6 ms·

It’s easy so say net win for society is privacy. But it’s important to also acknowledge it does come at a cost — there exists criminal behavior that most reason

It’s easy so say net win for society is privacy. But it’s important to also acknowledge it does come at a cost — there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal. In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes.

baq 5y ago
Exactly. This same thing happens one time too many, it gets outlawed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ziftface 5y ago
The widespread abuse of power in government agencies makes this argument a little naive imo. The vast majority of what they do has very little effect on anyone's safety. I'd rather be able to communicate privately and let people keep selling drugs if they want to.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >the widespread abuse of power[...] The vast majority of what they do has very little effect* doing a lot of work here. To what degree is that simply anti-governmental sentiment rather than an honest evaluation of the agencies in question? Say you'd be living in a narco neighborhood in Mexico were cartels regularly shoot civilians up in private wars, have you considered how badly institutions could do in comparison?
  - lazide 5y ago
    So you think the NSA is meaningfully making an impact in stopping, say, Los Angeles, or Orange County, from turning into Juarez? If so, how exactly?
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Have you considered that the institutions ostensibly serving those civilians might have been infiltrated by the cartels, and that giving them more power might not have the effect you want?
tmp538394722 5y ago
No one is suggesting it should be impossible to uncover crimes. But I’d say that we should work to make it impossible for mass surveillance to exist, full stop. Police should have to do real actual detective work to implicate people in a crime.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  Why is obtaining phone records not "real actual detective work"?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
politician 5y ago
They can pull this information from either the sender or any of the recipients phones. If the government knows the sender, they can arrest them and confiscate the phone. That's reasonable.
- azinman2 5y ago
  If you use a passcode, they police cannot force you to unlock your phone: https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/08/can-police-force-you-to-unlock-your-cell-phone/ https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/08/can-police-force-...
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >If you use a passcode, they police cannot force you to unlock your phone: And that's a good thing.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      But it negates the GP who says the police can just pull it from the phone.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago. Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from their desk. No, sorry, my freedom is not to be sold for their convenience. You want to catch a bad guy, you get a trained investigation team that follows people, that wires their house, that interrogates neighborhood, etc. Is it more work ? Yes. Is it more dangerous ? Hell, yes. But don't say you can't catch criminals because of Signal. What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people. It's a good thing. This mantra is just an excuse to chew off chunks of democracy.
- davidw 5y ago
  > What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.
  - surge 5y ago
    Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      > Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?
      - lazide 5y ago
        Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]
Out_of_Characte 5y ago
The end doesn't justify the means. Police in democratic societies have less power on what they are allowed to do in order to stop crimes, uncover crimes or prosecute criminals. Like requiring a search warrant or how long the police can hold you, interrogate you and so forth. But speech in general has always been a private matter, encryption only reinforces the status quo of society. What argument do you have that less encryption is the preferred solution?
- azinman2 5y ago
  I have family members that have gone through violent crime that now have PTSD, and due to lack of evidence because of the inability to read chat logs, the perpetrator is free and the case never brought against him. Meanwhile Encrochat's non-encryption ended up allowing a multinational set of drug cartels to be taken down. It's not difficult to come up with such examples.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    I have sympathy for your family members. I (obviously) have no idea about the details of that situation, but since a violent crime can't be committed over the internet via a chat app, there ought to be physical evidence of that crime, no? If there's some sort of conspiracy element to that, I can see how chat logs might be useful. But attempting to require folks to provide information they don't have (as is the case here) is a fruitless endeavor. What solution would you suggest? Get rid of encryption? Force providers to collect the contents of their users' computers and phones? While, as I said, I sympathize with your family members (and you), such an outcome doesn't justify taking away everyone's privacy. Especially since the vast majority of people are decent, law-abiding folks. I get that your experiences and the pain they've caused won't allow you to see things differently, but privacy is important, and I for one, won't give mine up without a fight.
  - Out_of_Characte 5y ago
    I dont wish to come off as unsympathetic because no one should have to experience violent crime. But dont you consider the danger of weakening encryption through law? Facebook and google are giants that have earned all their money because they are able to read everything people say on their platforms in plaintext. Once you weaken encryption for police, you weaken it for everyone with a motive like the police or the state.
ssss11 5y ago
No. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process. You have added that last line yourself, and it appears to suggest that you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.
- mminer237 5y ago
  The Fourth Amendment clearly states that law enforcement has to have a subpoena where a judge agrees there's a valid reason to demand private property, with very limited exceptions. E2E does not require a valid reason. Its only change as far as law enforcement is concerned is to stop monitoring when they do have a valid reason. (Which I think most people feel is as acceptable trade-off.)
- azinman2 5y ago
  > you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals. Not only did I not say such a thing (I even said it was easy to argue that encryption is a net win), it’s not something I believe, especially when you put it in such extreme terms. But encryption brings a cost, one that shouldn’t be ignored. Most people here are taking extreme arguments — assuming everything is about mass surveillance and crimes are more often than not victimless. This ignores the reality that real crimes are regularly happening that most reasonable people would wish to stop, and when you add friction to that, it means there are many cases were justice will not be served.
elliekelly 5y ago
How many crimes have been prevented in the last 20 years thanks to the surveillance powers of the USA PATRIOT Act? Last I’d heard the answer was zero. The privacy/security trade-off is vastly overstated.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Be curious where you've heard that from, because the results will largely be kept secret. Regardless, there are far more ordinary crimes being committed than terrorism.
  - kilna 5y ago
    Those who want to keep the current draconian status quo in place are incentivized to make public any wins, it would justify the existence of the extreme measures. The fact that they haven't boasted about any win is telling.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Yes, and we should also be aware of a rhetorical strategy used by surveillance state apologists where they alternate between "The lack of recent terrorist attacks proves that mass surveillance works, so we should extend it to fight other crimes" and "The recent attack shows that we need more surveillance powers to protect ourselves".
  - lazide 5y ago
    The beauty of the argument is it can never be disproved because all success or failures theoretically need to be kept secret no? Would YOU be happy spending trillions of dollars with no way to see if it was accomplishing anything, while clear negative effects were also occurring?
marvin 5y ago
This is the cost of abusing the public's willingness to allow certain exceptions to civil liberties. In a society where the public generally trusts the authorities, this problem wouldn't occur. People would almost always be willing to have their communications available for potential judicially-guarded examination, trusting that only justified suspicion of particularly violent crimes will ever be cause for using it. But when the authorities transgress once too many, the public in general will switch to services that properly defends their privacy. We can consider this a game-theoretic outcome of abusing the trust of the public. The consequence will eventually be that properly henious criminals will have better tools for not getting caught.
- pangolinplayer 5y ago
  You are very optimistic in the "public".
mfer 5y ago
We end up debating trade-offs where people don't agree. Privacy with end-to-end encryption keeps everyone's communications safe. Criminals, politicians, people working for government contractors, and everyone else. This means criminals can get away with more things. It also means that politicians and surveillance governments have a harder time monitoring regular people or their government challengers.
feanaro 5y ago
> In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem [...] Who exactly said this? It's rather the other way around: flagrantly examining and being able to examine non-criminal behaviour at a whim is a problem. The excuse of potentially being able to spot criminal behaviour is not enough.
- azinman2 5y ago
  The GP did: "I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that _problem_." Nothing was said about spotting at large, but the context was subpoenaing information with a judge's consent while investigating criminal activity.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >"I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that _problem_." Absolutely. The other side of that coin is that people are not required to keep (or in this case, even gather) information in a way that allows the government to obtain it. I'd also point out that this isn't about information that could prove a crime. It's about the government demanding information from a third party about unknown persons and the contents of their personal effects. Given that Signal doesn't collect or have access to such information[0]: "...this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls." It's not possible to provide it. Are you claiming that Signal should be required to gather such information solely for the benefit of the police? As the Fourth Amendment[1] to the US Constitution says, in part: "...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" And since the subpoena was asking for Signal to identify the subject (their name), such a demand is clearly outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. I'll say it again: Whether a judge (in this case, it was a grand jury and not a judge, but why split hairs?) agrees or not, Signal can't provide information it does not possess. I suppose a law could be passed requiring them to collect such information as was demanded, but it's hard to see how that would be defensible on any grounds. [0] https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
snarf21 5y ago
So there was no crime before Signal? The "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument is so shortsighted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember this from the Nazi resistance? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Now is the time to speak out. By the time you want to protest and push back, it could be too late.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Think about it this way; if the government wants to know something about you, they'll be able to find out. Switching browsers, or search engines, or email providers, or chat apps will not stop them from their goals. But it can make your life a lot more inconvenient.
hackflip 5y ago
What is the criminals are the authorities?
somebodythere 5y ago
The US government is too caught up in prosecuting victimless crimes, bullying defendants into taking plea deals (and forfeiting their right to a fair trial), handing out cruel sentences, and using evidence borne from illegal searches (while lying about it). Until all of that changes I am not interested in giving them more ammo.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Right because until some bar that can never be met is satisfied, let's let anything go? Sorry, that's not the society I want to live in.
  - somebodythere 5y ago
    The bar is "executing justice doesn't regularly cause more harm than the harm it claims to prevent." It's basically on the floor. Well, the other bar is "the justice system follows its own rules." That's reasonable enough to ask, isn't it?
basilgohar 5y ago
The net benefit to society when government is granted and/or authority is granted broad powers of surveillance is the abuse of that power to serve the desires of those in power rather than society in general. Your statement is carefully crafted to sidestep this with the wording, "...there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal...", ignoring that the crime of abuse of power is far greater than any crime that could be prevented when it'd granted. There will always be "some people" that think this way. But more certainly such powers will be abused by those entrusted with them.
nobody9999 5y ago
>there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped Absolutely. >In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes. I didn't get that at all. Before Signal and other encrypted apps, folks who didn't want to be spied upon would meet in person, in private places or write messages in code. That didn't stop the police from bringing down many criminals, such as Al Capone, the New York Mafia and many others, did it? Nope, it didn't. What you seem to be advocating is that everyone's privacy should be forfeited so police can get information without doing, you know, police work. I'm all for bringing criminals (especially violent ones) to justice. But I'm not willing to give up my privacy so that police can spend their time eating donuts instead of their jobs. Feel free to disagree, but I'm going to keep using Signal and be glad of it -- not because I'm involved in criminal activity, but because I value my privacy.
- azinman2 5y ago
  You’re attacking a straw man. I never proposed anything other than recognizing the cost of encryption. And if you are to honestly do so, then you also need to recognize things happen now digitally that would have been in person before, which ends up leaving clues like witnesses and DNA. The world isn’t black and white.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >You’re attacking a straw man. I never proposed anything other than recognizing the cost of encryption. I assume you're referring to this sentence in my comment: What you seem to be advocating is that everyone's privacy should be forfeited so police can get information without doing, you know, police work. Note that I said seem. Which, in this context, means that's what I understood you to be saying. Thank you for clarifying. What's more, I'm not attacking anything or anyone. Rather, I'm expositing my views WRT encrypted communications and police work. That you interpreted the expression of my views as an attack says more about you than about me, IMHO.
    - 5y ago
paulirwin 5y ago
Apart from just not having encrypted data, the only way to achieve what you're suggesting is with a government backdoor into the encryption. Any backdoor - any! - will result in your data being exposed, sooner or later. Your Signal messages could then be exposed in a data breach on the dark web for all to see. It is not worth it to risk everyone's privacy to allow for the chance at easily prosecuting a small number of crimes. Remember - you're not preventing crime this way, just allowing for easy evidence capture. There are viable alternative ways of investigating crimes, as others here have said. There are not viable alternative ways of protecting our data.

baq 5y ago

Exactly. This same thing happens one time too many, it gets outlawed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ziftface 5y ago

The widespread abuse of power in government agencies makes this argument a little naive imo. The vast majority of what they do has very little effect on anyone's safety. I'd rather be able to communicate privately and let people keep selling drugs if they want to.

Barrin92 5y ago
>the widespread abuse of power[...] The vast majority of what they do has very little effect* doing a lot of work here. To what degree is that simply anti-governmental sentiment rather than an honest evaluation of the agencies in question? Say you'd be living in a narco neighborhood in Mexico were cartels regularly shoot civilians up in private wars, have you considered how badly institutions could do in comparison?
- lazide 5y ago
  So you think the NSA is meaningfully making an impact in stopping, say, Los Angeles, or Orange County, from turning into Juarez? If so, how exactly?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Have you considered that the institutions ostensibly serving those civilians might have been infiltrated by the cartels, and that giving them more power might not have the effect you want?

tmp538394722 5y ago

No one is suggesting it should be impossible to uncover crimes. But I’d say that we should work to make it impossible for mass surveillance to exist, full stop. Police should have to do real actual detective work to implicate people in a crime.

ChrisKnott 5y ago
Why is obtaining phone records not "real actual detective work"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

politician 5y ago

They can pull this information from either the sender or any of the recipients phones. If the government knows the sender, they can arrest them and confiscate the phone. That's reasonable.

azinman2 5y ago
If you use a passcode, they police cannot force you to unlock your phone: https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/08/can-police-force-you-to-unlock-your-cell-phone/ https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/08/can-police-force-...
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >If you use a passcode, they police cannot force you to unlock your phone: And that's a good thing.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    But it negates the GP who says the police can just pull it from the phone.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago. Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from their desk. No, sorry, my freedom is not to be sold for their convenience. You want to catch a bad guy, you get a trained investigation team that follows people, that wires their house, that interrogates neighborhood, etc. Is it more work ? Yes. Is it more dangerous ? Hell, yes. But don't say you can't catch criminals because of Signal. What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people. It's a good thing. This mantra is just an excuse to chew off chunks of democracy.

davidw 5y ago
> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.
- surge 5y ago
  Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?
    - lazide 5y ago
      Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]

Out_of_Characte 5y ago

The end doesn't justify the means. Police in democratic societies have less power on what they are allowed to do in order to stop crimes, uncover crimes or prosecute criminals. Like requiring a search warrant or how long the police can hold you, interrogate you and so forth. But speech in general has always been a private matter, encryption only reinforces the status quo of society. What argument do you have that less encryption is the preferred solution?

azinman2 5y ago
I have family members that have gone through violent crime that now have PTSD, and due to lack of evidence because of the inability to read chat logs, the perpetrator is free and the case never brought against him. Meanwhile Encrochat's non-encryption ended up allowing a multinational set of drug cartels to be taken down. It's not difficult to come up with such examples.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  I have sympathy for your family members. I (obviously) have no idea about the details of that situation, but since a violent crime can't be committed over the internet via a chat app, there ought to be physical evidence of that crime, no? If there's some sort of conspiracy element to that, I can see how chat logs might be useful. But attempting to require folks to provide information they don't have (as is the case here) is a fruitless endeavor. What solution would you suggest? Get rid of encryption? Force providers to collect the contents of their users' computers and phones? While, as I said, I sympathize with your family members (and you), such an outcome doesn't justify taking away everyone's privacy. Especially since the vast majority of people are decent, law-abiding folks. I get that your experiences and the pain they've caused won't allow you to see things differently, but privacy is important, and I for one, won't give mine up without a fight.
- Out_of_Characte 5y ago
  I dont wish to come off as unsympathetic because no one should have to experience violent crime. But dont you consider the danger of weakening encryption through law? Facebook and google are giants that have earned all their money because they are able to read everything people say on their platforms in plaintext. Once you weaken encryption for police, you weaken it for everyone with a motive like the police or the state.

ssss11 5y ago

No. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process. You have added that last line yourself, and it appears to suggest that you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.

mminer237 5y ago
The Fourth Amendment clearly states that law enforcement has to have a subpoena where a judge agrees there's a valid reason to demand private property, with very limited exceptions. E2E does not require a valid reason. Its only change as far as law enforcement is concerned is to stop monitoring when they do have a valid reason. (Which I think most people feel is as acceptable trade-off.)
azinman2 5y ago
> you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals. Not only did I not say such a thing (I even said it was easy to argue that encryption is a net win), it’s not something I believe, especially when you put it in such extreme terms. But encryption brings a cost, one that shouldn’t be ignored. Most people here are taking extreme arguments — assuming everything is about mass surveillance and crimes are more often than not victimless. This ignores the reality that real crimes are regularly happening that most reasonable people would wish to stop, and when you add friction to that, it means there are many cases were justice will not be served.

elliekelly 5y ago

How many crimes have been prevented in the last 20 years thanks to the surveillance powers of the USA PATRIOT Act? Last I’d heard the answer was zero. The privacy/security trade-off is vastly overstated.

azinman2 5y ago
Be curious where you've heard that from, because the results will largely be kept secret. Regardless, there are far more ordinary crimes being committed than terrorism.
- kilna 5y ago
  Those who want to keep the current draconian status quo in place are incentivized to make public any wins, it would justify the existence of the extreme measures. The fact that they haven't boasted about any win is telling.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Yes, and we should also be aware of a rhetorical strategy used by surveillance state apologists where they alternate between "The lack of recent terrorist attacks proves that mass surveillance works, so we should extend it to fight other crimes" and "The recent attack shows that we need more surveillance powers to protect ourselves".
- lazide 5y ago
  The beauty of the argument is it can never be disproved because all success or failures theoretically need to be kept secret no? Would YOU be happy spending trillions of dollars with no way to see if it was accomplishing anything, while clear negative effects were also occurring?

marvin 5y ago

This is the cost of abusing the public's willingness to allow certain exceptions to civil liberties. In a society where the public generally trusts the authorities, this problem wouldn't occur. People would almost always be willing to have their communications available for potential judicially-guarded examination, trusting that only justified suspicion of particularly violent crimes will ever be cause for using it. But when the authorities transgress once too many, the public in general will switch to services that properly defends their privacy. We can consider this a game-theoretic outcome of abusing the trust of the public. The consequence will eventually be that properly henious criminals will have better tools for not getting caught.

pangolinplayer 5y ago
You are very optimistic in the "public".

mfer 5y ago

We end up debating trade-offs where people don't agree. Privacy with end-to-end encryption keeps everyone's communications safe. Criminals, politicians, people working for government contractors, and everyone else. This means criminals can get away with more things. It also means that politicians and surveillance governments have a harder time monitoring regular people or their government challengers.

feanaro 5y ago

> In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem [...] Who exactly said this? It's rather the other way around: flagrantly examining and being able to examine non-criminal behaviour at a whim is a problem. The excuse of potentially being able to spot criminal behaviour is not enough.

azinman2 5y ago
The GP did: "I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that _problem_." Nothing was said about spotting at large, but the context was subpoenaing information with a judge's consent while investigating criminal activity.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >"I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that _problem_." Absolutely. The other side of that coin is that people are not required to keep (or in this case, even gather) information in a way that allows the government to obtain it. I'd also point out that this isn't about information that could prove a crime. It's about the government demanding information from a third party about unknown persons and the contents of their personal effects. Given that Signal doesn't collect or have access to such information[0]: "...this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls." It's not possible to provide it. Are you claiming that Signal should be required to gather such information solely for the benefit of the police? As the Fourth Amendment[1] to the US Constitution says, in part: "...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" And since the subpoena was asking for Signal to identify the subject (their name), such a demand is clearly outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. I'll say it again: Whether a judge (in this case, it was a grand jury and not a judge, but why split hairs?) agrees or not, Signal can't provide information it does not possess. I suppose a law could be passed requiring them to collect such information as was demanded, but it's hard to see how that would be defensible on any grounds. [0] https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

snarf21 5y ago

So there was no crime before Signal? The "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument is so shortsighted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember this from the Nazi resistance? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Now is the time to speak out. By the time you want to protest and push back, it could be too late.

missedthecue 5y ago
Think about it this way; if the government wants to know something about you, they'll be able to find out. Switching browsers, or search engines, or email providers, or chat apps will not stop them from their goals. But it can make your life a lot more inconvenient.

hackflip 5y ago

What is the criminals are the authorities?

somebodythere 5y ago

The US government is too caught up in prosecuting victimless crimes, bullying defendants into taking plea deals (and forfeiting their right to a fair trial), handing out cruel sentences, and using evidence borne from illegal searches (while lying about it). Until all of that changes I am not interested in giving them more ammo.

azinman2 5y ago
Right because until some bar that can never be met is satisfied, let's let anything go? Sorry, that's not the society I want to live in.
- somebodythere 5y ago
  The bar is "executing justice doesn't regularly cause more harm than the harm it claims to prevent." It's basically on the floor. Well, the other bar is "the justice system follows its own rules." That's reasonable enough to ask, isn't it?

basilgohar 5y ago

The net benefit to society when government is granted and/or authority is granted broad powers of surveillance is the abuse of that power to serve the desires of those in power rather than society in general. Your statement is carefully crafted to sidestep this with the wording, "...there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal...", ignoring that the crime of abuse of power is far greater than any crime that could be prevented when it'd granted. There will always be "some people" that think this way. But more certainly such powers will be abused by those entrusted with them.

nobody9999 5y ago

>there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped Absolutely. >In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes. I didn't get that at all. Before Signal and other encrypted apps, folks who didn't want to be spied upon would meet in person, in private places or write messages in code. That didn't stop the police from bringing down many criminals, such as Al Capone, the New York Mafia and many others, did it? Nope, it didn't. What you seem to be advocating is that everyone's privacy should be forfeited so police can get information without doing, you know, police work. I'm all for bringing criminals (especially violent ones) to justice. But I'm not willing to give up my privacy so that police can spend their time eating donuts instead of their jobs. Feel free to disagree, but I'm going to keep using Signal and be glad of it -- not because I'm involved in criminal activity, but because I value my privacy.

azinman2 5y ago
You’re attacking a straw man. I never proposed anything other than recognizing the cost of encryption. And if you are to honestly do so, then you also need to recognize things happen now digitally that would have been in person before, which ends up leaving clues like witnesses and DNA. The world isn’t black and white.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >You’re attacking a straw man. I never proposed anything other than recognizing the cost of encryption. I assume you're referring to this sentence in my comment: What you seem to be advocating is that everyone's privacy should be forfeited so police can get information without doing, you know, police work. Note that I said seem. Which, in this context, means that's what I understood you to be saying. Thank you for clarifying. What's more, I'm not attacking anything or anyone. Rather, I'm expositing my views WRT encrypted communications and police work. That you interpreted the expression of my views as an attack says more about you than about me, IMHO.
  - 5y ago

paulirwin 5y ago

Apart from just not having encrypted data, the only way to achieve what you're suggesting is with a government backdoor into the encryption. Any backdoor - any! - will result in your data being exposed, sooner or later. Your Signal messages could then be exposed in a data breach on the dark web for all to see. It is not worth it to risk everyone's privacy to allow for the chance at easily prosecuting a small number of crimes. Remember - you're not preventing crime this way, just allowing for easy evidence capture. There are viable alternative ways of investigating crimes, as others here have said. There are not viable alternative ways of protecting our data.