4 ms·

There is no “responsible use of encryption”, there is only “irresponsible use of clear text protocols”. This is a another meme to make it seem like encryption i

There is no “responsible use of encryption”, there is only “irresponsible use of clear text protocols”. This is a another meme to make it seem like encryption is dangerous. Reject!! Encrypted communications between humans should be a basic human right. You are arguing that it is not. That some contexts don’t deserve encryption. They all do, no exception. Nobody has the right to demand access to encrypted communications except the peers involved in the establishment of the channel. The safety argument has and will always be a red herring to take fundamental rights away.

charcircuit 5y ago
>You are arguing that it is not. That some contexts don’t deserve encryption. Personally I believe that it is worth considering as a society whether adding a mechanism for a message to also be decrypted by law enforcement if they have a warrant would be beneficial or not. I am not saying that encryption should be removed. I am suggesting we use more cryptography to replicate what we had before, but with extra benefits like removing third parties from being able to easily see or tamper with your messages.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  How can I change your opinion on this? I think you are saying it should be removed. There is no magic back door that grants these powers. There is only secure communications or tyranny. Any compromised system that is proposed cannot be secure. It was and never was about protecting people, it was always about controlling people. Reject the tyranny.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    I am not talking about a back door. From Wikipedia: A backdoor is a typically covert method of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer, product, embedded device, or its embodiment. What I am suggesting could be a possibility would not be a secret (covert), nor would it be bypassing encryption. A mechanism for government access with a warrant would be a part of the public design of the system. A simple implementation would be to give all judges a hardware key that could decrypt a key. Chat clients could encrypt a key with the judges public key and have the chat app store it on a server. Law enforcement can access this encrypted key via a warrant and have a judge decrypt it. Now in the actual system you would want it to be more complicated such as being able to handle when a hardware key is stolen. I personally don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do think it's worth discussing. >How can I change your opinion on this? If you wanted to win me over to your side you would need to explain what is so bad with reading someone's messages after getting a warrant. >99% of people won't have their messages read. The most likely reason someone would oppose this is that they would be revealing incriminating evidence. Personally, I don't support this reason as it lets us collect more evidence to ensure we are giving a proper judgment to someone. The next likely reason is people who are obsessed with privacy and couldn't stand that what they ate for dinner the other night could potentially also be revealed to law enforcement. I understand this is a valid concern, but personally I think it's a trade off worth making.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      It is a back door and copy pasting Wikipedia doesn’t make it not. Key escrow, public key replacement and message escrow are all backdoors, covert or not. They are all unacceptable. I’m from the privacy argument, and will except nothing less that complete confidentially between peers. Anything except this position I perceive as an attack and will defend my position with my life. The other point is “nothing to hide”. Reality is we all have something to hide, and given enough scrutiny we all fall. “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” — Cardinal Richelieu There can be no compromise in this argument. There are many jurisdictions on the planet that would love to use this back door to start rounding people up. An real world example might be 2 gay men communicating in a private messenger about a rendezvous - somewhere that they are not accepted. Law of their land is that it is illegal. Your back door just cost them their lives. You might live somewhere where law enforcement is not a risk to your life, but many do, and this kind of thinking leads to tyranny and death.
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        >It is a back door and copy pasting Wikipedia doesn’t make it not. What is your definition of a back door. All of the common ones I see involve secrecy of it's existence. >Reality is we all have something to hide, and given enough scrutiny we all fall. I believe that if society is more understanding and accepting this will be less of a problem. With all of this information out there things could be normalized instead of forced to be secret. >Law of their land is that it is illegal. Your back door just cost them their lives. Personally, I believe that we should be trying to change laws, not helping people break the law. If it's illegal to be gay either stop it or accept the realization that you are going to die. My "back door" didn't cost me their lives, them breaking the law did. Of course not everyone will agree with my point of view especially in extreme cases that relate to people being killed for breaking the law.
        randomhodler84 5y ago
        Got it, arbitrary laws are more important than humanity. Cops are all good, the law is always just and one should just stop and accept the state wants one dead for how they were born. Enough.

charcircuit 5y ago

>You are arguing that it is not. That some contexts don’t deserve encryption. Personally I believe that it is worth considering as a society whether adding a mechanism for a message to also be decrypted by law enforcement if they have a warrant would be beneficial or not. I am not saying that encryption should be removed. I am suggesting we use more cryptography to replicate what we had before, but with extra benefits like removing third parties from being able to easily see or tamper with your messages.

randomhodler84 5y ago
How can I change your opinion on this? I think you are saying it should be removed. There is no magic back door that grants these powers. There is only secure communications or tyranny. Any compromised system that is proposed cannot be secure. It was and never was about protecting people, it was always about controlling people. Reject the tyranny.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  I am not talking about a back door. From Wikipedia: A backdoor is a typically covert method of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer, product, embedded device, or its embodiment. What I am suggesting could be a possibility would not be a secret (covert), nor would it be bypassing encryption. A mechanism for government access with a warrant would be a part of the public design of the system. A simple implementation would be to give all judges a hardware key that could decrypt a key. Chat clients could encrypt a key with the judges public key and have the chat app store it on a server. Law enforcement can access this encrypted key via a warrant and have a judge decrypt it. Now in the actual system you would want it to be more complicated such as being able to handle when a hardware key is stolen. I personally don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do think it's worth discussing. >How can I change your opinion on this? If you wanted to win me over to your side you would need to explain what is so bad with reading someone's messages after getting a warrant. >99% of people won't have their messages read. The most likely reason someone would oppose this is that they would be revealing incriminating evidence. Personally, I don't support this reason as it lets us collect more evidence to ensure we are giving a proper judgment to someone. The next likely reason is people who are obsessed with privacy and couldn't stand that what they ate for dinner the other night could potentially also be revealed to law enforcement. I understand this is a valid concern, but personally I think it's a trade off worth making.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    It is a back door and copy pasting Wikipedia doesn’t make it not. Key escrow, public key replacement and message escrow are all backdoors, covert or not. They are all unacceptable. I’m from the privacy argument, and will except nothing less that complete confidentially between peers. Anything except this position I perceive as an attack and will defend my position with my life. The other point is “nothing to hide”. Reality is we all have something to hide, and given enough scrutiny we all fall. “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” — Cardinal Richelieu There can be no compromise in this argument. There are many jurisdictions on the planet that would love to use this back door to start rounding people up. An real world example might be 2 gay men communicating in a private messenger about a rendezvous - somewhere that they are not accepted. Law of their land is that it is illegal. Your back door just cost them their lives. You might live somewhere where law enforcement is not a risk to your life, but many do, and this kind of thinking leads to tyranny and death.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      >It is a back door and copy pasting Wikipedia doesn’t make it not. What is your definition of a back door. All of the common ones I see involve secrecy of it's existence. >Reality is we all have something to hide, and given enough scrutiny we all fall. I believe that if society is more understanding and accepting this will be less of a problem. With all of this information out there things could be normalized instead of forced to be secret. >Law of their land is that it is illegal. Your back door just cost them their lives. Personally, I believe that we should be trying to change laws, not helping people break the law. If it's illegal to be gay either stop it or accept the realization that you are going to die. My "back door" didn't cost me their lives, them breaking the law did. Of course not everyone will agree with my point of view especially in extreme cases that relate to people being killed for breaking the law.
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        Got it, arbitrary laws are more important than humanity. Cops are all good, the law is always just and one should just stop and accept the state wants one dead for how they were born. Enough.