4 ms·

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 relati

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."
- Natsu 6y ago
  You're advocating a standard that hurts innocent people in favor of the provably guilty.
  - couchand 6y ago
    I have sympathy for the "provably guilty", as I've seen plenty of places and times where that group includes many noble and good individuals.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      In this case, it seems calculated to allow someone to get away with lying to the public about meeting with and knowing nothing about deals with an executives of a foreign state-owned company that has been accused of bribing the US government and corruption.
hrishi 6y ago
I think you're pointing out the problem already. Email and associated protocols apply to everyone, public-individual or private. The same technology works whether you're a politician or an ex-girlfriend. I also agree with your parent, if there is something we need politicians to do, it needs to be a law that makes explicit what the intended outcome is, rather than hold up an unintended consequence of a protocol feature as "good enough", especially when there's potential for collateral damage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pksebben 6y ago
  we have been trying to do things this way for years. The deteriorating condition of our democracy and electorate would suggest that we need a different approach
cowsandmilk 6y ago
When John Podesta’s email was hacked, he was not a public official. He also was never up for election. In fact, none of the examples in the article were from people up for election.
- ianhawes 6y ago
  Which is why we need a legal protection for the theft and publishing of stolen personal correspondence.
csense 6y ago
> Private citizens having “nothing to hide” in their personal lives is disimilar to public officials having nothing to hide "Everybody who uses Gmail" includes a lot more private citizens than public officials.

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."
Natsu 6y ago
You're advocating a standard that hurts innocent people in favor of the provably guilty.
- couchand 6y ago
  I have sympathy for the "provably guilty", as I've seen plenty of places and times where that group includes many noble and good individuals.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    In this case, it seems calculated to allow someone to get away with lying to the public about meeting with and knowing nothing about deals with an executives of a foreign state-owned company that has been accused of bribing the US government and corruption.

hrishi 6y ago

I think you're pointing out the problem already. Email and associated protocols apply to everyone, public-individual or private. The same technology works whether you're a politician or an ex-girlfriend. I also agree with your parent, if there is something we need politicians to do, it needs to be a law that makes explicit what the intended outcome is, rather than hold up an unintended consequence of a protocol feature as "good enough", especially when there's potential for collateral damage.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pksebben 6y ago
we have been trying to do things this way for years. The deteriorating condition of our democracy and electorate would suggest that we need a different approach

cowsandmilk 6y ago

When John Podesta’s email was hacked, he was not a public official. He also was never up for election. In fact, none of the examples in the article were from people up for election.

ianhawes 6y ago
Which is why we need a legal protection for the theft and publishing of stolen personal correspondence.

csense 6y ago

> Private citizens having “nothing to hide” in their personal lives is disimilar to public officials having nothing to hide "Everybody who uses Gmail" includes a lot more private citizens than public officials.