5 ms·

You might want to validate your emails more than a few months out. Regardless of if your emails are valid or not, blackmail is still a crime. Not being able to

You might want to validate your emails more than a few months out. Regardless of if your emails are valid or not, blackmail is still a crime. Not being able to have your emails validated doesn't protect you from blackmail. The power of blackmail is often in the social cost of the accusation itself. The thing that protects you from blackmail is not getting involved in things you can be blackmailed for. This is like saying don't lock your doors so that nobody can break and enter into your house.

vorpalhex 6y ago
> The thing that protects you from blackmail is not getting involved in things you can be blackmailed for. This is incorrect, because the things that someone can be blackmailed for is not the same as the set of immoral or unethical acts. You can be blackmailed for being gay, or for having a serious medical condition that's undisclosed. Neither of those situations is a "well just don't do that" kind of thing. The defense against blackmail is to make blackmail difficult (eg release DKIM keys), severely punish people who engage in blackmail, and guard your secrets effectively. > This is like saying don't lock your doors so that nobody can break and enter into your house. This is like saying the latch on your fence is a security mechanism. Nobody intended that fence latch to keep your safe or secure and hiding behind it won't make you safer. Rip away the false pretense.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Doesn't DKIM make it harder to blackmail or destroy someone with fake emails because they can show their lack of authenticity? Shouldn't we privilege protecting people from lies vs protecting people from the truth?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    No because it's not on us to make moral distinctions between someone who is gay and doesn't want to make that information public, and someone who isn't gay and is being falsly blackmailed. Publishing the DKIM keys makes both cases harder because you no longer have authenticity claims. Neither claim has authenticity value and instead is just a "their word versus yours" situation. Humans are terrible moral adjudicators, and acting off of universals leads to repugnant ends. The truth can absolutely do terrible damage and still be the truth, but being the truth doesn't remove value from privacy. Put another way - would it be moral to publish your full medical records in the public? After all, they are the truth...
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      When an angry mob goes after suspected homosexuals, do you think they stop to authenticate DKIM signatures of emails? I'll give you a hint: no. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anybody goes through the trouble of authenticating e-mails of a "normal person" who is persecuted of something other than crimes.
      - lxgr 6y ago
        Homosexuality is considered a crime in quite a few countries.
        busterarm 6y ago
        Well, then if you live in one of those countries or plan on traveling through them, you're probably at risk if you're an open homosexual. If you live in one of those countries and secretly a homosexual, do not send emails indicating that you're a homosexual. You wouldn't tape your key to your front door.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      It is on us to make moral choices. You are suggesting we do so by making email repudiatable in order to protect a hypothetical person from being outed via stolen email verified with dkim. So far as I can tell this has never happened in history and logically neither blackmail nor public harm via exposure of sexual orientation particularly requires dkim verification. It looks like you are asking us to give up DKIM verification which could and has aided us to verify politicians leaked emails in search of a purely hypothetical gain that may never materialize by suggesting that we both must and must not make moral determinations.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    > Shouldn't we privilege protecting people from lies vs protecting people from the truth? Indeed! I couldn't have put it better myself.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Nobody is telling you to not be gay. If you being gay is a secret, then don't send that secret over _plain fucking text email_. Do you send your social security number to people in emails? Email has never been privileged communication and the problem isn't one of validation but one of not understanding one's level of privacy and risk. It uses relays without end-to-end encryption and there's no guarantee that what you sent is not totally out in the open.
  - RyanCavanaugh 6y ago
    This is every bit as much about email you receive as email you send, and you are not in control of email you receive. If your doctor slips up and emails you about your AZT prescription, it doesn't matter how careful you were about not disclosing your HIV status over email you sent.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      yes, my point is that we should make sure that _no one_ is stupid enough to secrets in plain text. with criminal repercussions Or better: don't use email and don't give an email address out to people who hold your secrets.
  - lxgr 6y ago
    If a global infrastructure provider can, without downside, offer non-repudiability – why shouldn't they? Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone understands encryption. Not everyone makes rational choices all the time. Does that mean everybody should suffer the consequences of an arguably unintentional side effect of the technical implementation of DKIM?
    - busterarm 6y ago
      > Not everyone is law savvy. Not everyone understands legalese. Not everyone makes rational choices all the time. > Does that mean everybody should suffer the consequences of an arguably unintentional side effect of the technical implementation of law? Thankfully this is not law, but people should understand the things that can get them in serious trouble. A lot of legal concepts follow from basic principles and history. Privacy concepts are the same way. It's simply not sufficient that we don't educate everyone about these things anymore. Ignorance isn't going to protect anyone from the fallout of misuse of technology. The solution isn't to coddle people, it's to provide better technology that does the thing the way people intend to use it.
- ars 6y ago
  Blackmail existed long before DKIM was a thing. Being able to say "no I didn't say that" is far more powerful than the reverse because the reverse has existed for thousands of years. But being able to definitively prove that you did not say something is brand new and very powerful.
mthoms 6y ago
Sounds like the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument. Not very compelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
- busterarm 6y ago
  See response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25114692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25114692
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Okay, but what about a topic that is legal and acceptable in today's society but not in the society 20, 30 or 40 years down the line? What if being gay becomes socially unacceptable again? Or supporting the second amendment? Or [literally anything]? The problem is that what is socially and legally acceptable changes over time. Just 30 years ago, the standard for social acceptable commentary was wildly different in the areas of gender identity, sexuality, and race for instance.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Yes, you should absolutely think about everything that you commit to public record. Yes, you might be totally fine now. You might be hanging out and get photographed with this creepy billionaire named Jeffrey Epstein who is just another creepy billionaire at your creepy billionaire parties. Then 20 years from now we find out he's running pedophile island and people start looking into your associations. We are not teaching people to be cautious about their public data and in fact there's an entire industry out there encouraging everyone to detail their whole lives in public record. Get off of social media _today_. Yes, it's probably too late. The other option is to be such a big celebrity that your entire life is public and you have the defense of scrutiny. Side note: Somebody from my high school class is a famous criminal. I regularly receive requests for interviews on the basis of that association alone despite having nothing to do with the person for decades.

vorpalhex 6y ago

> The thing that protects you from blackmail is not getting involved in things you can be blackmailed for. This is incorrect, because the things that someone can be blackmailed for is not the same as the set of immoral or unethical acts. You can be blackmailed for being gay, or for having a serious medical condition that's undisclosed. Neither of those situations is a "well just don't do that" kind of thing. The defense against blackmail is to make blackmail difficult (eg release DKIM keys), severely punish people who engage in blackmail, and guard your secrets effectively. > This is like saying don't lock your doors so that nobody can break and enter into your house. This is like saying the latch on your fence is a security mechanism. Nobody intended that fence latch to keep your safe or secure and hiding behind it won't make you safer. Rip away the false pretense.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Doesn't DKIM make it harder to blackmail or destroy someone with fake emails because they can show their lack of authenticity? Shouldn't we privilege protecting people from lies vs protecting people from the truth?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  No because it's not on us to make moral distinctions between someone who is gay and doesn't want to make that information public, and someone who isn't gay and is being falsly blackmailed. Publishing the DKIM keys makes both cases harder because you no longer have authenticity claims. Neither claim has authenticity value and instead is just a "their word versus yours" situation. Humans are terrible moral adjudicators, and acting off of universals leads to repugnant ends. The truth can absolutely do terrible damage and still be the truth, but being the truth doesn't remove value from privacy. Put another way - would it be moral to publish your full medical records in the public? After all, they are the truth...
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    When an angry mob goes after suspected homosexuals, do you think they stop to authenticate DKIM signatures of emails? I'll give you a hint: no. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anybody goes through the trouble of authenticating e-mails of a "normal person" who is persecuted of something other than crimes.
    - lxgr 6y ago
      Homosexuality is considered a crime in quite a few countries.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Well, then if you live in one of those countries or plan on traveling through them, you're probably at risk if you're an open homosexual. If you live in one of those countries and secretly a homosexual, do not send emails indicating that you're a homosexual. You wouldn't tape your key to your front door.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    It is on us to make moral choices. You are suggesting we do so by making email repudiatable in order to protect a hypothetical person from being outed via stolen email verified with dkim. So far as I can tell this has never happened in history and logically neither blackmail nor public harm via exposure of sexual orientation particularly requires dkim verification. It looks like you are asking us to give up DKIM verification which could and has aided us to verify politicians leaked emails in search of a purely hypothetical gain that may never materialize by suggesting that we both must and must not make moral determinations.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > Shouldn't we privilege protecting people from lies vs protecting people from the truth? Indeed! I couldn't have put it better myself.
busterarm 6y ago
Nobody is telling you to not be gay. If you being gay is a secret, then don't send that secret over _plain fucking text email_. Do you send your social security number to people in emails? Email has never been privileged communication and the problem isn't one of validation but one of not understanding one's level of privacy and risk. It uses relays without end-to-end encryption and there's no guarantee that what you sent is not totally out in the open.
- RyanCavanaugh 6y ago
  This is every bit as much about email you receive as email you send, and you are not in control of email you receive. If your doctor slips up and emails you about your AZT prescription, it doesn't matter how careful you were about not disclosing your HIV status over email you sent.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    yes, my point is that we should make sure that _no one_ is stupid enough to secrets in plain text. with criminal repercussions Or better: don't use email and don't give an email address out to people who hold your secrets.
- lxgr 6y ago
  If a global infrastructure provider can, without downside, offer non-repudiability – why shouldn't they? Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone understands encryption. Not everyone makes rational choices all the time. Does that mean everybody should suffer the consequences of an arguably unintentional side effect of the technical implementation of DKIM?
  - busterarm 6y ago
    > Not everyone is law savvy. Not everyone understands legalese. Not everyone makes rational choices all the time. > Does that mean everybody should suffer the consequences of an arguably unintentional side effect of the technical implementation of law? Thankfully this is not law, but people should understand the things that can get them in serious trouble. A lot of legal concepts follow from basic principles and history. Privacy concepts are the same way. It's simply not sufficient that we don't educate everyone about these things anymore. Ignorance isn't going to protect anyone from the fallout of misuse of technology. The solution isn't to coddle people, it's to provide better technology that does the thing the way people intend to use it.
ars 6y ago
Blackmail existed long before DKIM was a thing. Being able to say "no I didn't say that" is far more powerful than the reverse because the reverse has existed for thousands of years. But being able to definitively prove that you did not say something is brand new and very powerful.

mthoms 6y ago

Sounds like the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument. Not very compelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

busterarm 6y ago
See response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25114692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25114692
- mthoms 6y ago
  Okay, but what about a topic that is legal and acceptable in today's society but not in the society 20, 30 or 40 years down the line? What if being gay becomes socially unacceptable again? Or supporting the second amendment? Or [literally anything]? The problem is that what is socially and legally acceptable changes over time. Just 30 years ago, the standard for social acceptable commentary was wildly different in the areas of gender identity, sexuality, and race for instance.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Yes, you should absolutely think about everything that you commit to public record. Yes, you might be totally fine now. You might be hanging out and get photographed with this creepy billionaire named Jeffrey Epstein who is just another creepy billionaire at your creepy billionaire parties. Then 20 years from now we find out he's running pedophile island and people start looking into your associations. We are not teaching people to be cautious about their public data and in fact there's an entire industry out there encouraging everyone to detail their whole lives in public record. Get off of social media _today_. Yes, it's probably too late. The other option is to be such a big celebrity that your entire life is public and you have the defense of scrutiny. Side note: Somebody from my high school class is a famous criminal. I regularly receive requests for interviews on the basis of that association alone despite having nothing to do with the person for decades.