3 ms·

You can argue about "responsibility" all day long, until my credit card information gets stolen, and then you find out it's a meaningless concept with a corpora

by jki275 7y ago

You can argue about "responsibility" all day long, until my credit card information gets stolen, and then you find out it's a meaningless concept with a corporation. Do you have the money to sue Apple? I don't. Or worse, someone gets killed because of their data being stolen. Maybe you live in a privileged world where that doesn't happen, some of the rest the rest of the world doesn't. If you build a bridge out of concrete with weak rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. If you build a bridge with shit concrete and great rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. You've made nearly the perfect analogy for me. Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. And finally, you can't ban math. I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own.

umvi 7y ago
Well it's not like you can roll your hardware, software, firmware, etc. You implicitly trust Apple or Google or whoever to keep you secure at some level, so yes, responsibility and reputation matter. Apple pushes back against illegal warrants to keep prying officials from getting into your iPhone. > Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. You won't have a choice; Apple will build the system and it will be transparent to you and they will only let the government into your phone if they have a warrant. > And finally, you can't ban math. No, but you can make it harder for people to use said math. That's like saying "you can't ban physics! If you try to ban my automatic weapons I'll just 3d print a part that makes my semi-auto gun full auto!" Well, yes. You can do that, physics won't stop you. Your average person, however, won't do that and everyone is better off as a result. > I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own. Well you'll spend the rest of your life living like RMS then because you can't control the whole stack of a phone - it takes millions of man hours to develop and maintain.
- jki275 7y ago
  Ah so it's an inevitability argument now. You're all over the place. I don't care if you believe that it's inevitable. I don't, and won't live my life that way. Slavery was inevitable once. The holocaust was inevitable once. People standing up against it stops what weak minds believe inevitable. And gun parts are machined, not 3d printed for the most part. The laws against it are directly contrary to our Constitution and a lot of people dedicate a lot of time to working against those laws. But even that isn't math -- you simply can't ban math. The files that describe how to machine those parts -- those are readily available all over the world, even where they're banned... Also, I trust Apple a lot more than I trust the other tech companies, because they've been willing to stand up for the consumer -- other companies don't.
  - umvi 7y ago
    I think it boils down to: I believe it is possible to design a secure system that complies with warrants while otherwise retaining user privacy; you don't. That's okay. Before computers existed police could bust down your door with a warrant and search through the files/mail. I don't see why that should change just because we store files/mail digitally now.
    - jki275 7y ago
      It's not a matter of belief. There is fact, which is that a broken system is broken, and there is fiction, which is the belief that a broken system can be only broken when requested to be broken, presumably by somebody with the right credentials. No one with any credibility in the field of math or CS believes this fiction. In addition, I encrypt my data specifically so that no one can get to it. That includes the government. I don't care what the government thinks they are entitled to with regard to my data.
      - umvi 7y ago
        All systems are broken, then. Even the one-time pad, though mathematically perfect in theory, is flawed in execution as proven by the NSA. My proposed system in the original post is just as secure as any current scheme. > No one with any credibility in the field of math or CS believes this fiction. In addition, I encrypt my data specifically so that no one can get to it. Huh? It's easy to get an individual's data. Don't fool yourself. You are not low hanging fruit in broad attacks, but if a highly skilled group wanted your data, they could easily get it. I would just look at what keyboard you use and swap it with an identical one that has an invisible keylogger in it. Or I would get to know you and your coworkers and do a precise spear phish. Bam, instantly compromised, no decryption needed. It's only if you commit a terrorist attack and then commit suicide that I have a hard time getting your data because I can no longer spearphish or keylog you.

by jki275 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

Well it's not like you can roll your hardware, software, firmware, etc. You implicitly trust Apple or Google or whoever to keep you secure at some level, so yes, responsibility and reputation matter. Apple pushes back against illegal warrants to keep prying officials from getting into your iPhone. > Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. You won't have a choice; Apple will build the system and it will be transparent to you and they will only let the government into your phone if they have a warrant. > And finally, you can't ban math. No, but you can make it harder for people to use said math. That's like saying "you can't ban physics! If you try to ban my automatic weapons I'll just 3d print a part that makes my semi-auto gun full auto!" Well, yes. You can do that, physics won't stop you. Your average person, however, won't do that and everyone is better off as a result. > I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own. Well you'll spend the rest of your life living like RMS then because you can't control the whole stack of a phone - it takes millions of man hours to develop and maintain.

jki275 7y ago
Ah so it's an inevitability argument now. You're all over the place. I don't care if you believe that it's inevitable. I don't, and won't live my life that way. Slavery was inevitable once. The holocaust was inevitable once. People standing up against it stops what weak minds believe inevitable. And gun parts are machined, not 3d printed for the most part. The laws against it are directly contrary to our Constitution and a lot of people dedicate a lot of time to working against those laws. But even that isn't math -- you simply can't ban math. The files that describe how to machine those parts -- those are readily available all over the world, even where they're banned... Also, I trust Apple a lot more than I trust the other tech companies, because they've been willing to stand up for the consumer -- other companies don't.
- umvi 7y ago
  I think it boils down to: I believe it is possible to design a secure system that complies with warrants while otherwise retaining user privacy; you don't. That's okay. Before computers existed police could bust down your door with a warrant and search through the files/mail. I don't see why that should change just because we store files/mail digitally now.
  - jki275 7y ago
    It's not a matter of belief. There is fact, which is that a broken system is broken, and there is fiction, which is the belief that a broken system can be only broken when requested to be broken, presumably by somebody with the right credentials. No one with any credibility in the field of math or CS believes this fiction. In addition, I encrypt my data specifically so that no one can get to it. That includes the government. I don't care what the government thinks they are entitled to with regard to my data.
    - umvi 7y ago
      All systems are broken, then. Even the one-time pad, though mathematically perfect in theory, is flawed in execution as proven by the NSA. My proposed system in the original post is just as secure as any current scheme. > No one with any credibility in the field of math or CS believes this fiction. In addition, I encrypt my data specifically so that no one can get to it. Huh? It's easy to get an individual's data. Don't fool yourself. You are not low hanging fruit in broad attacks, but if a highly skilled group wanted your data, they could easily get it. I would just look at what keyboard you use and swap it with an identical one that has an invisible keylogger in it. Or I would get to know you and your coworkers and do a precise spear phish. Bam, instantly compromised, no decryption needed. It's only if you commit a terrorist attack and then commit suicide that I have a hard time getting your data because I can no longer spearphish or keylog you.