4 ms·

It doesn't at all. You're misunderstanding. Or, are you using the word "literally" in the modern sense of "not literally"?

mthoms 6y ago
Are you just nitpicking my choice of words or are you going to explain how auto-disappearing messages aren't potentially destroying evidence in the exact same way you've described? As for encrypted messaging, yes it is not the same as "literally" destroying evidence. But it is hiding evidence (based on your logic). The end result is the same in the context of the claims you previously made. That is: justice is potentially being subverted.
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  No one is auto-disappearing messages. You are just not understanding. Evidence that used to exist no longer exists as hard evidence. It isn't "hidden"... everything is still there. With secure DKIM justice can be served. With public after the fact DKIM, a shady lawyer claims the message could have been forged. Would-be hard evidence no longer exists as it can be painted as possibly forged. Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. Are you just not learning what words mean?
  - mthoms 6y ago
    You said - >By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed. >Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. As the other commenter stated, nothing was destroyed. Nothing. The plausibility of a certain piece of evidence was called into question, but that's not the same as destroying evidence. At all. It just isn't. You're wrong. For there to be a crime of "destroying evidence" there needs to be a criminal. If the keys are published, who is guilty of destroying evidence? Google? The email user? Please tell me who should be charged? >No one is auto-disappearing messages. End to end encrypted communications platforms Signal[0], WhatsApp[1] and Telegram[2] all offer disappearing messages. These end-to-end encrypted platforms are the de-facto replacement for insecure email. So again, I will ask. How is publishing DKIM keys "destroying evidence" but this isn't? >Are you just not learning what words mean? Take a hint from the votes. It's you who is soundly losing the argument. ---- If you can't articulate (1) who is guilty of "destroying evidence" and (2) why that destruction of evidence is any different from disappearing messages then you have lost the argument. Answer those two questions or concede that "destruction of evidence" has nothing to do with this and you've completely wasted your time (and looked like a total jerk while doing so). ----- [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Set-and-manage-disappearing-messages https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se... [1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-messages/?lang=fb https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-me... [2] https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messages/ https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messag...
    - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
      A victim used to be able to prove they didn't send a message. A leaker used to be able to prove someone did send a message. Those evidentiary options no longer exist. They were destroyed when the DKIM keys were made public. You're not very bright. Concede that.
      - mthoms 6y ago
        I'll ask again. WHO is guilty of "destroying evidence" in that case? Unless you can articulate that, you have no argument whatsoever that a criminal act has occurred. Period. End of discussion. >You're not very bright. Concede that. At least I understand that for a crime to be committed there has to be an entity (organization or person) who committed it. That only requires a grade school level of legal understanding. But given your insults, I'm beginning to understand that maybe that's just about the upper limit of your intellect.
        hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        THE PEOPLE WHO RELEASED THE DKIM KEYS WOULD BE GUILTY, YOU COMPLETE DOLT. I didn't claim a crime was committed... you did, you complete dolt. Evidence doesn't imply a crime... you complete dolt. If someone peed in a cup to get tested for evidence of something, and someone else peed in the same cup... that evidence was destroyed. It can no longer be tested to form any conclusions. The potential for evidence was destroyed. no crime was committed. You might be the least bright person on earth. You complete dolt.
        dang 6y ago
        Yikes! Posting like this (and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743) will get you banned on HN. We're trying for the other end of the swimming pool here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118713 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067189 also break the site guidelines quite badly. Would you mind taking a look at this explanation I posted a couple days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 It is my attempt to explain why we don't want users to flame each other here, even when the other person is ignorant or wrong. The reason may be different than you think, in which case perhaps it will have some persuasive power for you. I hope so anyhow.

mthoms 6y ago

Are you just nitpicking my choice of words or are you going to explain how auto-disappearing messages aren't potentially destroying evidence in the exact same way you've described? As for encrypted messaging, yes it is not the same as "literally" destroying evidence. But it is hiding evidence (based on your logic). The end result is the same in the context of the claims you previously made. That is: justice is potentially being subverted.

hashtagmarkup 6y ago
No one is auto-disappearing messages. You are just not understanding. Evidence that used to exist no longer exists as hard evidence. It isn't "hidden"... everything is still there. With secure DKIM justice can be served. With public after the fact DKIM, a shady lawyer claims the message could have been forged. Would-be hard evidence no longer exists as it can be painted as possibly forged. Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. Are you just not learning what words mean?
- mthoms 6y ago
  You said - >By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed. >Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. As the other commenter stated, nothing was destroyed. Nothing. The plausibility of a certain piece of evidence was called into question, but that's not the same as destroying evidence. At all. It just isn't. You're wrong. For there to be a crime of "destroying evidence" there needs to be a criminal. If the keys are published, who is guilty of destroying evidence? Google? The email user? Please tell me who should be charged? >No one is auto-disappearing messages. End to end encrypted communications platforms Signal[0], WhatsApp[1] and Telegram[2] all offer disappearing messages. These end-to-end encrypted platforms are the de-facto replacement for insecure email. So again, I will ask. How is publishing DKIM keys "destroying evidence" but this isn't? >Are you just not learning what words mean? Take a hint from the votes. It's you who is soundly losing the argument. ---- If you can't articulate (1) who is guilty of "destroying evidence" and (2) why that destruction of evidence is any different from disappearing messages then you have lost the argument. Answer those two questions or concede that "destruction of evidence" has nothing to do with this and you've completely wasted your time (and looked like a total jerk while doing so). ----- [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Set-and-manage-disappearing-messages https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se... [1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-messages/?lang=fb https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-me... [2] https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messages/ https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messag...
  - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
    A victim used to be able to prove they didn't send a message. A leaker used to be able to prove someone did send a message. Those evidentiary options no longer exist. They were destroyed when the DKIM keys were made public. You're not very bright. Concede that.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      I'll ask again. WHO is guilty of "destroying evidence" in that case? Unless you can articulate that, you have no argument whatsoever that a criminal act has occurred. Period. End of discussion. >You're not very bright. Concede that. At least I understand that for a crime to be committed there has to be an entity (organization or person) who committed it. That only requires a grade school level of legal understanding. But given your insults, I'm beginning to understand that maybe that's just about the upper limit of your intellect.
      - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        THE PEOPLE WHO RELEASED THE DKIM KEYS WOULD BE GUILTY, YOU COMPLETE DOLT. I didn't claim a crime was committed... you did, you complete dolt. Evidence doesn't imply a crime... you complete dolt. If someone peed in a cup to get tested for evidence of something, and someone else peed in the same cup... that evidence was destroyed. It can no longer be tested to form any conclusions. The potential for evidence was destroyed. no crime was committed. You might be the least bright person on earth. You complete dolt.
        dang 6y ago
        Yikes! Posting like this (and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743) will get you banned on HN. We're trying for the other end of the swimming pool here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118713 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067189 also break the site guidelines quite badly. Would you mind taking a look at this explanation I posted a couple days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 It is my attempt to explain why we don't want users to flame each other here, even when the other person is ignorant or wrong. The reason may be different than you think, in which case perhaps it will have some persuasive power for you. I hope so anyhow.