4 ms·

I mean, if you put it that way, assumption of innocence is also a scary concept; being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist

I mean, if you put it that way, assumption of innocence is also a scary concept; being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist go because you can't prove what they did is routinely touted as a genuinely terrifying prospect in plenty of TV shows. Privacy is a human right in Europe. I don't think it's a pipe dream to give encryption some good PR, especially when it powers the internet, keeps your payments safe, protects you from bad guys, etc. Pushing hard on the concept that Encryption == Privacy is very important. We should not call intentionally-backdoored crypto "Encryption", but something obviously bad such as "Open-Door Fake Encryption", or whatever actually speaks to people.

alkonaut 6y ago
We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Not sure how much more privacy people expect. If you explain to people how much privacy they give up just clicking a random facebook questionnaire - they nod and then still do. Privacy and integrity is important but it will never match e.g. "terrorism" or "safety" on the list of important issues I think.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  That's why you explain that it's about personal and organizational safety. The ability to lock doors. Make sure the terrorists can't find and research targets. Make sure child molesters can't get at your kids. Make sure bank robbers can't get at banks. Make sure organized crime can't spy on the police and thwart police actions. Etc etc. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569484
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not. Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication".
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    > Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not. I don't want to suggest everyone is happy with the status quo, but it's at least not one of the top items on everyone's agenda for change. > Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication". I agree with you - but I also doubt it will happen. Not because of some government conspiracy but because I don't for a second believe that people would choose "government can't tap a criminal's phone call or text messages even with a court order" as an acceptable drawback for the benefit "my own conversations are always secure". I really don't. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. So I simply don't think there is any democratic pressure for it.
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      One of many angles is "perhaps you trust your government (or perhaps not), but do you trust every government with a backdoor? Do you trust everyone who has gotten hold of it? Do you trust that it can't be broken or stolen or abused?" We need to very clearly and universally make the message clear: there's unbreakable encryption, and there's broken encryption, nothing in between. Anything that purports to be in between is either broken or soon will be.
      - alkonaut 6y ago
        I trust my current government, I don't trust most foreign ones and I don't even trust my own next government. I think we now have the two key pillars of the dilemma: we can never have back doors (broken encryption which is as bad as no encryption), and neither the public (I'm guessing) nor authorities will allow a situation where even a court order doesn't allow eavesdropping. And between these two there is no middle ground.
      - sjy 6y ago
        Where do the existing "readily available, off-the-shelf encryption solutions" mentioned in the link fall in this dichotomy? Are they unbreakable because no network administrator can read my WhatsApp messages? Or are they broken, because Apple can push out an OS update and steal messages without the user knowing?
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  I'm not happy with that at all. If anyone calls me on a regular phone call, I'm always aware of this.. It's that nasty feeling of being spied on that's really the main reason I hate this so much. The government shouldn't have any reason to spy on me but spying on everyone is simply becoming the norm because they can.
throw0101a 6y ago
> being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist go because you can't prove what they did "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." — https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil > as a genuinely terrifying prospect in plenty of TV shows. Probably for a reason: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda
- scrollaway 6y ago
  I don't know if you're trying to make this a "gotcha", but this is the point I was making.

alkonaut 6y ago

We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Not sure how much more privacy people expect. If you explain to people how much privacy they give up just clicking a random facebook questionnaire - they nod and then still do. Privacy and integrity is important but it will never match e.g. "terrorism" or "safety" on the list of important issues I think.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago
That's why you explain that it's about personal and organizational safety. The ability to lock doors. Make sure the terrorists can't find and research targets. Make sure child molesters can't get at your kids. Make sure bank robbers can't get at banks. Make sure organized crime can't spy on the police and thwart police actions. Etc etc. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569484
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not. Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication".
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not. I don't want to suggest everyone is happy with the status quo, but it's at least not one of the top items on everyone's agenda for change. > Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication". I agree with you - but I also doubt it will happen. Not because of some government conspiracy but because I don't for a second believe that people would choose "government can't tap a criminal's phone call or text messages even with a court order" as an acceptable drawback for the benefit "my own conversations are always secure". I really don't. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. So I simply don't think there is any democratic pressure for it.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    One of many angles is "perhaps you trust your government (or perhaps not), but do you trust every government with a backdoor? Do you trust everyone who has gotten hold of it? Do you trust that it can't be broken or stolen or abused?" We need to very clearly and universally make the message clear: there's unbreakable encryption, and there's broken encryption, nothing in between. Anything that purports to be in between is either broken or soon will be.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      I trust my current government, I don't trust most foreign ones and I don't even trust my own next government. I think we now have the two key pillars of the dilemma: we can never have back doors (broken encryption which is as bad as no encryption), and neither the public (I'm guessing) nor authorities will allow a situation where even a court order doesn't allow eavesdropping. And between these two there is no middle ground.
    - sjy 6y ago
      Where do the existing "readily available, off-the-shelf encryption solutions" mentioned in the link fall in this dichotomy? Are they unbreakable because no network administrator can read my WhatsApp messages? Or are they broken, because Apple can push out an OS update and steal messages without the user knowing?
GekkePrutser 6y ago
I'm not happy with that at all. If anyone calls me on a regular phone call, I'm always aware of this.. It's that nasty feeling of being spied on that's really the main reason I hate this so much. The government shouldn't have any reason to spy on me but spying on everyone is simply becoming the norm because they can.

throw0101a 6y ago

> being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist go because you can't prove what they did "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." — https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil > as a genuinely terrifying prospect in plenty of TV shows. Probably for a reason: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaganda

scrollaway 6y ago
I don't know if you're trying to make this a "gotcha", but this is the point I was making.