4 ms·

Why, in a time where Facebook is getting so much flack for privacy issues, would they want to build a backdoor into their platform for the UK Government? Why w

Why, in a time where Facebook is getting so much flack for privacy issues, would they want to build a backdoor into their platform for the UK Government? Why would their targets use Facebook for communication when there's many other existing platforms that provide this service. Privacy isn’t about having “nothing to hide” it's about freedom. As soon as your privacy is taken away, so is your freedom.

choward 7y ago
People don't seem to understand this. If you have nothing to hide would you mind if the government went through your house whenever they felt like it? It can be done in a way that doesn't inconvenience you like only when you're not home. Think of all the criminals we would catch. Is that the world you want to live in?
- koningrobot 7y ago
  It doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that.
- peteretep 7y ago
  I’m not sure this is a strong example, as the government can already go through your home whenever it wants, assuming it follows its own internal judicial checks and balances.
- div 7y ago
  I quite like the following analogy: Saying privacy is unnecessary because you have nothing to hide is like saying free speech is unnecessary because you have nothing to say.
  - Terretta 7y ago
    That only works if you think free speech is always good. Should we let people yell fire in a crowded theater? Is freedom from fear a fundamental right? How fundamental? Privacy yields to safety as free speech yields to safety... For some time now, we’re no longer designing protections from probable harm, but theater abating improbable fears.
    - htmk 7y ago
      Yes to all of those, freedom of speech above all.
    - mijkal 7y ago
      Free speech, in the US context, usually relates to the 1st Amendment, which precludes _govt_ censorship. You can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; if there is indeed a fire, it's fine — you're trying to help alert people to a dangerous situation. If there is not, and you cause a panic that results in injury to others, you could (should imo) be liable. The US Supreme Court has a litmus test around when the line is crossed. Logically, there must be a balance to ensure one's rights do not infringe on another's, and when there is conflict, how to resolve it. In the case of party A threatening violence on party B, the line is if there is an imminent threat ('fighting words' — inciting an immediate attack), A is in the wrong. Otherwise, no 1A issue. It's much more difficult to prove in the case of stochastic speech targeting a person or group (eg Said before an audience: '$target is bad. Would be a shame if something happened to $target.' Implying someone in earshot should take care of it.). I also want to highlight that free speech doesn't mean free of consequence — it only limits govt censorship. You can say what you want, but you may: incur financial loses (eg job or contract losses, boycotts), be ridiculed or shamed (ie become a pariah), be denied access to private properties / venues / events / forums (including web sites such as Twitter or Facebook), etc. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- dynamite-ready 7y ago
  You write that, as though you don't lock your cubicle door in private rest rooms.
  - welly 7y ago
    Perhaps you don't want someone accidentally walking in on you while you're having a shit.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      Why not? Do you have something to hide? Why have a door at all? It would stop the toilets being used for all kinds of illicit activities!
      - sidpatil 7y ago
        https://newschannel20.com/news/local/school-district-facing-controversy-after-removing-bathroom-doors-04-04-2019 https://newschannel20.com/news/local/school-district-facing-... https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/School-takes-away-bathroom-doors-sparks-controversy-480430583.html https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/School-takes-away-bathroo...
      - welly 7y ago
        I have a big and smelly poo to hide.
        dang 7y ago
        Please don't do this here.
      - htmk 7y ago
        You can't be seriously advocating for no doors at bathrooms.
- Digit-Al 7y ago
  I am an advocate of E2EE, but your argument is a little thin I feel. Let's turn it around. Imagine if law enforcement were completely unable to enter any home, even if they had a warrant to search it and reasonable suspicion that there was incriminating evidence inside. Anyone could do anything they wanted and as long as they kept the evidence inside their home there would be nothing law enforcement could do about it. The arguments in favour of there being some way for law enforcement to be able to search messages when they have a warrant to do so are certainly worth considering, and (for what it's worth) I feel the sentiments in the open letter strike a good balance; but, I also feel that what they want is, currently, impossible without compromising security for everyone.
- jdsully 7y ago
  The only thing that gives me pause is the government does have this right with regards to vessels on water. They've had it since the beginning of the USA as a country. This meant mail or anything else carried by these vessels was fair game. Encryption really is a new level of privacy for international communications.
EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
> Why would their targets use Facebook for communication when there's many other existing platforms that provide this service. Because the kids pedophiles target are also there. Just like the easily manipulated teenagers are there for extremist instigation. The letter does not concern the overall prevention of E2E encrypted communications (obviously unfeasible). It is about predatory and abusive crime settings that take place in online communities, of which Facebook is the largest one. I am all in for the right to privacy and freedom of personal information protection. But if we go down that road we just as well should discuss the basic limits of freedom in any (offline) democratic society (ie law). I would not want to answer such a question, because it is much more complex than the usual "protect our freedom" privacy advocacy makes it look like when you consider law enforcement as a fundamental role of governments.

choward 7y ago

People don't seem to understand this. If you have nothing to hide would you mind if the government went through your house whenever they felt like it? It can be done in a way that doesn't inconvenience you like only when you're not home. Think of all the criminals we would catch. Is that the world you want to live in?

koningrobot 7y ago
It doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that.
peteretep 7y ago
I’m not sure this is a strong example, as the government can already go through your home whenever it wants, assuming it follows its own internal judicial checks and balances.
div 7y ago
I quite like the following analogy: Saying privacy is unnecessary because you have nothing to hide is like saying free speech is unnecessary because you have nothing to say.
- Terretta 7y ago
  That only works if you think free speech is always good. Should we let people yell fire in a crowded theater? Is freedom from fear a fundamental right? How fundamental? Privacy yields to safety as free speech yields to safety... For some time now, we’re no longer designing protections from probable harm, but theater abating improbable fears.
  - htmk 7y ago
    Yes to all of those, freedom of speech above all.
  - mijkal 7y ago
    Free speech, in the US context, usually relates to the 1st Amendment, which precludes _govt_ censorship. You can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; if there is indeed a fire, it's fine — you're trying to help alert people to a dangerous situation. If there is not, and you cause a panic that results in injury to others, you could (should imo) be liable. The US Supreme Court has a litmus test around when the line is crossed. Logically, there must be a balance to ensure one's rights do not infringe on another's, and when there is conflict, how to resolve it. In the case of party A threatening violence on party B, the line is if there is an imminent threat ('fighting words' — inciting an immediate attack), A is in the wrong. Otherwise, no 1A issue. It's much more difficult to prove in the case of stochastic speech targeting a person or group (eg Said before an audience: '$target is bad. Would be a shame if something happened to $target.' Implying someone in earshot should take care of it.). I also want to highlight that free speech doesn't mean free of consequence — it only limits govt censorship. You can say what you want, but you may: incur financial loses (eg job or contract losses, boycotts), be ridiculed or shamed (ie become a pariah), be denied access to private properties / venues / events / forums (including web sites such as Twitter or Facebook), etc. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
dynamite-ready 7y ago
You write that, as though you don't lock your cubicle door in private rest rooms.
- welly 7y ago
  Perhaps you don't want someone accidentally walking in on you while you're having a shit.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Why not? Do you have something to hide? Why have a door at all? It would stop the toilets being used for all kinds of illicit activities!
    - sidpatil 7y ago
      https://newschannel20.com/news/local/school-district-facing-controversy-after-removing-bathroom-doors-04-04-2019 https://newschannel20.com/news/local/school-district-facing-... https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/School-takes-away-bathroom-doors-sparks-controversy-480430583.html https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/School-takes-away-bathroo...
    - welly 7y ago
      I have a big and smelly poo to hide.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't do this here.
    - htmk 7y ago
      You can't be seriously advocating for no doors at bathrooms.
Digit-Al 7y ago
I am an advocate of E2EE, but your argument is a little thin I feel. Let's turn it around. Imagine if law enforcement were completely unable to enter any home, even if they had a warrant to search it and reasonable suspicion that there was incriminating evidence inside. Anyone could do anything they wanted and as long as they kept the evidence inside their home there would be nothing law enforcement could do about it. The arguments in favour of there being some way for law enforcement to be able to search messages when they have a warrant to do so are certainly worth considering, and (for what it's worth) I feel the sentiments in the open letter strike a good balance; but, I also feel that what they want is, currently, impossible without compromising security for everyone.
jdsully 7y ago
The only thing that gives me pause is the government does have this right with regards to vessels on water. They've had it since the beginning of the USA as a country. This meant mail or anything else carried by these vessels was fair game. Encryption really is a new level of privacy for international communications.

EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago

> Why would their targets use Facebook for communication when there's many other existing platforms that provide this service. Because the kids pedophiles target are also there. Just like the easily manipulated teenagers are there for extremist instigation. The letter does not concern the overall prevention of E2E encrypted communications (obviously unfeasible). It is about predatory and abusive crime settings that take place in online communities, of which Facebook is the largest one. I am all in for the right to privacy and freedom of personal information protection. But if we go down that road we just as well should discuss the basic limits of freedom in any (offline) democratic society (ie law). I would not want to answer such a question, because it is much more complex than the usual "protect our freedom" privacy advocacy makes it look like when you consider law enforcement as a fundamental role of governments.