5 ms·

Censorship is Alice wants to send a message to Bob through Eve and Eve throws it away. Solution: Don't send the message through Eve, send it through Carol, who

by zrm 5y ago

Censorship is Alice wants to send a message to Bob through Eve and Eve throws it away. Solution: Don't send the message through Eve, send it through Carol, who doesn't throw it away. Interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Privacy is Alice doesn't want Eve to read her messages to Bob, so she encrypts them. Then Eve can't read them. How is Eve supposed to route around this? Read Carol's messages instead? Not the same thing. Alice and Bob still have privacy.

rossdavidh 5y ago
Alice doesn't want Eve to read her messages to Bob. Bob, however, is careless after he reads it, and lets Eve read it as well. Now Alice wants Bob (and Eve) to stop showing her message to everyone. Alice is screwed.
- zrm 5y ago
  The privacy violation is Bob being careless and losing the message to Eve. That isn't caused by the internet, it's caused by Bob. When Eve has the message, privacy is already lost. Preventing Eve from spreading it around is technologically equivalent to censorship at that point so then you're just proving the original formulation. It doesn't mean you can insert just anything. "The net interprets beef as damage and routes around it." If you're an animal activist you might like for that to be true, but that's not really how it works.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Bob isn't careless. Bob is trying to offer a service free of charge, and Daryl is paying for metadata. So Bob makes a deal in order to provide the service. Daryl's offer is open to anybody, so even if Alice doesn't trust Bob, everybody from Edith through Zach is also selling metadata to Daryl too.
    - zrm 5y ago
      Bob isn't a service provider, Bob is the other party Alice wants to communicate with. The entity you're referring to is called Facebook, not Bob. Nothing about the internet requires there to be an intermediary with the plaintext. Compare e.g. Signal. And if the internet is free-as-in-beer then Comcast owes me a big refund.
      - rossdavidh 5y ago
        The definition of "the internet" that you are using, is sort of like defining "the U.S. government" by the constitution. Yet, it is more useful in most cases, when referring to "the U.S. government", to include the way in which it actually, typically works. If your point is that it is possible to make an internet which did not violate privacy, sure, it is possible. But, that's not the internet we have, and this is not just a coincidence or a bit of bad luck, but rather an intrinsic feature of the very ease of networking and communicating on a vast scale which is also what's good about it. Making an internet which respected privacy might be possible, but it's much, much harder than before the internet.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Sorry, mixed up the actors in all the silly metaphors. Comcast would probably tell you that they get you cheaper prices or nebulously better service via their data sharing agreements, but you know as well as me that it's as bullshit as it is ubiquitous. I'd say vote with your dollars, but that doesn't seem to work anymore either. Gotta vote in stronger legislation protecting privacy, but that seems insurmountable too.
  - type0 5y ago
    The trouble is that Eve incentivizes and tricks Bob into sharing data with her, in this case Bob is also a victim, knowingly or not.
    - rossdavidh 5y ago
      Relevant point, although Eve could be tricky and Bob careless, both. But I suppose the bad part is that either Eve being tricky or Bob being careless is enough, in most cases, unless Bob is a security professional (and even then only maybe).
  - bashinator 5y ago
    The internet is what enables Eve to spread the formerly private message to literally anyone on Earth in a matter of seconds. That’s a qualitative difference from pre-Internet times.
pjc50 5y ago
Privacy is Alice wants to be able to read things from Bob, who has posted them on Eve's site, without Eve keeping a record of them forever and sending it to a very long list of possibly malevolent actors. Bob wants to post on Eve's site because the list of possibly malevolent actors are paying him.
- zrm 5y ago
  It's not really a privacy violation for Bob to knowingly and willingly disclose something to Eve. And then can't Alice use Tor or similar?
api 5y ago
The market routes around it, not the Internet. There is no money in privacy. Very few will pay for it (or even understand it enough to make a conscious choice), and there's a lot of money to be made in amassing data on users.
- gmuslera 5y ago
  There is money in privacy. But there is even more money in pretending you give privacy while giving everything or at least what is juicy enough to malevolent (usually state) actors.

by zrm 5y ago

rossdavidh 5y ago

Alice doesn't want Eve to read her messages to Bob. Bob, however, is careless after he reads it, and lets Eve read it as well. Now Alice wants Bob (and Eve) to stop showing her message to everyone. Alice is screwed.

zrm 5y ago
The privacy violation is Bob being careless and losing the message to Eve. That isn't caused by the internet, it's caused by Bob. When Eve has the message, privacy is already lost. Preventing Eve from spreading it around is technologically equivalent to censorship at that point so then you're just proving the original formulation. It doesn't mean you can insert just anything. "The net interprets beef as damage and routes around it." If you're an animal activist you might like for that to be true, but that's not really how it works.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Bob isn't careless. Bob is trying to offer a service free of charge, and Daryl is paying for metadata. So Bob makes a deal in order to provide the service. Daryl's offer is open to anybody, so even if Alice doesn't trust Bob, everybody from Edith through Zach is also selling metadata to Daryl too.
  - zrm 5y ago
    Bob isn't a service provider, Bob is the other party Alice wants to communicate with. The entity you're referring to is called Facebook, not Bob. Nothing about the internet requires there to be an intermediary with the plaintext. Compare e.g. Signal. And if the internet is free-as-in-beer then Comcast owes me a big refund.
    - rossdavidh 5y ago
      The definition of "the internet" that you are using, is sort of like defining "the U.S. government" by the constitution. Yet, it is more useful in most cases, when referring to "the U.S. government", to include the way in which it actually, typically works. If your point is that it is possible to make an internet which did not violate privacy, sure, it is possible. But, that's not the internet we have, and this is not just a coincidence or a bit of bad luck, but rather an intrinsic feature of the very ease of networking and communicating on a vast scale which is also what's good about it. Making an internet which respected privacy might be possible, but it's much, much harder than before the internet.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Sorry, mixed up the actors in all the silly metaphors. Comcast would probably tell you that they get you cheaper prices or nebulously better service via their data sharing agreements, but you know as well as me that it's as bullshit as it is ubiquitous. I'd say vote with your dollars, but that doesn't seem to work anymore either. Gotta vote in stronger legislation protecting privacy, but that seems insurmountable too.
- type0 5y ago
  The trouble is that Eve incentivizes and tricks Bob into sharing data with her, in this case Bob is also a victim, knowingly or not.
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    Relevant point, although Eve could be tricky and Bob careless, both. But I suppose the bad part is that either Eve being tricky or Bob being careless is enough, in most cases, unless Bob is a security professional (and even then only maybe).
- bashinator 5y ago
  The internet is what enables Eve to spread the formerly private message to literally anyone on Earth in a matter of seconds. That’s a qualitative difference from pre-Internet times.

pjc50 5y ago

Privacy is Alice wants to be able to read things from Bob, who has posted them on Eve's site, without Eve keeping a record of them forever and sending it to a very long list of possibly malevolent actors. Bob wants to post on Eve's site because the list of possibly malevolent actors are paying him.

zrm 5y ago
It's not really a privacy violation for Bob to knowingly and willingly disclose something to Eve. And then can't Alice use Tor or similar?

api 5y ago

The market routes around it, not the Internet. There is no money in privacy. Very few will pay for it (or even understand it enough to make a conscious choice), and there's a lot of money to be made in amassing data on users.

gmuslera 5y ago
There is money in privacy. But there is even more money in pretending you give privacy while giving everything or at least what is juicy enough to malevolent (usually state) actors.