5 ms·

We need to change the analogy on these topics from “a passcode to a wall safe” to the encrypted computing device being seen as an extension of the person’s mind

We need to change the analogy on these topics from “a passcode to a wall safe” to the encrypted computing device being seen as an extension of the person’s mind. When we encrypt information with a key known only within our mind, we are creating a cyborg like extension of our own mind.

FakeComments 7y ago
How is that not analogous to a wall safe with my journal in it?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  There is nothing that is similar. The journal is a physical thing you can lay your hands on and the password exists only in the individuals mind. The act of producing it is both inherently testimonial and testimony to ownership of the contents of the data on the machine which is distinct from ownership of the machine. It is further impossible to distinguish between won't and can't unlock. Even if believed that you can subpoena the content of your skull you arrive at a situation where every criminal "can't remember"
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Isn't there a right to not testimony against oneself?
    - notimetorelax 7y ago
      This was the point of the article.
      - yxhuvud 7y ago
        No, the point was that there was a ruling on it from a highly divided court that only applies to Pennsylvania. The article didn't really argue something like that. It only reported on a court case and really didn't say if they agree with the decision or not.
  - FakeComments 7y ago
    I still don’t see how any of your arguments don’t apply to a physical safe with a code.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    Giving out the code to a wall safe demonstrates my ownership of the safe contents in exactly the same way that giving out the password to a computer demonstrates my ownership of the contents of the computer.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      It seems so. It seems unlikely that such an order would be successful so they would drill the safe.
      - daveFNbuck 7y ago
        The point of bringing up wall safes is that it courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to require someone to give up a wall safe combination.
- noodlesUK 7y ago
  In my view, it’s analogous to a journal that will only exist once you have written (some of) it down in front of them. The encrypted content can only exist in decrypted form with the information in your head.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    This is how wall safes are supposed to work too, which is why you can't be compelled to reveal the combination.
- belorn 7y ago
  In my view it depend on two philosophical questions; does the journal exist when it rests in the safe, and does information exist when it is encrypted? To simplify it, let's imagine a one time pad encryption. Does the information exist, or does it only exist in potentia? I think there is a good argument in favor of defining it only in terms of potential information as any one time pad can represent any information of the same length (or smaller if we accept padding). With Schrödinger's cat experiment we could create a similar setup for the journal but it's questionable if we can still apply the perspective that the journal only exist in potentia. From the cat's perspective it knows if it exists or not. The encrypted information however has a more metaphysical environment and it is more questionable if it can be said to have a similar perspective.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    We're talking about a 64-character password, not a one-time pad. Unlike a one-time pad, you can tell whether you've undone the encryption correctly. There is real information there that a third party can uncover given enough effort.
    - belorn 7y ago
      For simplicity sake we can see the password as representing a infinitive long stream for a one-time pad generator with the seed being the hash of the 64-character password. The way programs detect if the encryption is successful is usually by looking at the first bits of information with the assumption that random collisions are unlikely to produce an expected pattern. Not all decryption systems does this however and some just give you the data as produced by the given key. Both are however just technical details in how to turn the potentia of the random-like encryption data into information.
      - daveFNbuck 7y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to simplify here. If a third party can tell whether they've successfully guessed the right password, then the encrypted holds real information that the third party can learn with sufficient effort. If it's just random bits that you need a one-time pad to decode, then there isn't any information without the decryption key. If you're encrypting a hard drive, most encryption methods give you full certainty that you've correctly decrypted the text, in the same way that you'd have full certainty that you've correctly opened a safe and found the journal inside.
ballenf 7y ago
One more thought to clarify: in the future imagine we can repair brain damage with silicon-based implants. Will courts force their extraction or enumeration in criminal cases? My point above is that we’re already augmenting our minds with electronic devices, they’re just not implanted physically yet.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 7y ago
  Courts can already require fingerprints, iris scans, genetic material, etc for forensics. I don't see why a machine organ would be any different.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    Invading someone's mind has to be treated differently. I am not any of those things - but I am my mind.
    - pas 7y ago
      The difference is not because the mind is different, but because we cannot infer its content otherwise reliably. (That's the problem with polygraphs, they are extremely unreliable relative to the importance of their purpose.) If it were possible to do it with some sort of scan (reliably!), eventually courts would order those scans.
      - XorNot 7y ago
        But that's kind of the point: the idea that sanctity of one's thoughts is not ensured, that really it's just a technological limitation, should be extremely troubling.
        pas 7y ago
        I know, but also that's reality. We were (and still are) pretty brutal when it comes to getting our way with the powerless.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> extension of the person’s mind That's exactly what our computers are. However, it's a mistake to think the government cares or can be persuaded to care. People in power simply cannot tolerate the notion that something is out of their reach. Encryption is just mathematics but it can render entire governments and militaries powerless. The fact common citizens have access to something like this is an affront to their power. What's happening in practice is a politico-technological arms race: governments make laws, people make technologies that neutralize those laws. With every iteration, the state must become more invasive and tyrannical in order to maintain the same amount of control over its population.

FakeComments 7y ago

How is that not analogous to a wall safe with my journal in it?

michaelmrose 7y ago
There is nothing that is similar. The journal is a physical thing you can lay your hands on and the password exists only in the individuals mind. The act of producing it is both inherently testimonial and testimony to ownership of the contents of the data on the machine which is distinct from ownership of the machine. It is further impossible to distinguish between won't and can't unlock. Even if believed that you can subpoena the content of your skull you arrive at a situation where every criminal "can't remember"
- nine_k 7y ago
  Isn't there a right to not testimony against oneself?
  - notimetorelax 7y ago
    This was the point of the article.
    - yxhuvud 7y ago
      No, the point was that there was a ruling on it from a highly divided court that only applies to Pennsylvania. The article didn't really argue something like that. It only reported on a court case and really didn't say if they agree with the decision or not.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  I still don’t see how any of your arguments don’t apply to a physical safe with a code.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Giving out the code to a wall safe demonstrates my ownership of the safe contents in exactly the same way that giving out the password to a computer demonstrates my ownership of the contents of the computer.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It seems so. It seems unlikely that such an order would be successful so they would drill the safe.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      The point of bringing up wall safes is that it courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to require someone to give up a wall safe combination.
noodlesUK 7y ago
In my view, it’s analogous to a journal that will only exist once you have written (some of) it down in front of them. The encrypted content can only exist in decrypted form with the information in your head.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  This is how wall safes are supposed to work too, which is why you can't be compelled to reveal the combination.
belorn 7y ago
In my view it depend on two philosophical questions; does the journal exist when it rests in the safe, and does information exist when it is encrypted? To simplify it, let's imagine a one time pad encryption. Does the information exist, or does it only exist in potentia? I think there is a good argument in favor of defining it only in terms of potential information as any one time pad can represent any information of the same length (or smaller if we accept padding). With Schrödinger's cat experiment we could create a similar setup for the journal but it's questionable if we can still apply the perspective that the journal only exist in potentia. From the cat's perspective it knows if it exists or not. The encrypted information however has a more metaphysical environment and it is more questionable if it can be said to have a similar perspective.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  We're talking about a 64-character password, not a one-time pad. Unlike a one-time pad, you can tell whether you've undone the encryption correctly. There is real information there that a third party can uncover given enough effort.
  - belorn 7y ago
    For simplicity sake we can see the password as representing a infinitive long stream for a one-time pad generator with the seed being the hash of the 64-character password. The way programs detect if the encryption is successful is usually by looking at the first bits of information with the assumption that random collisions are unlikely to produce an expected pattern. Not all decryption systems does this however and some just give you the data as produced by the given key. Both are however just technical details in how to turn the potentia of the random-like encryption data into information.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to simplify here. If a third party can tell whether they've successfully guessed the right password, then the encrypted holds real information that the third party can learn with sufficient effort. If it's just random bits that you need a one-time pad to decode, then there isn't any information without the decryption key. If you're encrypting a hard drive, most encryption methods give you full certainty that you've correctly decrypted the text, in the same way that you'd have full certainty that you've correctly opened a safe and found the journal inside.

ballenf 7y ago

One more thought to clarify: in the future imagine we can repair brain damage with silicon-based implants. Will courts force their extraction or enumeration in criminal cases? My point above is that we’re already augmenting our minds with electronic devices, they’re just not implanted physically yet.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 7y ago
Courts can already require fingerprints, iris scans, genetic material, etc for forensics. I don't see why a machine organ would be any different.
- XorNot 7y ago
  Invading someone's mind has to be treated differently. I am not any of those things - but I am my mind.
  - pas 7y ago
    The difference is not because the mind is different, but because we cannot infer its content otherwise reliably. (That's the problem with polygraphs, they are extremely unreliable relative to the importance of their purpose.) If it were possible to do it with some sort of scan (reliably!), eventually courts would order those scans.
    - XorNot 7y ago
      But that's kind of the point: the idea that sanctity of one's thoughts is not ensured, that really it's just a technological limitation, should be extremely troubling.
      - pas 7y ago
        I know, but also that's reality. We were (and still are) pretty brutal when it comes to getting our way with the powerless.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

> extension of the person’s mind That's exactly what our computers are. However, it's a mistake to think the government cares or can be persuaded to care. People in power simply cannot tolerate the notion that something is out of their reach. Encryption is just mathematics but it can render entire governments and militaries powerless. The fact common citizens have access to something like this is an affront to their power. What's happening in practice is a politico-technological arms race: governments make laws, people make technologies that neutralize those laws. With every iteration, the state must become more invasive and tyrannical in order to maintain the same amount of control over its population.