17 ms·

The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid, and I don't know if it is due to an extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for t

The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid, and I don't know if it is due to an extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for the power and leverage that mass surveillance grants a governing entity (I suppose it could be both?) Regardless, using the argument of child pornography and sex trafficking is an emotional play, and it is solely designed to resonate with those who also do not understand the technology. If this same argument took another form, e.g. if this were an attempt ban walls made out of non-transparent material because opaque walls allow child abuse to occur hidden from sight, the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person. What inevitably happens with laws that create such a drastic power imbalance between your average citizen and the governing entity is that those with power and status are exempt.

throwaway55554 7y ago
> The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid... Is it, though? I mean, most people think all sorts of bad stuff happens on the internet, so playing to those emotions would garner more support. > ... extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for the power and leverage... The latter. They believe that tech companies have too much power right now.
- cjfd 7y ago
  Whether or not the tech companies have too much power does not sound like the most relevant question here. The lack of power of citizens of communicate privately is the more worrisome thing. And maybe some random person is right to say that all of his communications are not something to hide. It becomes something else if lawyers and journalists can't protect their communications. If the state cannot suffer that it is rather likely that it is engaging in dirty business that it wants to hide, as pretty much all of them are.
- TrueDuality 7y ago
  The funny thing is that true end-to-end encryption actually weakens the power a lot of tech companies have. That content isn't available for them to scrape. By mandating that the encryption can't be end-to-end guarantees these large companies access to private data they wouldn't otherwise have. Data they can then use for their own gain. When people complain that they have that access, they'll now have the excuse the government made them do it.
  - throwaway55554 7y ago
    So that would beg the question; are tech companies helping write the EARN IT act?
bilekas 7y ago
> using the argument of child pornography and sex trafficking is an emotional play It is and it's used everytime something like this comes up actually. But if you take it for what it is; most of the lawmakers don't fully undersand what their deciding on, so they depend on lobbyists for their info and unfortunately, they're always just interested in making money, so the lawmakers get a skewed view and some nice talking points. I'm not sure if I feel bad for them or just be confident that the next generation of life long politicians might be people like us who are aware of this problem and enact laws to protect privacy. The old pendulum that swings example.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > just be confident that the next generation of life long politicians might be people like us who are aware of this problem and enact laws to protect privacy. Do you want a pay cut? I don't want a pay cut. Unless we take a pay cut and go become a elected, it won't be people like us who are the next generation of life long politicians.
  - bilekas 7y ago
    Personally, no, I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I don't have the patience to try and deal with the bureaucracy but I do believe that there are some people who go into politics to genuinely make a difference and improve the society. As cynical as we can be about politicians, for sure there are people out there who would just like to 'fix' things. - Usually the roadblock to that is the interest bodies with influence.. It's annoying at best, but I hold out hope..
    - inetknght 7y ago
      > I hold out hope You are a better person than I.
      - bilekas 7y ago
        I wouldn't say that, hope is free.. Maybe it's a dream like a unicorn. But hey, if we don't know what is better, we might never work towards it.
duxup 7y ago
Not even the governing entity... ALL the governing entities, or any entity with bad intentions, because whatever magical backdoor or whatever are available will surely leak and in that case everyone is at the mercy not just their own government (let's say they're responsible folks) but other government groups who do not care what happens to anyone outside their borders....
saber6 7y ago
> The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid, and I don't know if it is due to an extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for the power and leverage that mass surveillance grants a governing entity (I suppose it could be both?) The people we are talking about are not stupid. We both know which reality is true, as sad as the admission feels.
CJefferson 7y ago
Encryption isn't like transparent walls in my opinion. In the real world, the police can get into anywhere, and get basically any physical object, once they have a warrant. Most people seem to agree that is reasonable -- I don't think there is a big push for an easy way for people to hide physical objects from police.
- ptero 7y ago
  I do not see it that way. In years past if one did something he thought government might find offensive he could hide the evidence. Which was perfectly fine -- one would not be jailed for refusing to provide self incrimination. "Go search, but I will hide it; I never had it by the way".
- kelnos 7y ago
  Perhaps a better analogy: we haven't seen legislation that attempts to outlaw physical safes that are capable of destroying the contents in response to an attempt to tamper with or force them open, have we?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Such safes are very uncommon. If some major bank announced that it's going to install destroy-on-tamper on all its safety deposit boxes, I'd definitely expect some reactive legislation about it.
- GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
  Consider this: If encryption is suddenly turned off for all communications, and police have access to all of it via warrants, that's like getting a warrant for every home in the US. Obviously if the police had a perpetual warrant to your home, you wouldn't want that, why is it reasonable they have one to your data?
  - bjelkeman-again 7y ago
    And it has been proven many times that not only will the access be abused, the secret backdoor will not remain secret and now every unscrupulous person can potentially have the same access.
wju3h3uwh 7y ago
Why can't people who also understand technology be vulnerable to emotional pleas too? Basically all of my tech friends are passionately against guns despite never having been victims of guns, knowing someone who was a victim of guns, or guns being especially problematic by the numbers in the US. And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. Not that the situations are perfect parallels, but I think it's worth reflecting on since this ultimately seems like consternation born from hubris. Everyone is vulnerable to emotional appeals in the same way that everyone is vulnerable to appeals to logic and authority. Highlighting the rhetorical nature of a specific appeal without making a counter appeal doesn't do anything productive to shift the dialogue. It's the same reason that the 'nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' crowd haven't lost much ground in the mainstream despite years of the digital privacy movement trying different tactics. Most people in the mainstream, even if they accept the expanded definitions of privacy unique to the digital landscape, don't feel like they've suffered in a significant enough way to be worth resisting the emotional appeal of helping the 1% of victims who the current system fails.
- ccktlmazeltov 7y ago
  > And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. or because they are tools made to kill? Let's be honest this is not a good comparison (to stay polite). Not having guns at worst would force a group of people to find a new and less dangerous hobby, while not having encryption pretty much puts people's lives at risk in many countries and make having a democracy much more difficult.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Surely you see that this is the same kind of emotional appeal the original commenter is decrying. "Tools made to kill" and "less dangerous hobby" aren't dispassionate statements of fact.
    - post_below 7y ago
garmaine 7y ago
> If this same argument took another form, e.g. if this were an attempt ban walls made out of non-transparent material because opaque walls allow child abuse to occur hidden from sight, the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person. Someone should move to amend this act to mandate new construction be transparent.
m463 7y ago
> the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person. I keep on thinking the violations of privacy we have been enduring would spark some pushback but it has not. I know some very intelligent people who realize the implications, but they eventually just give in.
tomc1985 7y ago
With politics its ALWAYS an emotional play. That's the only way you're going to achieve any kind of support in a large portion of your constituency. Politicians are only going to try plays that they think will work, and logical arguments have to be so blindingly obvious that they are hardly logical at all -- because there will always be someone on the other side, with a playbook that knows how to shoot down anything.
BiteCode_dev 7y ago
It's not stupid, it's just not meant to be right. Politics is not about taking the right decision.
blargmaster33 7y ago
You only think it's stupid because you are ignorant of the nature of power.
tracker1 7y ago
Just sell the counter-argument as... Do you really want China/Russia to know the inner details of the airplane you're flying on? Or to be able to intercept communications with the military and congress? Which is frankly, much more honest than what the govt is selling reducing encryption as.

throwaway55554 7y ago

> The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid... Is it, though? I mean, most people think all sorts of bad stuff happens on the internet, so playing to those emotions would garner more support. > ... extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for the power and leverage... The latter. They believe that tech companies have too much power right now.

cjfd 7y ago
Whether or not the tech companies have too much power does not sound like the most relevant question here. The lack of power of citizens of communicate privately is the more worrisome thing. And maybe some random person is right to say that all of his communications are not something to hide. It becomes something else if lawyers and journalists can't protect their communications. If the state cannot suffer that it is rather likely that it is engaging in dirty business that it wants to hide, as pretty much all of them are.
TrueDuality 7y ago
The funny thing is that true end-to-end encryption actually weakens the power a lot of tech companies have. That content isn't available for them to scrape. By mandating that the encryption can't be end-to-end guarantees these large companies access to private data they wouldn't otherwise have. Data they can then use for their own gain. When people complain that they have that access, they'll now have the excuse the government made them do it.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  So that would beg the question; are tech companies helping write the EARN IT act?

bilekas 7y ago

> using the argument of child pornography and sex trafficking is an emotional play It is and it's used everytime something like this comes up actually. But if you take it for what it is; most of the lawmakers don't fully undersand what their deciding on, so they depend on lobbyists for their info and unfortunately, they're always just interested in making money, so the lawmakers get a skewed view and some nice talking points. I'm not sure if I feel bad for them or just be confident that the next generation of life long politicians might be people like us who are aware of this problem and enact laws to protect privacy. The old pendulum that swings example.

inetknght 7y ago
> just be confident that the next generation of life long politicians might be people like us who are aware of this problem and enact laws to protect privacy. Do you want a pay cut? I don't want a pay cut. Unless we take a pay cut and go become a elected, it won't be people like us who are the next generation of life long politicians.
- bilekas 7y ago
  Personally, no, I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I don't have the patience to try and deal with the bureaucracy but I do believe that there are some people who go into politics to genuinely make a difference and improve the society. As cynical as we can be about politicians, for sure there are people out there who would just like to 'fix' things. - Usually the roadblock to that is the interest bodies with influence.. It's annoying at best, but I hold out hope..
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > I hold out hope You are a better person than I.
    - bilekas 7y ago
      I wouldn't say that, hope is free.. Maybe it's a dream like a unicorn. But hey, if we don't know what is better, we might never work towards it.

duxup 7y ago

Not even the governing entity... ALL the governing entities, or any entity with bad intentions, because whatever magical backdoor or whatever are available will surely leak and in that case everyone is at the mercy not just their own government (let's say they're responsible folks) but other government groups who do not care what happens to anyone outside their borders....

saber6 7y ago

> The argument from those in power against encryption is mind-bogglingly stupid, and I don't know if it is due to an extreme ignorance, or because of a lust for the power and leverage that mass surveillance grants a governing entity (I suppose it could be both?) The people we are talking about are not stupid. We both know which reality is true, as sad as the admission feels.

CJefferson 7y ago

Encryption isn't like transparent walls in my opinion. In the real world, the police can get into anywhere, and get basically any physical object, once they have a warrant. Most people seem to agree that is reasonable -- I don't think there is a big push for an easy way for people to hide physical objects from police.

ptero 7y ago
I do not see it that way. In years past if one did something he thought government might find offensive he could hide the evidence. Which was perfectly fine -- one would not be jailed for refusing to provide self incrimination. "Go search, but I will hide it; I never had it by the way".
kelnos 7y ago
Perhaps a better analogy: we haven't seen legislation that attempts to outlaw physical safes that are capable of destroying the contents in response to an attempt to tamper with or force them open, have we?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Such safes are very uncommon. If some major bank announced that it's going to install destroy-on-tamper on all its safety deposit boxes, I'd definitely expect some reactive legislation about it.
GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
Consider this: If encryption is suddenly turned off for all communications, and police have access to all of it via warrants, that's like getting a warrant for every home in the US. Obviously if the police had a perpetual warrant to your home, you wouldn't want that, why is it reasonable they have one to your data?
- bjelkeman-again 7y ago
  And it has been proven many times that not only will the access be abused, the secret backdoor will not remain secret and now every unscrupulous person can potentially have the same access.

wju3h3uwh 7y ago

Why can't people who also understand technology be vulnerable to emotional pleas too? Basically all of my tech friends are passionately against guns despite never having been victims of guns, knowing someone who was a victim of guns, or guns being especially problematic by the numbers in the US. And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. Not that the situations are perfect parallels, but I think it's worth reflecting on since this ultimately seems like consternation born from hubris. Everyone is vulnerable to emotional appeals in the same way that everyone is vulnerable to appeals to logic and authority. Highlighting the rhetorical nature of a specific appeal without making a counter appeal doesn't do anything productive to shift the dialogue. It's the same reason that the 'nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' crowd haven't lost much ground in the mainstream despite years of the digital privacy movement trying different tactics. Most people in the mainstream, even if they accept the expanded definitions of privacy unique to the digital landscape, don't feel like they've suffered in a significant enough way to be worth resisting the emotional appeal of helping the 1% of victims who the current system fails.

ccktlmazeltov 7y ago
> And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. or because they are tools made to kill? Let's be honest this is not a good comparison (to stay polite). Not having guns at worst would force a group of people to find a new and less dangerous hobby, while not having encryption pretty much puts people's lives at risk in many countries and make having a democracy much more difficult.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Surely you see that this is the same kind of emotional appeal the original commenter is decrying. "Tools made to kill" and "less dangerous hobby" aren't dispassionate statements of fact.
  - post_below 7y ago

garmaine 7y ago

> If this same argument took another form, e.g. if this were an attempt ban walls made out of non-transparent material because opaque walls allow child abuse to occur hidden from sight, the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person. Someone should move to amend this act to mandate new construction be transparent.

m463 7y ago

> the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person. I keep on thinking the violations of privacy we have been enduring would spark some pushback but it has not. I know some very intelligent people who realize the implications, but they eventually just give in.

tomc1985 7y ago

With politics its ALWAYS an emotional play. That's the only way you're going to achieve any kind of support in a large portion of your constituency. Politicians are only going to try plays that they think will work, and logical arguments have to be so blindingly obvious that they are hardly logical at all -- because there will always be someone on the other side, with a playbook that knows how to shoot down anything.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago

It's not stupid, it's just not meant to be right. Politics is not about taking the right decision.

blargmaster33 7y ago

You only think it's stupid because you are ignorant of the nature of power.

tracker1 7y ago

Just sell the counter-argument as... Do you really want China/Russia to know the inner details of the airplane you're flying on? Or to be able to intercept communications with the military and congress? Which is frankly, much more honest than what the govt is selling reducing encryption as.