3 ms·
>It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live television having to choose between having this cute little child being raped for years before they commit
by tw04 7y ago
>It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live television having to choose between having this cute little child being raped for years before they commit suicide (letting the perpetrators off the hook), or ramp up the surveillance a bit. Picture them choosing the rape.
But the argument doesn't even make sense. It makes the horrible assumption that pedophiles will continue using a service they know to be insecure. That's literally a provably false assumption. The second they realize it's insecure (which will take exactly one raid), they'll switch to something else.
And ALL of the above assumes that there are no criminal programmers and thus they have no ability to just write their own tools if there isn't something sitting on the shelf. We know with 100% certainty this is also a false assumption.
- LMYahooTFY 7y ago>But the argument doesn't even make sense. It makes the horrible assumption that pedophiles will continue using a service they know to be insecure. That's literally a provably false assumption. The second they realize it's insecure (which will take exactly one raid), they'll switch to something else. It's not an assumption at all. The fact that people engaged in child pornohraphy have had decrypted communications used against them in court demonstrates this to be true. Ephemeral conversation is not new and implicit in a right to privacy assuming it extends beyond your actual corpus. The only way I understand your arguments to be a justification to break encryption is if you believe we should not have freedom to share privately.
- iaml 7y ago> The fact that people engaged in child pornohraphy have had decrypted communications used against them in court demonstrates this to be true It only demonstrates that for some people, it's true. What about cases where they were using secure channels and thus haven't been caught/charged?
- feanaro 7y agoWhat about it? Every criminal ever that never got caught managed to do so through using "secure channels" (and thus not getting caught). Perhaps we should aim for not leaving any piece of space on Earth unsurveilled?
- JamisonM 7y agoThat's literally a provably false assumption. The second they realize it's insecure (which will take exactly one raid), they'll switch to something else. It is trivial to prove that the second a criminal realizes a given communication mechanism is insecure they do not stop using it if it is convenient. Has every criminal in the world stopped using the phone after the first phone was ever tapped? And ALL of the above assumes that there are no criminal programmers and thus they have no ability to just write their own tools But we know there are more than 0 non-programmer criminals who will not be writing their own tools. You need better arguments than "if we can't stop all crime with an action it has no value" because it is a silly argument.
- krzepah 7y agoThey don't need to write up the tools, just to use them, they are widely available
- feanaro 7y ago> You need better arguments than "if we can't stop all crime with an action it has no value" because it is a silly argument. Arguments like "we all need to abandon privacy to maybe, potentially stop some crime somewhere" are equally silly.
- JamisonM 7y agoAgreed. Everyone should avoid silly arguments.
- kortilla 7y agoYou do know software can be downloaded without knowing how to program it yourself right?