4 ms·

> I draw the line on the side of privacy. It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count? > there are always s

> I draw the line on the side of privacy. It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count? > there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering which you've not given, twice. > It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors. It's difficult and I see what you're saying even if I don't yet agree.

spunker540 7y ago
The reason you're getting downvoted is it seems like you believe encryption should be illegal unless it has a govt backdoor. Encryption is just math, so it's a hard thing to criminalize and to enforce. Furthermore, if the government has a backdoor to all encrypted data then that means China and Russia and any independent hacker would be also searching for that same backdoor and once they find it everyone's screwed. It's really impractical to think that the government could enforce backdoors into all encryption and it'd be exceptionally dangerous if they required all US companies to comply with backdoored encryption. Not to mention the privacy implications of never being safe from government surveillance.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm getting downvoted because people don't want to answer questions like, what if it was people killed who mattered to you, or, exactly what other avenues of evidence gathering? I get that elsewhere too - ask about the limits of self-arming and bingo, downvotes without answers, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 It's the online version of turning away with an angry huff because they don't like where this is going. OK, back to your point, and thanks for a decent response. The encryption issue is difficult and I made it clear I was ambivalent eg. "I care greatly about privacy...". I fully understand the implications of a legal backdoor, and I don't want it [x]. But if phones are the main comms tool now, and if further killings are pending and can be prevented, at least ask the questions. So I'm wondering if there is some compromise or something. Some way of putting a backdoor in which a 2nd party has a key to (not the gov't). Or something. Yes I'm aware that gov'ts may unfairly lean on the 2nd party. Is there some way through this? Let's try to be creative. Perhaps this is a mathematically way of proving, based on some assumptions, that I can't have what I want then we can stop wasting time on it and we can get on with the fight against government strong-arming. Can we at least have a conversation on it without angry, downvote'y silences? This isn't a constructive. It gets us nowhere. edit, add clarification [x] that if a compromise can't be found and I had to choose between the government having backdoors or not, I'd fall pretty rapidly on the side of Fuck, No. They will be abused. I probably know this better than you.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    The truth is that hypothetically we already probably possess enough intelligence to pick out the whack jobs as a class but not which of them is definitively going to actually going to go off. However we have consistently shown that we are often incapable of competently using that information even when say the family members of a terrorist call us on the telephone and forewarn us let alone when the worrisome info is buried in a mountain of data. We don't need less privacy or better technology to gather intel. We actually need a smarter system and better tools to sift the mountain of data we actually already possess.
michaelmrose 7y ago
I'm not the OP but its hard to be particular about alternative means of gathering evidence that is itself hypothetical. For example if you wanted to know who the person associated with he almost certainly communicated with people in a way that could be obtained by serving a warrant to his ISP. If you want to know what influenced him looking at his web traffic would be advantageous. Instead of working backwards from hypothetical lets reason the correct way. What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device. None. Now ask: what evidence do we have that compelling evidence DOES NOT exist on this particular device. None again! We can conclude nothing either way.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Don't you think they need to make a compelling argument that actual evidence exists and is being denied to them before we all install backdoors?
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      You put up an argument which you haven't acknowledged was vacuous, and from that extrapolated that I somehow must want backdoors even when I clearly said "Fuck, No" to them in an earlier post[1] which you must have read because you replied to it[2] Honest question, what am I supposed to make of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661590 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661645

spunker540 7y ago

The reason you're getting downvoted is it seems like you believe encryption should be illegal unless it has a govt backdoor. Encryption is just math, so it's a hard thing to criminalize and to enforce. Furthermore, if the government has a backdoor to all encrypted data then that means China and Russia and any independent hacker would be also searching for that same backdoor and once they find it everyone's screwed. It's really impractical to think that the government could enforce backdoors into all encryption and it'd be exceptionally dangerous if they required all US companies to comply with backdoored encryption. Not to mention the privacy implications of never being safe from government surveillance.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm getting downvoted because people don't want to answer questions like, what if it was people killed who mattered to you, or, exactly what other avenues of evidence gathering? I get that elsewhere too - ask about the limits of self-arming and bingo, downvotes without answers, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 It's the online version of turning away with an angry huff because they don't like where this is going. OK, back to your point, and thanks for a decent response. The encryption issue is difficult and I made it clear I was ambivalent eg. "I care greatly about privacy...". I fully understand the implications of a legal backdoor, and I don't want it [x]. But if phones are the main comms tool now, and if further killings are pending and can be prevented, at least ask the questions. So I'm wondering if there is some compromise or something. Some way of putting a backdoor in which a 2nd party has a key to (not the gov't). Or something. Yes I'm aware that gov'ts may unfairly lean on the 2nd party. Is there some way through this? Let's try to be creative. Perhaps this is a mathematically way of proving, based on some assumptions, that I can't have what I want then we can stop wasting time on it and we can get on with the fight against government strong-arming. Can we at least have a conversation on it without angry, downvote'y silences? This isn't a constructive. It gets us nowhere. edit, add clarification [x] that if a compromise can't be found and I had to choose between the government having backdoors or not, I'd fall pretty rapidly on the side of Fuck, No. They will be abused. I probably know this better than you.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The truth is that hypothetically we already probably possess enough intelligence to pick out the whack jobs as a class but not which of them is definitively going to actually going to go off. However we have consistently shown that we are often incapable of competently using that information even when say the family members of a terrorist call us on the telephone and forewarn us let alone when the worrisome info is buried in a mountain of data. We don't need less privacy or better technology to gather intel. We actually need a smarter system and better tools to sift the mountain of data we actually already possess.

michaelmrose 7y ago

I'm not the OP but its hard to be particular about alternative means of gathering evidence that is itself hypothetical. For example if you wanted to know who the person associated with he almost certainly communicated with people in a way that could be obtained by serving a warrant to his ISP. If you want to know what influenced him looking at his web traffic would be advantageous. Instead of working backwards from hypothetical lets reason the correct way. What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device. None. Now ask: what evidence do we have that compelling evidence DOES NOT exist on this particular device. None again! We can conclude nothing either way.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Don't you think they need to make a compelling argument that actual evidence exists and is being denied to them before we all install backdoors?
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    You put up an argument which you haven't acknowledged was vacuous, and from that extrapolated that I somehow must want backdoors even when I clearly said "Fuck, No" to them in an earlier post[1] which you must have read because you replied to it[2] Honest question, what am I supposed to make of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661590 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661645