fine but the Secret State Police have a problem.