4 ms·

Why is this argument not equivalent to the much-derided “nothing to hide” or “ban encryption by law” arguments? The way to have transparency into politician’s

Why is this argument not equivalent to the much-derided “nothing to hide” or “ban encryption by law” arguments? The way to have transparency into politician’s communications is to require them by law to be made public, and to use law enforcement to make sure that this actually happens. It seems that relying on information going over email (as opposed to eg signal), and getting hacked (perhaps you want it all hacked, perhaps you are more happy while it is the side you don’t like getting hacked, either way I think one must acknowledge that by focusing on what is hacked, one is granting those hackers great control of the narrative) is not really very useful.

zaphirplane 6y ago
I understand the sentiment For local politics this would expose the haggling/threats/backdowns not good for image making very hard to make deals For international, how do you expect this to work when a politician is getting briefing Or guidances or heads up about dealing with an dictatorship or a unfriendly global power or an foreign company ? Perhaps have a classification system ? Then everything will be secret classification
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  To be clear, I’m not particularly advocating for my parent comment’s view that these communications should be transparent. I’m advocating for any such transparency being fair and deliberate rather than due to hacks and a protocol quirk.
eloisius 6y ago
That’s a false equivocation. Private citizens having “nothing to hide” in their personal lives is disimilar to public officials having nothing to hide in relation to their official duties. Blackmail related to embarrassing sexual proclivities or anything like that is unfortunate, but kindly asking politicians to be transparent isn’t a realistic answer. Of course they will use official channels and be transparent about everything they _should_ be doing, but it’s exactly the things they want hidden that will go over alternate channels. What I think is most shocking in this age of political hacks and leaks is the fact that people are outraged by it when it’s their side. Sure, the timing can be unfortunate when it harms their chances of re-election, but I’m surprised that I hear more about that, and calling it election interference, than I do about the actual contents of the leaks. Don’t like it when your side’s dirty laundry hurts their campaign? Solution: nominate candidates with less dirty laundry.
- couchand 6y ago
  So your argument is that private citizens' desire for privacy is subordinate to your desire to be able to blackmail "public officials"?
  - eloisius 6y ago
    No. Private citizens are entitled to privacy and their rights to such should be guarded by both law and responsible security practices at the companies they entrust with their information. Private citizens shouldn’t be shielded from privacy violation by hiding behind the plausible deniability of no DKIM verification. The communications of public officials should be subject to traceability and authentication as having actually come from them, even if they have gone rogue and used non-government-approved communication channels. If corruption is suspected because communications are discovered on the receiving end, say at a company that gets audited or something, it should be simple for investigators to verify the authenticity of those emails. Establishing ownership of the sending email address is another issue, but I imagine that’s possible via regular investigative routes. This has nothing to do with “blackmailing public officials” and for you to imply that I have such a desire is both uncivil of you to say here and says a lot about your world view. Blackmail is when you use evidence of illegal activity in order to coerce someone to do something against their will. Transparency and audit ability of our public servants is not blackmail.
    - couchand 6y ago
      Yes, there it is a valid objective in ensuring that elected officials' conduct is above board. However, abusing a spam-mitigation system for this purpose, drawing in every private individual with the dragnet, is the wrong way to go about it. One key flaw in your argument is that you seek a system that works, "even if they have gone rogue and used non-government-approved communication channels", which, it should be plain to see, absolutely does not apply to DKIM. I perhaps read a bit too much into your statement, "Blackmail related to embarrassing sexual proclivities or anything like that is unfortunate, but kindly asking politicians to be transparent isn’t a realistic answer."
  - 6y ago

zaphirplane 6y ago

I understand the sentiment For local politics this would expose the haggling/threats/backdowns not good for image making very hard to make deals For international, how do you expect this to work when a politician is getting briefing Or guidances or heads up about dealing with an dictatorship or a unfriendly global power or an foreign company ? Perhaps have a classification system ? Then everything will be secret classification

dan-robertson 6y ago
To be clear, I’m not particularly advocating for my parent comment’s view that these communications should be transparent. I’m advocating for any such transparency being fair and deliberate rather than due to hacks and a protocol quirk.

eloisius 6y ago

That’s a false equivocation. Private citizens having “nothing to hide” in their personal lives is disimilar to public officials having nothing to hide in relation to their official duties. Blackmail related to embarrassing sexual proclivities or anything like that is unfortunate, but kindly asking politicians to be transparent isn’t a realistic answer. Of course they will use official channels and be transparent about everything they _should_ be doing, but it’s exactly the things they want hidden that will go over alternate channels. What I think is most shocking in this age of political hacks and leaks is the fact that people are outraged by it when it’s their side. Sure, the timing can be unfortunate when it harms their chances of re-election, but I’m surprised that I hear more about that, and calling it election interference, than I do about the actual contents of the leaks. Don’t like it when your side’s dirty laundry hurts their campaign? Solution: nominate candidates with less dirty laundry.

couchand 6y ago
So your argument is that private citizens' desire for privacy is subordinate to your desire to be able to blackmail "public officials"?
- eloisius 6y ago
  No. Private citizens are entitled to privacy and their rights to such should be guarded by both law and responsible security practices at the companies they entrust with their information. Private citizens shouldn’t be shielded from privacy violation by hiding behind the plausible deniability of no DKIM verification. The communications of public officials should be subject to traceability and authentication as having actually come from them, even if they have gone rogue and used non-government-approved communication channels. If corruption is suspected because communications are discovered on the receiving end, say at a company that gets audited or something, it should be simple for investigators to verify the authenticity of those emails. Establishing ownership of the sending email address is another issue, but I imagine that’s possible via regular investigative routes. This has nothing to do with “blackmailing public officials” and for you to imply that I have such a desire is both uncivil of you to say here and says a lot about your world view. Blackmail is when you use evidence of illegal activity in order to coerce someone to do something against their will. Transparency and audit ability of our public servants is not blackmail.
  - couchand 6y ago
    Yes, there it is a valid objective in ensuring that elected officials' conduct is above board. However, abusing a spam-mitigation system for this purpose, drawing in every private individual with the dragnet, is the wrong way to go about it. One key flaw in your argument is that you seek a system that works, "even if they have gone rogue and used non-government-approved communication channels", which, it should be plain to see, absolutely does not apply to DKIM. I perhaps read a bit too much into your statement, "Blackmail related to embarrassing sexual proclivities or anything like that is unfortunate, but kindly asking politicians to be transparent isn’t a realistic answer."
- 6y ago