4 ms·

For those of you opposed to this request from the government, what do you think the negative consequences are for end to end encryption? Do you think there are

For those of you opposed to this request from the government, what do you think the negative consequences are for end to end encryption? Do you think there are no negative consequences or are they just negligible? Just try and imagine what the cost might be, how broad the impact might be and who and how many would bear the brunt of those costs. Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important. But still considering what is being offered in payment for this privacy, it's still worth it to you? I'm not so sure it is, personally.

kyboren 7y ago
You make the mistake of assuming the watchmen have and will always have noble intentions. Rather, you should assume that at some point, someone in power will have the most ignoble intentions. What do you think the negative consequences are for a government to have a permanent record of every private conversation made over the Internet? Bear in mind that the fraction of all private conversations which occur over the Internet is only increasing. You must assume that "exceptional access" really means "routine access". While the government claims it only wants access to some encrypted content, decryption leaves no trace. The NSA's collection posture is: "Sniff it All, Know it All, Collect it All, Process it All, Exploit it All, Partner it All." Does it sound to you like the NSA will sit on their hands while some other USG functionary has the Golden Key? > Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important. But still considering what is being offered in payment for this privacy, it's still worth it to you? Perhaps you're correct now. But imagine that a decade from now, you (or a friend or family member) become an activist or a political candidate. Now your incumbent political opponents have a wealth of sensitive private data to mine to find anything to imprison or discredit you. The argument extends further than your own direct interests: What happens to our political system when policymakers are completely transparent to the NSA and their political co-conspirators? Considering the very real risks of a totalitarian government ruling with an iron machine learning model, or a silent coup by military intelligence, is it still worth it to you?
- rosybox 7y ago
  You didn't address my question though. You're just thinking about the cost to you personally if you don't have end to end encryption. I'm asking you to think about the cost of having it. What's the cost. Compare that probably real cost, a thing that is a real problem right now, with your own personal alarm at some future imagined problem.
autoexec 7y ago
> Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important. This is demonstrably false. Companies are very interested in your private communications and the buying and selling of your personal private data is a multi-billion dollar industry. Governments also have an interest in your data because they can flag you for whatever the current administration finds distasteful. That might mean identifying threats to those in power like activists, or (as we've seen in other places) attempts to hunt down whatever they consider "evil" like homosexuals The issue isn't privacy vs security. Loss of privacy is also loss of security.

kyboren 7y ago

You make the mistake of assuming the watchmen have and will always have noble intentions. Rather, you should assume that at some point, someone in power will have the most ignoble intentions. What do you think the negative consequences are for a government to have a permanent record of every private conversation made over the Internet? Bear in mind that the fraction of all private conversations which occur over the Internet is only increasing. You must assume that "exceptional access" really means "routine access". While the government claims it only wants access to some encrypted content, decryption leaves no trace. The NSA's collection posture is: "Sniff it All, Know it All, Collect it All, Process it All, Exploit it All, Partner it All." Does it sound to you like the NSA will sit on their hands while some other USG functionary has the Golden Key? > Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important. But still considering what is being offered in payment for this privacy, it's still worth it to you? Perhaps you're correct now. But imagine that a decade from now, you (or a friend or family member) become an activist or a political candidate. Now your incumbent political opponents have a wealth of sensitive private data to mine to find anything to imprison or discredit you. The argument extends further than your own direct interests: What happens to our political system when policymakers are completely transparent to the NSA and their political co-conspirators? Considering the very real risks of a totalitarian government ruling with an iron machine learning model, or a silent coup by military intelligence, is it still worth it to you?

rosybox 7y ago
You didn't address my question though. You're just thinking about the cost to you personally if you don't have end to end encryption. I'm asking you to think about the cost of having it. What's the cost. Compare that probably real cost, a thing that is a real problem right now, with your own personal alarm at some future imagined problem.

autoexec 7y ago

> Nobody really cares about your personal Facebook messages to your friends and family. You're not that important. This is demonstrably false. Companies are very interested in your private communications and the buying and selling of your personal private data is a multi-billion dollar industry. Governments also have an interest in your data because they can flag you for whatever the current administration finds distasteful. That might mean identifying threats to those in power like activists, or (as we've seen in other places) attempts to hunt down whatever they consider "evil" like homosexuals The issue isn't privacy vs security. Loss of privacy is also loss of security.