4 ms·

I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this. Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs

by tqi 7y ago

I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this. Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it. It seems everyone is so eager to paint the other side as objectively wrong / motivated by bad intentions, when in reality I don't believe this is an objectively right answer. As a society we have to decide how much freedom and security we want at this moment in time.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere 7y ago
A nice example of the complexity in this space: the Ben Franklin quote "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" means something rather different when taken in context (1). (1) https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
- apatters 7y ago
  Not really. While that specific quote wasn't about surveillance, Franklin was decidedly pro-encryption, as were most of the Founding Fathers. They all "encrypted" their letters regularly with elaborate codes and ciphers to thwart surveillance by colonial authorities. The Revolution probably would have been impossible without it. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/h3ll0-mr-pr3s1d3nt/521193/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/h3ll0-mr...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
tqi 7y ago
Also I think "Security" was the wrong term to use - maybe "Societal Order" is better? What I mean is if companies are required to build in law enforcement backdoors, we could see X benefit (ie some % reduction in certain types of crime) and Y damage (some reduction in technical security, some reduction in govt accountability, etc). Personally, I place a lot of value on the Y damage, so I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But those are just my values, and I think it's possible / reasonable to have different values that change the balance.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  > reply The problem isn't that it's algebraic though. There are no back doors, once governments have it then all your freedom to communicate against them is broken. I don't know why anyone would look at the likes of world leaders such as Xi, Putin, KJI and Trump and think this is a good idea in any way.
sneak 7y ago
Privacy is a human right. Encryption backdoors for governments are human rights abuses. It has nothing to do with safety; it is not a debate about “how much safety do we purchase with reduced privacy”. It’s just as firearms rights have nothing to do with hunting, or a militia.
- ggzgd 7y ago
  Human rights are man-made and arbitrary. They aren't some kind of holy text that must be protected at all costs. They must be bent and ignored if necessary. You can't just say "this is a human right" to shut down any discussion.
  - hgoel 7y ago
    That's a hilariously bad take.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Can u elaborate? If human rights is not arbitrary nor man made then its come from god ?
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    Human rights were fought for an won in bloody struggles. We do not want to lose them again.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Thats true if we assume that every human want the same thing. But the reason there is bloody fight in the first place is not all human want the same thing. Is good for you if you are in the winning side, you certainly don't want to lose them but you can't say the same for the other side. They too want to be on the winning side.
  - stjohnswarts 7y ago
    Obviously since there is no God then yeah they are "made-up", but their value is obvious. Governments have a tendency to want more and more power, and by governments I mean the ones in charge like Xi, KJI, and Hitler. Those sorts do not like human rights and think they know better than everyone what is best, especially if it makes them richer and more powerful. This is why human rights are important and why they shouldn't be compromised for "safety" because you might get a little safety in the short term, but tomorrow brings genocide.
flukus 7y ago
> I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this It's also important to remember that not every nation will have the same set of values on this and that as the world becomes more international you're relationship with other world governments becomes more M * N. Imagine a world without encryption where the Saudi government had our access logs and decided to share what porn we were looking up. Or for something closer to the real world, imagine the CCP leveraging their influence to cut off services to anyone sharing Winnie the Pooh pictures.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  OTOH, it's the point of having nation states to allow different prioritizations of values and different legal systems to coexist. It's the same reason the US is proud of being a federation of states.
raxxorrax 7y ago
But those citizens need to restrict the freedom and security of others. In Europe we have many examples of human trafficking where officials had problems to investigate because of political reasons and other problems, mainly understaffed law enforcement. Every police force asks for more powers, every interior ministry wants more surveillance. Even with decryption tools, I don't see how traffickers would suddenly not be able to obfuscate their communications. What becomes very easy is to crack down on dissent though. And being able to communicate with others without any listeners is a security requirement. So freedom and security aren't orthogonal at all.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  Exactly, it's not like they'll be using legal encryption versions lmao. This is just a way for governments to monitor their citizens in a wholesale fashion.
balfirevic 7y ago
> Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it. That's fine, they can make the trade-off. I mean they can give up their own freedom for whatever security that gets them. What many people want is to make the same trade-off for others.

by tqi 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

killjoywashere 7y ago

A nice example of the complexity in this space: the Ben Franklin quote "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" means something rather different when taken in context (1). (1) https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

apatters 7y ago
Not really. While that specific quote wasn't about surveillance, Franklin was decidedly pro-encryption, as were most of the Founding Fathers. They all "encrypted" their letters regularly with elaborate codes and ciphers to thwart surveillance by colonial authorities. The Revolution probably would have been impossible without it. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/h3ll0-mr-pr3s1d3nt/521193/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/h3ll0-mr...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

tqi 7y ago

Also I think "Security" was the wrong term to use - maybe "Societal Order" is better? What I mean is if companies are required to build in law enforcement backdoors, we could see X benefit (ie some % reduction in certain types of crime) and Y damage (some reduction in technical security, some reduction in govt accountability, etc). Personally, I place a lot of value on the Y damage, so I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But those are just my values, and I think it's possible / reasonable to have different values that change the balance.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
> reply The problem isn't that it's algebraic though. There are no back doors, once governments have it then all your freedom to communicate against them is broken. I don't know why anyone would look at the likes of world leaders such as Xi, Putin, KJI and Trump and think this is a good idea in any way.

sneak 7y ago

Privacy is a human right. Encryption backdoors for governments are human rights abuses. It has nothing to do with safety; it is not a debate about “how much safety do we purchase with reduced privacy”. It’s just as firearms rights have nothing to do with hunting, or a militia.

ggzgd 7y ago
Human rights are man-made and arbitrary. They aren't some kind of holy text that must be protected at all costs. They must be bent and ignored if necessary. You can't just say "this is a human right" to shut down any discussion.
- hgoel 7y ago
  That's a hilariously bad take.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Can u elaborate? If human rights is not arbitrary nor man made then its come from god ?
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Human rights were fought for an won in bloody struggles. We do not want to lose them again.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Thats true if we assume that every human want the same thing. But the reason there is bloody fight in the first place is not all human want the same thing. Is good for you if you are in the winning side, you certainly don't want to lose them but you can't say the same for the other side. They too want to be on the winning side.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  Obviously since there is no God then yeah they are "made-up", but their value is obvious. Governments have a tendency to want more and more power, and by governments I mean the ones in charge like Xi, KJI, and Hitler. Those sorts do not like human rights and think they know better than everyone what is best, especially if it makes them richer and more powerful. This is why human rights are important and why they shouldn't be compromised for "safety" because you might get a little safety in the short term, but tomorrow brings genocide.

flukus 7y ago

> I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this It's also important to remember that not every nation will have the same set of values on this and that as the world becomes more international you're relationship with other world governments becomes more M * N. Imagine a world without encryption where the Saudi government had our access logs and decided to share what porn we were looking up. Or for something closer to the real world, imagine the CCP leveraging their influence to cut off services to anyone sharing Winnie the Pooh pictures.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
OTOH, it's the point of having nation states to allow different prioritizations of values and different legal systems to coexist. It's the same reason the US is proud of being a federation of states.

raxxorrax 7y ago

But those citizens need to restrict the freedom and security of others. In Europe we have many examples of human trafficking where officials had problems to investigate because of political reasons and other problems, mainly understaffed law enforcement. Every police force asks for more powers, every interior ministry wants more surveillance. Even with decryption tools, I don't see how traffickers would suddenly not be able to obfuscate their communications. What becomes very easy is to crack down on dissent though. And being able to communicate with others without any listeners is a security requirement. So freedom and security aren't orthogonal at all.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
Exactly, it's not like they'll be using legal encryption versions lmao. This is just a way for governments to monitor their citizens in a wholesale fashion.

balfirevic 7y ago

> Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it. That's fine, they can make the trade-off. I mean they can give up their own freedom for whatever security that gets them. What many people want is to make the same trade-off for others.