7 ms·

I was talking to a layperson about encryption and privacy and they were very much against both interestingly. They compared encryption to wearing a mask in publ

I was talking to a layperson about encryption and privacy and they were very much against both interestingly. They compared encryption to wearing a mask in public and said if people don't want to be noticed (w.r.t privacy and encryption) they shouldn't be "participating" (it was unclear what they meant by this). Just goes to show you how the average person thinks about these things. I have to admit I wouldn't like it if people wore masks in public in a way where I couldn't recall their face, but I don't think that's necessarily the same as encryption, but I guess I see the comparison.

74ls00 7y ago
Encryption isn’t like using a mask - we can still see who is communicating with who, we just can’t see what they’re saying. Banning encryption is like banning envelopes.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Ah, but the government already has a backdoor to envelopes, because they can get a warrant to open the envelopes. This analogy only strengthens their position.
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    Not really. Because strong encryption is like having everything in envelopes only you can open, and weak encryption is like everything passing without an envelope, because you don't know who has compromised the keys (and just like it traveling without an envelope, you have no idea who is seeing and meddling with it). There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". If we had the capability for that, we wouldn't be having the argument; the problem is people think this exists and it's technical company intransigence that is preventing it from being used.
    - knodi123 7y ago
      > There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". Okay, but now the case you're trying to explain is "there are deep technological challenges and a wealth of historical precedent make me skeptical that we can correctly design or implement a solution that allows only the government or the intended recipient to decrypt the message, instead of only the intended recipient". To people who think "technology is magic". And on the other side of the PR battle, the government is saying "Nah, we got this. And if you try and stop us, we're powerless against pedophiles and terrorists." Adding enough nuance to make your position technically accurate, also makes it abstract enough to be politically useless.
alistairSH 7y ago
Ask them if they'd be ok with the mailman reading all their ingoing and outgoing mail. If they say "Yes", at least they're being consistent.
- bhelkey 7y ago
  I think that you might be disappointed with the response. Postcards are a thing for example.
  - wrboyce 7y ago
    I am free to put the postcode in an envelope if I feel the message is private or confidential; terrible example.
- function_seven 7y ago
  Dangerous analogy to offer in an argument. The easy reply: "The Government can get a warrant to read my mail today. All I'm asking is for the same capability online, so they can get warrants to read pedophile and terrorist messages"
  - HuangYuSan 7y ago
    And isn't that a valid point to make?
    - function_seven 7y ago
      Yeah. But I disagree with the larger position it argues for. Like all "real world" analogies applied to digital concepts, there's a sort of impedance mismatch. In the real world, resources are naturally constrained. It's usually impossible to read everyone's mail in real time and retroactively pull up the contents of a letter sent 3 years ago. This limitation vanishes with online communications. Encrypted messages can be stored indefinitely and later decrypted. The super safe backdoor we build today could very easily be used by a tyrannical regime a decade from now to get dirt on everyone. We can dream up all sorts of technical solutions that allow for a backdoor, but make it really hard to abuse, but at the bottom, those solutions rely on the government obeying their own law.
triceratops 7y ago
Ask them if they're OK with being told to put TSA locks on their house and car, to prevent crime. Anyone can buy a key online but at least we're all safer. /s
sixothree 7y ago
What is strange it the same people (IME) believe the 2nd Amendment is required to overthrow the government. It's amazing how subservient they can be when required.

74ls00 7y ago

Encryption isn’t like using a mask - we can still see who is communicating with who, we just can’t see what they’re saying. Banning encryption is like banning envelopes.

jedberg 7y ago
Ah, but the government already has a backdoor to envelopes, because they can get a warrant to open the envelopes. This analogy only strengthens their position.
- lostcolony 7y ago
  Not really. Because strong encryption is like having everything in envelopes only you can open, and weak encryption is like everything passing without an envelope, because you don't know who has compromised the keys (and just like it traveling without an envelope, you have no idea who is seeing and meddling with it). There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". If we had the capability for that, we wouldn't be having the argument; the problem is people think this exists and it's technical company intransigence that is preventing it from being used.
  - knodi123 7y ago
    > There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". Okay, but now the case you're trying to explain is "there are deep technological challenges and a wealth of historical precedent make me skeptical that we can correctly design or implement a solution that allows only the government or the intended recipient to decrypt the message, instead of only the intended recipient". To people who think "technology is magic". And on the other side of the PR battle, the government is saying "Nah, we got this. And if you try and stop us, we're powerless against pedophiles and terrorists." Adding enough nuance to make your position technically accurate, also makes it abstract enough to be politically useless.

alistairSH 7y ago

Ask them if they'd be ok with the mailman reading all their ingoing and outgoing mail. If they say "Yes", at least they're being consistent.

bhelkey 7y ago
I think that you might be disappointed with the response. Postcards are a thing for example.
- wrboyce 7y ago
  I am free to put the postcode in an envelope if I feel the message is private or confidential; terrible example.
function_seven 7y ago
Dangerous analogy to offer in an argument. The easy reply: "The Government can get a warrant to read my mail today. All I'm asking is for the same capability online, so they can get warrants to read pedophile and terrorist messages"
- HuangYuSan 7y ago
  And isn't that a valid point to make?
  - function_seven 7y ago
    Yeah. But I disagree with the larger position it argues for. Like all "real world" analogies applied to digital concepts, there's a sort of impedance mismatch. In the real world, resources are naturally constrained. It's usually impossible to read everyone's mail in real time and retroactively pull up the contents of a letter sent 3 years ago. This limitation vanishes with online communications. Encrypted messages can be stored indefinitely and later decrypted. The super safe backdoor we build today could very easily be used by a tyrannical regime a decade from now to get dirt on everyone. We can dream up all sorts of technical solutions that allow for a backdoor, but make it really hard to abuse, but at the bottom, those solutions rely on the government obeying their own law.

triceratops 7y ago

Ask them if they're OK with being told to put TSA locks on their house and car, to prevent crime. Anyone can buy a key online but at least we're all safer. /s

sixothree 7y ago

What is strange it the same people (IME) believe the 2nd Amendment is required to overthrow the government. It's amazing how subservient they can be when required.