4 ms·

> This is essential to science. >> Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis? No. Did I s

by zepto 5y ago

> This is essential to science. >> Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis? No. Did I say something to that effect? > Come on, be serious here. People call to ban encryption because it scares them, not because they have a model of the world based on real data or real science that they're using to reinforce that belief. You say this as if you are arguing against something I have said. Why? > If they did, we could argue with them. But we can't, because they don't. We can still argue with them, just not with science. > Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said? > Yes, see below: You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is. You have said you don’t understand it, but you not understanding doesn’t make it a contradiction. >> such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to > I'm open to some kind of clarification that makes this comment make sense. It makes sense to have solutions that don’t weaken privacy. Wouldn’t you agree? > How are your "solutions" going to make people less afraid? They won’t. > On what basis are you going to argue with these people that your solution is better than banning encryption? Which people? The parents, the nefarious actors, apple’s customers? > Pretend that I'm a concerned parent right now. I want to ban encryption. What can you tell me now to convince me that any other solution will be better? Of course not because you are going to play the role of an irrational parent who cannot be convinced. Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do. Why does changing such a person’s mind matter?

danShumway 5y ago
> Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do. > Why does changing such a person’s mind matter? Okay, finally! I think I understand why we're disagreeing. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding your views below. > You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is. I kept getting confused because you would agree with me right up to your conclusion, and then suddenly we'd both go in opposite directions. But here's why I think that's happening: You agree with me that there are irrational actors that will not be convinced by any kind of reason or debate that their fears are irrational. You agree with me that those people will never stop calling to ban encryption, and that they will not be satisfied by any alternative you or I propose. But you also believe there's another category of people who are "semi-rational" about child abuse. They're scared of it, maybe not for any rational reason. But they would be willing to compromise, they would be willing to accept a "solution" that targeted some of their fears, and they might be convinced than an alternative to banning encryption is better. Where we disagree is that I don't believe those people exist -- or at least if they do exist, I don't believe they are a large enough or engaged enough demographic to have any political clout, and I don't think it's worth trying to court them. My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption. So when you and I both say that we can't convince the irrational people with alternative solutions, my immediate thought is, "okay, so the alternative solutions are useless." But of course you think the alternative solutions are a good idea, because you think those people will listen to your alternatives, and you think they'll sway the encryption debate if they're given an alternative. I don't believe those people exist, so the idea of trying to sway the encryption debate by appealing to them is nonsense to me. In my mind, anyone who is rational enough to listen to your arguments about why an alternative to breaking encryption is a good idea, is also rational enough to just be taught why banning encryption is bad. So for people who are on the fence or uninformed, but who are not fundamentally irrationally afraid of encryption, I would much rather try gently reaching out to them using education and traditional advocacy techniques. ---- Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and maybe there is a political group of "semi-rational" people who are A) scared about child abuse B) unwilling to be educated about child abuse or to back up their beliefs C) but willing to consider alternatives to breaking encryption and compromising devices. If that group does exist, then yeah, I get where you're coming from. BUT personally, I believe the history of encryption/privacy/freedom debates on the Internet backs up my view. Let's start with SESTA/FOSTA: First, Backpage did work with the FBI, to the point that the FBI even commented that Backpage was going beyond any legal requirement to try and help identify child traffickers and victims. Second, both sex worker advocates and sex workers themselves openly argued that not only would SESTA/FOSTA be problematic for freedom on the Internet, but that the bills would also make trafficking worse and make their jobs even more dangerous. Did Backpage's 'compromise' sway anyone? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who opposed sites like Backpage but were willing to listen to arguments that the bills would actively make sex trafficking worse? No, those people never showed up. The bills passed with broad bipartisan support. Later, several Senators called to reexamine the bills not because alternatives were proposed to them, but because they put in the work to educate themselves about the stats, and realized the bills were harmful. Okay, now let's look at the San Bernardino case with Apple. Apple gave the FBI access to the suspect's iCloud account, literally everything they asked for except access to decrypt the phone itself. Advocates argued that the phone was unlikely to aid in the investigation, and also suggested using an exploit to get into the phone, rather than requiring Apple to break encryption. Note that in this case the alternative solution worked, the FBI was able to get into the phone using an exploit rather than by compelling Apple to break encryption. The best case scenario. Did any of that help? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who were willing to listen to the alternative solution? Did the debate cool because of it? No, it changed nothing about the FBI's demands or about the political debate. What did help was Apple very publicly and forcefully telling the FBI that any demand at all to force them to install any code for any reason would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. So minus another point from compromise as an effective political strategy in encryption debates, and plus one point to obstinance. Okay, now let's jump back to early debates about encryption: the clipper chip. Was that solved by presenting the government and concerned citizens with an alternative that would better solve the problem? No, it wasn't -- even though there were plenty of people who argued at the time for encryption experts to work with the government instead of against it. Instead the clipper chip problem was solved both when encryption experts broke the clipper chip so publicly and thoroughly that it destroyed any credibility the government had in claiming it was secure, and it was solved by the wide dissemination of strong encryption techniques that made the government's demands impossible, over the objections of people who called for compromise or understanding of the government's position. ---- I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates. I do think that people exist who are skeptical about encryption but who are not so irrational that they would fall into our category of "impossible to convince." However, I believe they can be educated, and that it is better to try and educate them than it is to reinforce their fears. Because of that, I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. I think those people should either be educated, or ignored. It is possible I'm wrong, and maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that, and if you can, I very much doubt that outside of technical communities anyone will be very interested in what you propose. I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with. And it's my opinion, based on the history of privacy/encryption, that traditional advocacy and education techniques will be more politically effective than what you propose.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 5y ago
  > My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption. We disagree here, indeed. My view is not that there are ‘semi-rational’ people. My view is that there are hard to quantify risks that it is rational to have some fear about and see as problems to be solved. I think this describes most of us, most of the time. The idea that there is a clear distinction between ‘rationally’ understanding a complex social problem through science, and being ‘irrational and unconvincable’ seems inaccurate to me. Both of these positions seem equally extreme, and neither qualify as reasonable in my view, nor are they how most people act. I think there are a lot of people who are reasonably afraid of things they don’t fully understand and which nobody fully understands. These people reasonably want solutions, but don’t expect them to be perfect or to assuage everyone’s fear. These are the people who can easily be persuaded to sacrifice a little privacy if it means making children safer from horrific crimes. They are also people who would prefer a solution that didn’t sacrifice so much if it was an option. My argument is that the best way to make things better is to make better options available. Irrationally paranoid parents, and irrationally paranoid governments exist, but are the minority. Most people just want reasonable solutions and aren’t going to be persuaded by either extreme. If you make an argument about creeping authoritarianism they’ll say ‘child porn is a real problem, and that risk is distant’. If you offer them a more privacy preserving solution to choose as well as a less privacy preserving option, they’ll likely choose the more privacy preserving option. Apple is offering a much more privacy preserving option than just disabling encryption. People will accept it because it seems like a reasonable trade-off in the absence of anything better. If we think it’s a bad trade-off that is taking us in the direction of worse and worse privacy compromises, we aren’t likely to be able to persuade people to ignore the real trade-offs, but we stand a chance of getting them to accept a better solution to the same problem. If we don’t offer an alternative solution we aren’t offering them anything at all. > I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. Why do you mention this again? Nobody is arguing for a solution designed to assuage people’s fears. > I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. Why do you assume education about encryption/abuse is relevant? Even people who deeply understand the issue still have to choose between the options that are available and practical. > If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, It’s not a meaningful group definition. > and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates. Almost nobody intervenes during policy debates unless there have a strong position. Most people just choose the best solution from what is available and get on with their lives which are not centered on these issues. > maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. Indeed. Isn’t that what we really want here? The only reason people are engaged in all this ideological battle is that they assume there isn’t a technical solution. > However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that. You could have just said you are someone who doesn’t believe a technical solution is possible. > I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with. Why would you think I would be disappointed? We have already discussed how I don’t expect those people to change their minds. Fortunately that is irrelevant to whether a solution would help, since it is not aimed at them.

by zepto 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do. > Why does changing such a person’s mind matter? Okay, finally! I think I understand why we're disagreeing. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding your views below. > You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is. I kept getting confused because you would agree with me right up to your conclusion, and then suddenly we'd both go in opposite directions. But here's why I think that's happening: You agree with me that there are irrational actors that will not be convinced by any kind of reason or debate that their fears are irrational. You agree with me that those people will never stop calling to ban encryption, and that they will not be satisfied by any alternative you or I propose. But you also believe there's another category of people who are "semi-rational" about child abuse. They're scared of it, maybe not for any rational reason. But they would be willing to compromise, they would be willing to accept a "solution" that targeted some of their fears, and they might be convinced than an alternative to banning encryption is better. Where we disagree is that I don't believe those people exist -- or at least if they do exist, I don't believe they are a large enough or engaged enough demographic to have any political clout, and I don't think it's worth trying to court them. My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption. So when you and I both say that we can't convince the irrational people with alternative solutions, my immediate thought is, "okay, so the alternative solutions are useless." But of course you think the alternative solutions are a good idea, because you think those people will listen to your alternatives, and you think they'll sway the encryption debate if they're given an alternative. I don't believe those people exist, so the idea of trying to sway the encryption debate by appealing to them is nonsense to me. In my mind, anyone who is rational enough to listen to your arguments about why an alternative to breaking encryption is a good idea, is also rational enough to just be taught why banning encryption is bad. So for people who are on the fence or uninformed, but who are not fundamentally irrationally afraid of encryption, I would much rather try gently reaching out to them using education and traditional advocacy techniques. ---- Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and maybe there is a political group of "semi-rational" people who are A) scared about child abuse B) unwilling to be educated about child abuse or to back up their beliefs C) but willing to consider alternatives to breaking encryption and compromising devices. If that group does exist, then yeah, I get where you're coming from. BUT personally, I believe the history of encryption/privacy/freedom debates on the Internet backs up my view. Let's start with SESTA/FOSTA: First, Backpage did work with the FBI, to the point that the FBI even commented that Backpage was going beyond any legal requirement to try and help identify child traffickers and victims. Second, both sex worker advocates and sex workers themselves openly argued that not only would SESTA/FOSTA be problematic for freedom on the Internet, but that the bills would also make trafficking worse and make their jobs even more dangerous. Did Backpage's 'compromise' sway anyone? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who opposed sites like Backpage but were willing to listen to arguments that the bills would actively make sex trafficking worse? No, those people never showed up. The bills passed with broad bipartisan support. Later, several Senators called to reexamine the bills not because alternatives were proposed to them, but because they put in the work to educate themselves about the stats, and realized the bills were harmful. Okay, now let's look at the San Bernardino case with Apple. Apple gave the FBI access to the suspect's iCloud account, literally everything they asked for except access to decrypt the phone itself. Advocates argued that the phone was unlikely to aid in the investigation, and also suggested using an exploit to get into the phone, rather than requiring Apple to break encryption. Note that in this case the alternative solution worked, the FBI was able to get into the phone using an exploit rather than by compelling Apple to break encryption. The best case scenario. Did any of that help? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who were willing to listen to the alternative solution? Did the debate cool because of it? No, it changed nothing about the FBI's demands or about the political debate. What did help was Apple very publicly and forcefully telling the FBI that any demand at all to force them to install any code for any reason would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. So minus another point from compromise as an effective political strategy in encryption debates, and plus one point to obstinance. Okay, now let's jump back to early debates about encryption: the clipper chip. Was that solved by presenting the government and concerned citizens with an alternative that would better solve the problem? No, it wasn't -- even though there were plenty of people who argued at the time for encryption experts to work with the government instead of against it. Instead the clipper chip problem was solved both when encryption experts broke the clipper chip so publicly and thoroughly that it destroyed any credibility the government had in claiming it was secure, and it was solved by the wide dissemination of strong encryption techniques that made the government's demands impossible, over the objections of people who called for compromise or understanding of the government's position. ---- I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates. I do think that people exist who are skeptical about encryption but who are not so irrational that they would fall into our category of "impossible to convince." However, I believe they can be educated, and that it is better to try and educate them than it is to reinforce their fears. Because of that, I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. I think those people should either be educated, or ignored. It is possible I'm wrong, and maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that, and if you can, I very much doubt that outside of technical communities anyone will be very interested in what you propose. I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with. And it's my opinion, based on the history of privacy/encryption, that traditional advocacy and education techniques will be more politically effective than what you propose.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zepto 5y ago
> My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption. We disagree here, indeed. My view is not that there are ‘semi-rational’ people. My view is that there are hard to quantify risks that it is rational to have some fear about and see as problems to be solved. I think this describes most of us, most of the time. The idea that there is a clear distinction between ‘rationally’ understanding a complex social problem through science, and being ‘irrational and unconvincable’ seems inaccurate to me. Both of these positions seem equally extreme, and neither qualify as reasonable in my view, nor are they how most people act. I think there are a lot of people who are reasonably afraid of things they don’t fully understand and which nobody fully understands. These people reasonably want solutions, but don’t expect them to be perfect or to assuage everyone’s fear. These are the people who can easily be persuaded to sacrifice a little privacy if it means making children safer from horrific crimes. They are also people who would prefer a solution that didn’t sacrifice so much if it was an option. My argument is that the best way to make things better is to make better options available. Irrationally paranoid parents, and irrationally paranoid governments exist, but are the minority. Most people just want reasonable solutions and aren’t going to be persuaded by either extreme. If you make an argument about creeping authoritarianism they’ll say ‘child porn is a real problem, and that risk is distant’. If you offer them a more privacy preserving solution to choose as well as a less privacy preserving option, they’ll likely choose the more privacy preserving option. Apple is offering a much more privacy preserving option than just disabling encryption. People will accept it because it seems like a reasonable trade-off in the absence of anything better. If we think it’s a bad trade-off that is taking us in the direction of worse and worse privacy compromises, we aren’t likely to be able to persuade people to ignore the real trade-offs, but we stand a chance of getting them to accept a better solution to the same problem. If we don’t offer an alternative solution we aren’t offering them anything at all. > I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. Why do you mention this again? Nobody is arguing for a solution designed to assuage people’s fears. > I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. Why do you assume education about encryption/abuse is relevant? Even people who deeply understand the issue still have to choose between the options that are available and practical. > If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, It’s not a meaningful group definition. > and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates. Almost nobody intervenes during policy debates unless there have a strong position. Most people just choose the best solution from what is available and get on with their lives which are not centered on these issues. > maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. Indeed. Isn’t that what we really want here? The only reason people are engaged in all this ideological battle is that they assume there isn’t a technical solution. > However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that. You could have just said you are someone who doesn’t believe a technical solution is possible. > I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with. Why would you think I would be disappointed? We have already discussed how I don’t expect those people to change their minds. Fortunately that is irrelevant to whether a solution would help, since it is not aimed at them.