3 ms·

> Their purpose is to serve us not the other way around. However "we" want them to be able to "stop the bad guys" and "monitor bad communication". "We" also ha

> Their purpose is to serve us not the other way around. However "we" want them to be able to "stop the bad guys" and "monitor bad communication". "We" also have nothing to hide. This yougov poll shows more Americans support backdoors in encryption than oppose it https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/2015/10/19/americans-all-stripes-worried-about-data-privacy https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/... https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-10-19/data4.png https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inline...

pizza234 7y ago
> However "we" want them to be able to "stop the bad guys" and "monitor bad communication". This is appropriate, under the assuption of accountability; right now, three letter agencies aren't subject to it. > "We" also have nothing to hide. This is disingenous or naive (and it's a worringly widespread idea). Literally (as in literal-literal) anybody can be accused and charged, it's just a matter of legal power¹. Giving up privacy makes it dangerously easier. ¹=There's even a book on this subject (although the angle is not precisely this): https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
philipkglass 7y ago
At first I thought that you linked to the wrong poll by mistake. The last question does show more "favor" than "oppose" for installing back doors in encrypted systems, but the first question shows much more "oppose" than "favor" for reducing encryption to help government agencies. The second question shows that more people want tech companies to protect customer privacy than to cooperate with government agencies to fight terrorism and crime. So people want encryption back doors that don't reduce encryption and don't require tech companies to cooperate with government agencies. Of course "we can have all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff" is a common delusion among government agencies proposing encryption back doors too.
- inopinatus 7y ago
  Yes, since the operational outcomes of the first and last questions are the same, the main notion this poll really confirms is that people in general don’t understand cryptography. c.f. also the recent Australian prime minister who claimed that legislation can override mathematics.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    > c.f. also the recent Australian prime minister who claimed that legislation can override mathematics. I believe the phrase is PI IS EXACTLY 3
    - DomreiRoam 7y ago
      According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill the value of pi would have been defined as 3.2 in Indiana.
elliekelly 7y ago
I mean, when you the word question like that and say the backdoor is to “monitor suspected terrorists” of course the average idiot will agree. They think it won’t apply to them & their communications. They aren’t terrorists, so why should they mind? Most people have no idea how far the government is able to stretch the law under the auspice of “safety.” Perhaps naively, I believe people would be outraged if they actually understood how the Patriot Act is used and what a backdoor would allow the government to do.
- isostatic 7y ago
  > when you the word question like that and say the backdoor is to “monitor suspected terrorists” of course the average idiot will agree And that's where democracy falls down
taneq 7y ago
The funny thing is, I bet 90% of the people supporting backdoors here also think China's government monitoring is a gross violation of human rights.
- humantiy 7y ago
  Other funny thing on that is if you are a citizen of one of the five eyes and china was putting a backdoor into phones it would probably wouldn't matter too much since they have little influence on you unlike say your own gov having that same capability and using it.

pizza234 7y ago

> However "we" want them to be able to "stop the bad guys" and "monitor bad communication". This is appropriate, under the assuption of accountability; right now, three letter agencies aren't subject to it. > "We" also have nothing to hide. This is disingenous or naive (and it's a worringly widespread idea). Literally (as in literal-literal) anybody can be accused and charged, it's just a matter of legal power¹. Giving up privacy makes it dangerously easier. ¹=There's even a book on this subject (although the angle is not precisely this): https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

philipkglass 7y ago

At first I thought that you linked to the wrong poll by mistake. The last question does show more "favor" than "oppose" for installing back doors in encrypted systems, but the first question shows much more "oppose" than "favor" for reducing encryption to help government agencies. The second question shows that more people want tech companies to protect customer privacy than to cooperate with government agencies to fight terrorism and crime. So people want encryption back doors that don't reduce encryption and don't require tech companies to cooperate with government agencies. Of course "we can have all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff" is a common delusion among government agencies proposing encryption back doors too.

inopinatus 7y ago
Yes, since the operational outcomes of the first and last questions are the same, the main notion this poll really confirms is that people in general don’t understand cryptography. c.f. also the recent Australian prime minister who claimed that legislation can override mathematics.
- isostatic 7y ago
  > c.f. also the recent Australian prime minister who claimed that legislation can override mathematics. I believe the phrase is PI IS EXACTLY 3
  - DomreiRoam 7y ago
    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill the value of pi would have been defined as 3.2 in Indiana.

elliekelly 7y ago

I mean, when you the word question like that and say the backdoor is to “monitor suspected terrorists” of course the average idiot will agree. They think it won’t apply to them & their communications. They aren’t terrorists, so why should they mind? Most people have no idea how far the government is able to stretch the law under the auspice of “safety.” Perhaps naively, I believe people would be outraged if they actually understood how the Patriot Act is used and what a backdoor would allow the government to do.

isostatic 7y ago
> when you the word question like that and say the backdoor is to “monitor suspected terrorists” of course the average idiot will agree And that's where democracy falls down

taneq 7y ago

The funny thing is, I bet 90% of the people supporting backdoors here also think China's government monitoring is a gross violation of human rights.

humantiy 7y ago
Other funny thing on that is if you are a citizen of one of the five eyes and china was putting a backdoor into phones it would probably wouldn't matter too much since they have little influence on you unlike say your own gov having that same capability and using it.