15 ms·

Why is that alarming? The FBI and CIA requests for backdoors are alarming. Unless you're positing that these apps may have secretly complied with CIA and FBI re

Why is that alarming? The FBI and CIA requests for backdoors are alarming. Unless you're positing that these apps may have secretly complied with CIA and FBI requests? If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this.

danso 7y ago
I think nimbius was being sarcastic?
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  Pointing out a contradiction of policy and interest between civilian and military who each have independent concerns and capability doesn't necessary imply sarcasm. I took nimbius to mean that it will be interesting (as in get your popcorn) to see who's influence in the halls of power win out when such a contradiction exists.
  - Shivetya 7y ago
    I see little conflict, there is little reason the military would observe restrictions in the battlefield. now they could limits its use only while deployed or simply run it under an exception only policy, as in you get to use it for this period of time and not otherwise. there has always been separate rules applied to the people and government, the issue comes down to the simple matter elected officials should always be considered public while in office.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
9dev 7y ago
My interpretation is that he meant it's alarming to see the government suddenly openly suggesting an e2e messenger because it might hint to the agencies having discovered a hole in the Signal protocol. I highly doubt that personally, but that's what I read from nimbius comment.
- azinman2 7y ago
  So then why would they want the military to use it for internal discussion? If the govt is aware of a hole, then other nations might be aware of the same or a different issue.
  - peteradio 7y ago
    Because its only crackable by the 1kqb quantum computer located in Mt rushmore under Lincolns invisible top hat.
    - retbull 7y ago
      I need me some of this invisible top hat quantum computer.
  - stevehawk 7y ago
    they aren't using it for classified conversations so it doesn't really matter
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      It does matter. Soldiers talk about sensitive stuff all the time. You don’t want schedules, personnel, whatever, leaking through inane conversations to people we’re at war with.
    - erikbye 7y ago
      Unfortunately, classified comms of various classification levels spill over into publicly available channels all the time, both accidental and out of laziness, but also sometimes an immediate necessity.
EthanHeilman 7y ago
>If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this. I largely agree with you but a more cynical take would be that it allows the following argument to be advanced: "If the 82nd Airborne uses it, then it is a weapon of war. Why should civilians have access to the same communication equipment as a soldier needs in a time of war." That is, they associate the technology with combat and the military. Then, they use that association as a way to argue the technology is only inherently useful for those planning to engage in combat. It also allows governments to advance the argument that if it useful for our soldiers then it should be denied to enemy soldiers and thus it should be tightly controlled (see night vision googles[0] or cryptography as a weapon[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- nitemice 7y ago
  If they make that argument, it shouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the 2nd amendment should apply to this technology then.
  - EthanHeilman 7y ago
    Well they made that argument about cryptography being a munition and I don't see anyone advancing a 2nd Amendment challenge against those laws.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    There's certainly a case here. If Barr goes forward with his nutty anti-encryption push, I hope the opposition uses this argument. Google lists definition #1 for "arms" as "weapons", and definition #2 of "weapons" as "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." I doubt any would argue that un-breakable (at least, theoretically) comms would provide no tactical advantage. If anyone would, I'd refer him to the second world war as a prominent example. This argument could help built a bi-partisan pro-cryptography group by pulling in support from the 2A crowd. I support cryptography remaining fully legal (even if classified as a munition or armament) for the same reason I support the 2A, practical security considerations aside.
corndoge 7y ago
It is sarcasm

danso 7y ago

I think nimbius was being sarcastic?

Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
Pointing out a contradiction of policy and interest between civilian and military who each have independent concerns and capability doesn't necessary imply sarcasm. I took nimbius to mean that it will be interesting (as in get your popcorn) to see who's influence in the halls of power win out when such a contradiction exists.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  I see little conflict, there is little reason the military would observe restrictions in the battlefield. now they could limits its use only while deployed or simply run it under an exception only policy, as in you get to use it for this period of time and not otherwise. there has always been separate rules applied to the people and government, the issue comes down to the simple matter elected officials should always be considered public while in office.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

9dev 7y ago

My interpretation is that he meant it's alarming to see the government suddenly openly suggesting an e2e messenger because it might hint to the agencies having discovered a hole in the Signal protocol. I highly doubt that personally, but that's what I read from nimbius comment.

azinman2 7y ago
So then why would they want the military to use it for internal discussion? If the govt is aware of a hole, then other nations might be aware of the same or a different issue.
- peteradio 7y ago
  Because its only crackable by the 1kqb quantum computer located in Mt rushmore under Lincolns invisible top hat.
  - retbull 7y ago
    I need me some of this invisible top hat quantum computer.
- stevehawk 7y ago
  they aren't using it for classified conversations so it doesn't really matter
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    It does matter. Soldiers talk about sensitive stuff all the time. You don’t want schedules, personnel, whatever, leaking through inane conversations to people we’re at war with.
  - erikbye 7y ago
    Unfortunately, classified comms of various classification levels spill over into publicly available channels all the time, both accidental and out of laziness, but also sometimes an immediate necessity.

EthanHeilman 7y ago

>If anything, this is a really good thing, as the utility of publicly available comms are embraced by government entities, it should somewhat guarantee that us consumers will also have access to this. I largely agree with you but a more cynical take would be that it allows the following argument to be advanced: "If the 82nd Airborne uses it, then it is a weapon of war. Why should civilians have access to the same communication equipment as a soldier needs in a time of war." That is, they associate the technology with combat and the military. Then, they use that association as a way to argue the technology is only inherently useful for those planning to engage in combat. It also allows governments to advance the argument that if it useful for our soldiers then it should be denied to enemy soldiers and thus it should be tightly controlled (see night vision googles[0] or cryptography as a weapon[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device#Legality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

nitemice 7y ago
If they make that argument, it shouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the 2nd amendment should apply to this technology then.
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  Well they made that argument about cryptography being a munition and I don't see anyone advancing a 2nd Amendment challenge against those laws.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  There's certainly a case here. If Barr goes forward with his nutty anti-encryption push, I hope the opposition uses this argument. Google lists definition #1 for "arms" as "weapons", and definition #2 of "weapons" as "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." I doubt any would argue that un-breakable (at least, theoretically) comms would provide no tactical advantage. If anyone would, I'd refer him to the second world war as a prominent example. This argument could help built a bi-partisan pro-cryptography group by pulling in support from the 2A crowd. I support cryptography remaining fully legal (even if classified as a munition or armament) for the same reason I support the 2A, practical security considerations aside.

corndoge 7y ago

It is sarcasm