4 ms·

* of specific accounts by legal order. Eh.

CommieBobDole 5y ago
And only unencrypted emails, because they don't have access to the encrypted ones. So the takeaway here is "If you're going to do something that law enforcement is likely to get a court order to monitor, don't sign up for an end-to-end encrypted email service and then send plaintext emails over it."
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I keep wondering where this ends up. I don't think, as a society, we can preserve complete privacy of communication and also have a justice system that is seen to be just. If the bad people can trivially conceal all their communication, and yet we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime, how do we balance that? Things like establishing intent (for murder vs manslaughter) have hinged on what the accused said prior to the act. For white-collar crime, proving collusion has hinged on communication evidence. If all the documents that prove fraud are stored encrypted with no way of getting to them, how do we prove fraud? If we can't procure the evidence, how do we convict bad people of the bad things they've done? Do we just prosecute the stupid people and allow anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge to do whatever they like?
  - upofadown 5y ago
    >...we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime... Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private?
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      > Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Yes, there is usually evidence that is not electronic. But removing the electronic evidence makes it harder to secure a conviction. In many cases, the victim's testimony is not enough. If it comes down to the victim's word against the accused's, then we come down on the side of the accused in these cases, because any doubt at all is enough not to convict. To change this we would need to change our entire legal system. > Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private? Communication is not just conversation. Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Now, not so much. If all documents are e2e encrypted, we have a problem proving any crime that doesn't leave physical evidence.
      - upofadown 5y ago
        >Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Certainly, which is why those up to no good would make a point of not creating such a paper trail. If they had to communicate over an insecure medium they would use codes. It seems unreasonable to insist that everyone give up their normal privacy just on the hope that a criminal might fail to obscure their meaning on what everyone will know to be an insecure medium.
        marcus_holmes 5y ago
        I agree, but we used to live in a world where normal people didn't use codes, and therefore had no real expectation of this kind of privacy. If the Serious Fraud Squad raided your offices, they could read all your letters and documents.

And only unencrypted emails, because they don't have access to the encrypted ones. So the takeaway here is "If you're going to do something that law enforcement is likely to get a court order to monitor, don't sign up for an end-to-end encrypted email service and then send plaintext emails over it."

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I keep wondering where this ends up. I don't think, as a society, we can preserve complete privacy of communication and also have a justice system that is seen to be just. If the bad people can trivially conceal all their communication, and yet we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime, how do we balance that? Things like establishing intent (for murder vs manslaughter) have hinged on what the accused said prior to the act. For white-collar crime, proving collusion has hinged on communication evidence. If all the documents that prove fraud are stored encrypted with no way of getting to them, how do we prove fraud? If we can't procure the evidence, how do we convict bad people of the bad things they've done? Do we just prosecute the stupid people and allow anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge to do whatever they like?
- upofadown 5y ago
  >...we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime... Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private?
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    > Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Yes, there is usually evidence that is not electronic. But removing the electronic evidence makes it harder to secure a conviction. In many cases, the victim's testimony is not enough. If it comes down to the victim's word against the accused's, then we come down on the side of the accused in these cases, because any doubt at all is enough not to convict. To change this we would need to change our entire legal system. > Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private? Communication is not just conversation. Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Now, not so much. If all documents are e2e encrypted, we have a problem proving any crime that doesn't leave physical evidence.
    - upofadown 5y ago
      >Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Certainly, which is why those up to no good would make a point of not creating such a paper trail. If they had to communicate over an insecure medium they would use codes. It seems unreasonable to insist that everyone give up their normal privacy just on the hope that a criminal might fail to obscure their meaning on what everyone will know to be an insecure medium.
      - marcus_holmes 5y ago
        I agree, but we used to live in a world where normal people didn't use codes, and therefore had no real expectation of this kind of privacy. If the Serious Fraud Squad raided your offices, they could read all your letters and documents.