6 ms·

Ah yes, the good old, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” argument. The authoritarians favourite argument for a police state. I gu

Ah yes, the good old, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” argument. The authoritarians favourite argument for a police state. I guess you’re the type of person that would happily hand over all your personal files to the police on a regular basis as you have nothing to hide.

zo1 6y ago
Not OP. But I would give all my data to the police/government... in an encrypted manner that has guarantees in place that only valid criminal investigations can decrypt. Heck, we do it on some level all the time anyways when it comes to things such as filing taxes, getting married, running companies, enforcing contracts and various other day-to-day benign interactions. At this point, I'm more inclined to believe that "democratic" and "noble" governments and agents are the ones maliciously pushing for "privacy" because it suits their power-maintaining agenda. I'm struggling to find compelling and valid reasons why we can't pursue a general solution that involves us giving all this "private" data to a government entity for legitimate investigations, fraud prevention and crime-solving whilst keeping that data free from abuse.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  > I'm struggling to find compelling and valid reasons why we can't pursue a general solution that involves us giving all this "private" data to a government entity for legitimate investigations, fraud prevention and crime-solving whilst keeping that data free from abuse. Because that's not logically possible. It would be nice if it were, but just think about it: if you give data to the government, humans can look at it. Can we ensure that the humans who look at it are good humans? No. Is there some mathematical way of signing and encrypting such that only good humans can look at it? No. Okay, so it's logically impossible to keep bad people out mathematically, but maybe it's a practical problem and it doesn't matter in practice? Except no, there are tons of evil governments (CCP being the most obvious, but pick your poison), and even good governments are subject to the problem that people can bribed and secrets can be stolen if there is sufficient motivation. It's just not compatible with human nature to say "collect all this information on people, but only use it For Good Purposes."
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    But, the message you are replying to points out governments already have piles of information about you -- your taxes for example. They can easily add to this (in appropriate legal situations), by reaching out to banks in your country for example. While I understand the problem of evil governments, I broadly trust mine. I want them to have the power to investigate me, and my fellow citizens, for crimes. I don't want to love in a lawless country.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      Do you trust all future governments? Germany 1933, Donald Trump today, far right extremism in Europe are all examples of how trustworthy governments become evil governments. Democracy doesn’t offer a defence against “evil” governments. Only that you need a majority (and frequently not even a majority) to vote for one.
      - CJefferson 6y ago
        I'm not clear what you are arguing for? Do you not want a functioning, effective police force now, in case they become evil in the future (or already are evil, depending on your point of view)? If a government turns full evil, they don't need evidence against you, they can just lock you up without charge.
        avianlyric 6y ago
        But we already have functioning and effective police forces in the western world without having to give up our rights to privacy. Why would we want to give up more?
        CJefferson 6y ago
        Some people want to be more private than current (for example, this discussion of email keys). As more things move online, it is worth thinking where the balance should be (we probably agree on that), I think the balance should be less privacy (I'm sure you don't agree with that, a full discussion on that won't fit well in a ycombinator thread).
- int_19h 6y ago
  Because we don't trust the government agents to provide such guarantees, or to honor them if they do?
- avianlyric 6y ago
  How exactly would you do this? > in an encrypted manner that has guarantees in place that only valid criminal investigations can decrypt What constitutes a valid criminal investigation, who decides? Do you, does a prosecutor, a judge, the police? Is it a valid to decrypt your data just see if you were at a specific location at a specific time? What about so the police can check a theory? How about to see if you joined an unsanctioned protest, smoked a joint, speed while driving, downloaded a movie? Speeding and copyright theft are both criminal, are you saying that your happy to make it trivial to investigate you for these crimes an prosecute you for them? It used to be criminal to engage in homosexual behaviour, and in some parts of the world. Once upon a time that would be a valid criminal investigation in the US. For a short while it was looking like abortions might become criminal in the not too distant future. Privacy is a fundamental tool for allowing society to progress and change, and for avoiding totalitarianism.
  - zo1 6y ago
    >"What constitutes a valid criminal investigation, who decides? Do you, does a prosecutor, a judge, the police?" Some sort of formal process with reasonable oversight the necessity of multiple points of compromise and/or collusion in order for the data to be abused for non-governmental use. Bottom line, I can't say I've "solved" the problem and have the perfect answer to your question. But I'm sure we, collectively as a society filled with smart people that want to move us forward, could put down some (fundamental?) tools/rules/processes that would negate the potential for abuse up until a certain point. Maybe we can't do 100%, but we could do 95 or 98%? >"Is it a valid to decrypt your data just see if you were at a specific location at a specific time? What about so the police can check a theory? How about to see if you joined an unsanctioned protest, smoked a joint, speed while driving, downloaded a movie?" Yes, very much so Yes! Especially the location based stuff as it's perfect for investigations without revealing details. "List all people that were within 50m of this crime location during this timespan." <-- that is so unbelievably powerful as a crime-solving tool, that I am baffled that we're avoiding it out of privacy concerns. As for the speeding example: That's probably another example of us already giving the data (car's black-box) to government (and private insurance companies) in order to facilitate an investigation. But to your point about drug-use, speeding and copyright infringement. If we don't want something prosecuted then we shouldn't have it as a crime. But as it stands now, a bunch of what you mentioned is a crime. That represents an implicit agreement by all of us in society that says we deem those things punishable. We can't hide behind lack of capability to police said crimes, but still label them as such. That is ripe for offical-power abuse. For all we know, if we lived in a society where we had such strict enforcement of laws as I suggest, we'd potentially have greater churn and change in our laws to match the opinions of society as it changed and evolved. > "Privacy is a fundamental tool for allowing society to progress and change, and for avoiding totalitarianism." I disagree. I'm not seeing it. There is just way too much going wrong today in 1-st world countries whilst we have really good privacy for it to be the case. We're downright descending into totalitarianism and thought/opinion control territory, all whilst our "privacy" is mostly maintained and respected. Are you saying we need more of it? What would that look like to you?
tigger0jk 6y ago
To be clear, the reason I was presenting that is that the OP says the opposite, essentially "You have to fear being blackmailed, even if you have done nothing wrong". I'm suggesting that non-repudiation is actually a good defense against blackmail for people who have "done nothing wrong". thinkharderdev provides a more concrete example of one of the problems that arises in the police state, in that "wrong"-ness is not consistent, and you could be persecuted for things you say or who you are based on a backwards interpretation of what is "wrong". Personally I am fine with the idea (as represented in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115654) that email is providing something similar to a "paper trail", and when you send an email you can expect that people can prove you sent it, should they get their hands on the email. However, I totally understand the position that private secure messaging is important and that email should default to that. In the authoritarian argument, "you've got nothing to hide", is followed by "you are now forced to reveal all", in my execution it would be "you are accountable for all emails you send, forever, should they be released". I am ok with that specific lack of privacy in that context, but I can understand the position that non-repudiability should be opt-in, and privacy the default.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  I find this a little ironic > that email is providing something similar to a "paper trail" because paper doesn’t provide non-repudiation and never has done. The whole point of a “paper trail” is the “trail” bit, as it provides providence of a sequence of actions or communications that logically fit together. Hopefully providing evidence for your side of a dispute. There’s no need for email to be non-repudiatable to achieve this. In fact I serious doubt a court would care if an email is DKIM signed. Very rarely are disputes so simple and straightforward that proving a single email was sent is enough to produce an outcome. In short DKIM non-repudiation by default gives up everyones privacy, to protect a tiny group of individuals engaged in extra edge case disputes, where the entire outcome of the disputes hangs on the validity of a single email.

zo1 6y ago

Not OP. But I would give all my data to the police/government... in an encrypted manner that has guarantees in place that only valid criminal investigations can decrypt. Heck, we do it on some level all the time anyways when it comes to things such as filing taxes, getting married, running companies, enforcing contracts and various other day-to-day benign interactions. At this point, I'm more inclined to believe that "democratic" and "noble" governments and agents are the ones maliciously pushing for "privacy" because it suits their power-maintaining agenda. I'm struggling to find compelling and valid reasons why we can't pursue a general solution that involves us giving all this "private" data to a government entity for legitimate investigations, fraud prevention and crime-solving whilst keeping that data free from abuse.

earthboundkid 6y ago
> I'm struggling to find compelling and valid reasons why we can't pursue a general solution that involves us giving all this "private" data to a government entity for legitimate investigations, fraud prevention and crime-solving whilst keeping that data free from abuse. Because that's not logically possible. It would be nice if it were, but just think about it: if you give data to the government, humans can look at it. Can we ensure that the humans who look at it are good humans? No. Is there some mathematical way of signing and encrypting such that only good humans can look at it? No. Okay, so it's logically impossible to keep bad people out mathematically, but maybe it's a practical problem and it doesn't matter in practice? Except no, there are tons of evil governments (CCP being the most obvious, but pick your poison), and even good governments are subject to the problem that people can bribed and secrets can be stolen if there is sufficient motivation. It's just not compatible with human nature to say "collect all this information on people, but only use it For Good Purposes."
- CJefferson 6y ago
  But, the message you are replying to points out governments already have piles of information about you -- your taxes for example. They can easily add to this (in appropriate legal situations), by reaching out to banks in your country for example. While I understand the problem of evil governments, I broadly trust mine. I want them to have the power to investigate me, and my fellow citizens, for crimes. I don't want to love in a lawless country.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Do you trust all future governments? Germany 1933, Donald Trump today, far right extremism in Europe are all examples of how trustworthy governments become evil governments. Democracy doesn’t offer a defence against “evil” governments. Only that you need a majority (and frequently not even a majority) to vote for one.
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      I'm not clear what you are arguing for? Do you not want a functioning, effective police force now, in case they become evil in the future (or already are evil, depending on your point of view)? If a government turns full evil, they don't need evidence against you, they can just lock you up without charge.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        But we already have functioning and effective police forces in the western world without having to give up our rights to privacy. Why would we want to give up more?
        CJefferson 6y ago
        Some people want to be more private than current (for example, this discussion of email keys). As more things move online, it is worth thinking where the balance should be (we probably agree on that), I think the balance should be less privacy (I'm sure you don't agree with that, a full discussion on that won't fit well in a ycombinator thread).
int_19h 6y ago
Because we don't trust the government agents to provide such guarantees, or to honor them if they do?
avianlyric 6y ago
How exactly would you do this? > in an encrypted manner that has guarantees in place that only valid criminal investigations can decrypt What constitutes a valid criminal investigation, who decides? Do you, does a prosecutor, a judge, the police? Is it a valid to decrypt your data just see if you were at a specific location at a specific time? What about so the police can check a theory? How about to see if you joined an unsanctioned protest, smoked a joint, speed while driving, downloaded a movie? Speeding and copyright theft are both criminal, are you saying that your happy to make it trivial to investigate you for these crimes an prosecute you for them? It used to be criminal to engage in homosexual behaviour, and in some parts of the world. Once upon a time that would be a valid criminal investigation in the US. For a short while it was looking like abortions might become criminal in the not too distant future. Privacy is a fundamental tool for allowing society to progress and change, and for avoiding totalitarianism.
- zo1 6y ago
  >"What constitutes a valid criminal investigation, who decides? Do you, does a prosecutor, a judge, the police?" Some sort of formal process with reasonable oversight the necessity of multiple points of compromise and/or collusion in order for the data to be abused for non-governmental use. Bottom line, I can't say I've "solved" the problem and have the perfect answer to your question. But I'm sure we, collectively as a society filled with smart people that want to move us forward, could put down some (fundamental?) tools/rules/processes that would negate the potential for abuse up until a certain point. Maybe we can't do 100%, but we could do 95 or 98%? >"Is it a valid to decrypt your data just see if you were at a specific location at a specific time? What about so the police can check a theory? How about to see if you joined an unsanctioned protest, smoked a joint, speed while driving, downloaded a movie?" Yes, very much so Yes! Especially the location based stuff as it's perfect for investigations without revealing details. "List all people that were within 50m of this crime location during this timespan." <-- that is so unbelievably powerful as a crime-solving tool, that I am baffled that we're avoiding it out of privacy concerns. As for the speeding example: That's probably another example of us already giving the data (car's black-box) to government (and private insurance companies) in order to facilitate an investigation. But to your point about drug-use, speeding and copyright infringement. If we don't want something prosecuted then we shouldn't have it as a crime. But as it stands now, a bunch of what you mentioned is a crime. That represents an implicit agreement by all of us in society that says we deem those things punishable. We can't hide behind lack of capability to police said crimes, but still label them as such. That is ripe for offical-power abuse. For all we know, if we lived in a society where we had such strict enforcement of laws as I suggest, we'd potentially have greater churn and change in our laws to match the opinions of society as it changed and evolved. > "Privacy is a fundamental tool for allowing society to progress and change, and for avoiding totalitarianism." I disagree. I'm not seeing it. There is just way too much going wrong today in 1-st world countries whilst we have really good privacy for it to be the case. We're downright descending into totalitarianism and thought/opinion control territory, all whilst our "privacy" is mostly maintained and respected. Are you saying we need more of it? What would that look like to you?

tigger0jk 6y ago

To be clear, the reason I was presenting that is that the OP says the opposite, essentially "You have to fear being blackmailed, even if you have done nothing wrong". I'm suggesting that non-repudiation is actually a good defense against blackmail for people who have "done nothing wrong". thinkharderdev provides a more concrete example of one of the problems that arises in the police state, in that "wrong"-ness is not consistent, and you could be persecuted for things you say or who you are based on a backwards interpretation of what is "wrong". Personally I am fine with the idea (as represented in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115654) that email is providing something similar to a "paper trail", and when you send an email you can expect that people can prove you sent it, should they get their hands on the email. However, I totally understand the position that private secure messaging is important and that email should default to that. In the authoritarian argument, "you've got nothing to hide", is followed by "you are now forced to reveal all", in my execution it would be "you are accountable for all emails you send, forever, should they be released". I am ok with that specific lack of privacy in that context, but I can understand the position that non-repudiability should be opt-in, and privacy the default.

avianlyric 6y ago
I find this a little ironic > that email is providing something similar to a "paper trail" because paper doesn’t provide non-repudiation and never has done. The whole point of a “paper trail” is the “trail” bit, as it provides providence of a sequence of actions or communications that logically fit together. Hopefully providing evidence for your side of a dispute. There’s no need for email to be non-repudiatable to achieve this. In fact I serious doubt a court would care if an email is DKIM signed. Very rarely are disputes so simple and straightforward that proving a single email was sent is enough to produce an outcome. In short DKIM non-repudiation by default gives up everyones privacy, to protect a tiny group of individuals engaged in extra edge case disputes, where the entire outcome of the disputes hangs on the validity of a single email.