4 ms·

This is a very good example of showing that decentralized anonymous communication channels of any type are not enough to ensure free speech. I'm not saying tha

by tux1968 5y ago

This is a very good example of showing that decentralized anonymous communication channels of any type are not enough to ensure free speech. I'm not saying that this particular example has anything to do with free speech, but it does show that you can not speak freely even over encrypted anonymous channels. You can still easily be doxed. We can not rely on any technology to ensure freedom of speech. We need to engender social acceptance and our laws to encourage it.

kijin 5y ago
No amount of technology will keep you anonymous if you freely post details that identify you. This example is just poor opsec. He might as well have posted a picture of his driver's license! Just like that guy who posted the exact GPS coordinates of his terrorist camp.
weird-eye-issue 5y ago
You mean I shouldn't share a photo of personally identifiable information through the same communication medium that I'm using to sell drugs? Anyways, you think we should change the laws so that just because somebody is using an encrypted or "anonymous" chat app the police can't use any of that to build evidence against them? That seems too OP for the criminals
- usrusr 5y ago
  Next up: T-Shirts printed "I'm feeling invisible and I demand you to respect that feeling!"
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    I was in court with a traffic ticket and the “opening act” was a bench trial for a lady who stole beer from a gas station. Her defense was that the clerk was lying, because Jesus gave her an invisibility cloak. The judge didn’t skip a beat and asked “Did you put the beer under the cloak?”. She said “shit” and changed her plea.
kevinmchugh 5y ago
Wikipedia says EncroChat used central servers in France.
- TwoBit 5y ago
  Right and the design flaw was that a server breach meant all phones were breached. Which is what happened.
upofadown 5y ago
This was over one of those all in one encrypted messaging phones where you have to trust a single entity. Such things are eventually subverted by the powers that be due to that single point of failure. So I don't think this can be extended to some sort of general principle.
- tux1968 5y ago
  > So I don't think this can be extended to some sort of general principle. Very clearly it can. There is no technological solution to doxing. You have to censor yourself, you have to hide facts, you can not speak freely.
pjc50 5y ago
Are you arguing that arranging to commit a crime is protected speech? I don't think that one will fly anywhere, even in the US, let alone in the UK with no constitutional protection only the much weaker ECHR one.
- tux1968 5y ago
  Read the second sentence of my post.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  That's pretty much every protest ever. You would make organizing protests against marijuana laws or laws against homosexual behavior illegal? Moxie Marlinspike has argued that it is important to be able to break the law and that perfect surveillance means the end of making social progress in a civil manner. https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually-be-possible-to-break-the-law https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually...
  - ben_w 5y ago
    As the law recognises that the law can be changed, protesting to change the law is not generally itself a crime. Laws get interpreted by humans, not by computers, so they should not to be taken literally and in isolation — they’re both harder and laxer in different ways.
    - WindyLakeReturn 5y ago
      In some cases changing the law is itself illegal, which brings us back to the original question. There is also the matter of protecting a persons right to commit a crime when it involves behaviors that should not be criminalized. A same sex couple being in a relationship is something that we should protest for, even if it is illegal. Not just making it legal, but also protesting specific examples of it being criminalized. Is free speech itself something worth protecting enough that we should give it some level of special protection? In a world where the only person who doesn't have to know the law is the cops enforcing it, who are given their own special protection from harm they cause, I don't think it is an unreasonable request.
xtracto 5y ago
You dont need any sort of encryption to preserve anonymity. You just need a fraction of a clue. Look at Satoshi Nakamoto. The entity posted in public forums and had conversations in the public view for so long. He is presumably one of the most infamous subjects in the last 10 years an nobody has managed to doxx him
- tux1968 5y ago
  Some areas of conversation require disclosing who you are. Freedom of speech means being able to say you don't agree with your town council for instance. Thus revealing much about yourself. Yes you can censor yourself, hide facts, and remain anonymous.. but you can not do so across the entire spectrum of discourse, only in limited domains.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

kijin 5y ago

No amount of technology will keep you anonymous if you freely post details that identify you. This example is just poor opsec. He might as well have posted a picture of his driver's license! Just like that guy who posted the exact GPS coordinates of his terrorist camp.

weird-eye-issue 5y ago

You mean I shouldn't share a photo of personally identifiable information through the same communication medium that I'm using to sell drugs? Anyways, you think we should change the laws so that just because somebody is using an encrypted or "anonymous" chat app the police can't use any of that to build evidence against them? That seems too OP for the criminals

usrusr 5y ago
Next up: T-Shirts printed "I'm feeling invisible and I demand you to respect that feeling!"
- Spooky23 5y ago
  I was in court with a traffic ticket and the “opening act” was a bench trial for a lady who stole beer from a gas station. Her defense was that the clerk was lying, because Jesus gave her an invisibility cloak. The judge didn’t skip a beat and asked “Did you put the beer under the cloak?”. She said “shit” and changed her plea.

kevinmchugh 5y ago

Wikipedia says EncroChat used central servers in France.

TwoBit 5y ago
Right and the design flaw was that a server breach meant all phones were breached. Which is what happened.

upofadown 5y ago

This was over one of those all in one encrypted messaging phones where you have to trust a single entity. Such things are eventually subverted by the powers that be due to that single point of failure. So I don't think this can be extended to some sort of general principle.

tux1968 5y ago
> So I don't think this can be extended to some sort of general principle. Very clearly it can. There is no technological solution to doxing. You have to censor yourself, you have to hide facts, you can not speak freely.

pjc50 5y ago

Are you arguing that arranging to commit a crime is protected speech? I don't think that one will fly anywhere, even in the US, let alone in the UK with no constitutional protection only the much weaker ECHR one.

tux1968 5y ago
Read the second sentence of my post.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
That's pretty much every protest ever. You would make organizing protests against marijuana laws or laws against homosexual behavior illegal? Moxie Marlinspike has argued that it is important to be able to break the law and that perfect surveillance means the end of making social progress in a civil manner. https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually-be-possible-to-break-the-law https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually...
- ben_w 5y ago
  As the law recognises that the law can be changed, protesting to change the law is not generally itself a crime. Laws get interpreted by humans, not by computers, so they should not to be taken literally and in isolation — they’re both harder and laxer in different ways.
  - WindyLakeReturn 5y ago
    In some cases changing the law is itself illegal, which brings us back to the original question. There is also the matter of protecting a persons right to commit a crime when it involves behaviors that should not be criminalized. A same sex couple being in a relationship is something that we should protest for, even if it is illegal. Not just making it legal, but also protesting specific examples of it being criminalized. Is free speech itself something worth protecting enough that we should give it some level of special protection? In a world where the only person who doesn't have to know the law is the cops enforcing it, who are given their own special protection from harm they cause, I don't think it is an unreasonable request.

xtracto 5y ago

You dont need any sort of encryption to preserve anonymity. You just need a fraction of a clue. Look at Satoshi Nakamoto. The entity posted in public forums and had conversations in the public view for so long. He is presumably one of the most infamous subjects in the last 10 years an nobody has managed to doxx him

tux1968 5y ago
Some areas of conversation require disclosing who you are. Freedom of speech means being able to say you don't agree with your town council for instance. Thus revealing much about yourself. Yes you can censor yourself, hide facts, and remain anonymous.. but you can not do so across the entire spectrum of discourse, only in limited domains.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]