5 ms·

Specifically, how does catching drug dealers harm you, unless you are a drug dealer? IMO this is exactly why we should collect more data to catch them, terroris

Specifically, how does catching drug dealers harm you, unless you are a drug dealer? IMO this is exactly why we should collect more data to catch them, terrorists, pedos, and so on. And this is a good example to why if you are not a criminal you need not worry. If you are, it can indeed harm you.

asaddhamani 7y ago
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-...
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I do care about the right to privacy, and the freedom of speech. But I also care about police being able to investigate these new ways of communication that criminals have at their disposal. If it were classic letters, phone calls, or a restaurant discussion these would have easily been intercepted by the police. The same needs to happen with online communication when there is a crime taking place. And online communication can only be "intercepted" by storing it somewhere and making it available when need be.
  - asaddhamani 7y ago
    It's a slippery slope. Making a system insecure for one makes it insecure for all. A 'secure' data storage system with a backdoor is not a 'secure' system at all. And criminals can build their own encrypted apps. They don't need to use PSN to communicate. And if you look at some of the more oppressive regimes in the world, a lot of things that you and I would consider freedom of speech, they would consider a crime and lock you up for it. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
    - ossworkerrights 7y ago
      I agree with the statement that oppressive regimes around the world abuse this, but I would argue it's up to peoples of those countries to fight back. "They don't need to use PSN to communicate." but they do, and that's the issue. We know they use publicly accessible communication systems that law enforcement needs to have visibility over _when required and approved by a judge_. Therefore I think the issue is how do we make sure that law enforcement can access such data when they genuinely need to? What laws need to change in that regard, instead of what laws need to be made so we can obscure their visibility even more, and have the likes of ISIS or other organised cults / crime rings organise right in front of us. To be honest, although a very bad thing, i'd rather have one person falsely accused rather than 100 people dead because of a terrorist attack organised on the PSN network that we just wouldn't hand data over, so we can protect kids' privacy over making jokes about "yo mama".
deogeo 7y ago
Nothing to worry about if you're not a criminal, if you're not trying to unionize (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728) and if you're not trying to reveal government wrongdoing (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...).
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I get the sarcasm. But what is the solution really? Letting actual criminals hide behind online chat networks? Or making sure that there is always a valid reason for their communication to be read, so we don't have such abuse made against honest people?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    > Letting actual criminals hide behind online chat networks? Yes. we should. See below for why. > Or making sure that there is always a valid reason for their communication to be read, so we don't have such abuse made against honest people? If there's a backdoor, it will get exploited to hurt "honest people".
    - ossworkerrights 7y ago
      So then the question is how do we make sure it can't be exploited? Or is the privacy of racist and yo mama jokes on the PSN network more important than catching criminals or terrorists?
      - mirimir 7y ago
        We can't. That's just how it is. So it's either privacy for everyone, or no privacy for anyone.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Solution to what? Crime has been falling for decades, and if law enforcement can't spy on communication quite as easily as it used to, the increase of other surveillance more than makes up for it. They are crying about "going dark", when 50 years ago, there were barely any surveillance cameras.
colejohnson66 7y ago
Ah yes. Because innocent people were never railroaded by prosecutors who just wanted a score. And those prosecutors never used falsified evidence or parallel construction. If you think it can’t happen to you, you’re sorely mistaken.
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I agree, it did happen, but the issue is then making sure rogue prosecutors are brought to justice, not making it easier for criminals to hide behind high tech and have their endeavours protected by "freedom of speech".

asaddhamani 7y ago

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-...

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I do care about the right to privacy, and the freedom of speech. But I also care about police being able to investigate these new ways of communication that criminals have at their disposal. If it were classic letters, phone calls, or a restaurant discussion these would have easily been intercepted by the police. The same needs to happen with online communication when there is a crime taking place. And online communication can only be "intercepted" by storing it somewhere and making it available when need be.
- asaddhamani 7y ago
  It's a slippery slope. Making a system insecure for one makes it insecure for all. A 'secure' data storage system with a backdoor is not a 'secure' system at all. And criminals can build their own encrypted apps. They don't need to use PSN to communicate. And if you look at some of the more oppressive regimes in the world, a lot of things that you and I would consider freedom of speech, they would consider a crime and lock you up for it. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    I agree with the statement that oppressive regimes around the world abuse this, but I would argue it's up to peoples of those countries to fight back. "They don't need to use PSN to communicate." but they do, and that's the issue. We know they use publicly accessible communication systems that law enforcement needs to have visibility over _when required and approved by a judge_. Therefore I think the issue is how do we make sure that law enforcement can access such data when they genuinely need to? What laws need to change in that regard, instead of what laws need to be made so we can obscure their visibility even more, and have the likes of ISIS or other organised cults / crime rings organise right in front of us. To be honest, although a very bad thing, i'd rather have one person falsely accused rather than 100 people dead because of a terrorist attack organised on the PSN network that we just wouldn't hand data over, so we can protect kids' privacy over making jokes about "yo mama".

deogeo 7y ago

Nothing to worry about if you're not a criminal, if you're not trying to unionize (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728) and if you're not trying to reveal government wrongdoing (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...).

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I get the sarcasm. But what is the solution really? Letting actual criminals hide behind online chat networks? Or making sure that there is always a valid reason for their communication to be read, so we don't have such abuse made against honest people?
- mirimir 7y ago
  > Letting actual criminals hide behind online chat networks? Yes. we should. See below for why. > Or making sure that there is always a valid reason for their communication to be read, so we don't have such abuse made against honest people? If there's a backdoor, it will get exploited to hurt "honest people".
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    So then the question is how do we make sure it can't be exploited? Or is the privacy of racist and yo mama jokes on the PSN network more important than catching criminals or terrorists?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      We can't. That's just how it is. So it's either privacy for everyone, or no privacy for anyone.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Solution to what? Crime has been falling for decades, and if law enforcement can't spy on communication quite as easily as it used to, the increase of other surveillance more than makes up for it. They are crying about "going dark", when 50 years ago, there were barely any surveillance cameras.

colejohnson66 7y ago

Ah yes. Because innocent people were never railroaded by prosecutors who just wanted a score. And those prosecutors never used falsified evidence or parallel construction. If you think it can’t happen to you, you’re sorely mistaken.

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I agree, it did happen, but the issue is then making sure rogue prosecutors are brought to justice, not making it easier for criminals to hide behind high tech and have their endeavours protected by "freedom of speech".