4 ms·

> If privacy doesn't exist anymore, then the inheritors will receive a level of power they have never had before. I’m having a hard time understanding your imp

> If privacy doesn't exist anymore, then the inheritors will receive a level of power they have never had before. I’m having a hard time understanding your implication here. Wouldn’t the inheritors want more privacy as that would lessen the visibility of their actions and those involved?

deogeo 7y ago
> Wouldn’t the inheritors want more privacy For themselves - not necessarily for others. And when privacy is invaded, only the powerful get access to the resulting information. There's also the matter of who needs privacy - the loss of it hurts those without power to defend themselves more. E.g. Hong Kong protesters are rightly worried of being identified.
Renaud 7y ago
If I understand the grand-parent correctly, his/her point is that the lack of privacy gives more control to the inheritors as they can use that as a way to pass more stringent laws governning communications and enforce blanked surveillance as a way to quash dissent. There is an assymetry because the procecutions under these laws will not be as effective against of those who have the means to defend themselves against them (basically money and influence). Also the loss of encryption will probably not affect all means of communication but getting mass-appeal apps like FB and WhatsApp to forego with encryption means most people would then easily become 'surveillable'.
justinclift 7y ago
For a more concrete example: At present, a new item in the news cycle is a 2nd whisteblower coming forward about Trump - Ukranian things. This person is apparently being represented by the same lawyers as the 1st person. If (all) encryption becomes subverted, that law firm would have no effective way to store and/or communicate details digitally. Back to pen-and-paper records, only meeting in person in (eg) secluded locations, etc.

deogeo 7y ago

> Wouldn’t the inheritors want more privacy For themselves - not necessarily for others. And when privacy is invaded, only the powerful get access to the resulting information. There's also the matter of who needs privacy - the loss of it hurts those without power to defend themselves more. E.g. Hong Kong protesters are rightly worried of being identified.

Renaud 7y ago

If I understand the grand-parent correctly, his/her point is that the lack of privacy gives more control to the inheritors as they can use that as a way to pass more stringent laws governning communications and enforce blanked surveillance as a way to quash dissent. There is an assymetry because the procecutions under these laws will not be as effective against of those who have the means to defend themselves against them (basically money and influence). Also the loss of encryption will probably not affect all means of communication but getting mass-appeal apps like FB and WhatsApp to forego with encryption means most people would then easily become 'surveillable'.

justinclift 7y ago

For a more concrete example: At present, a new item in the news cycle is a 2nd whisteblower coming forward about Trump - Ukranian things. This person is apparently being represented by the same lawyers as the 1st person. If (all) encryption becomes subverted, that law firm would have no effective way to store and/or communicate details digitally. Back to pen-and-paper records, only meeting in person in (eg) secluded locations, etc.