3 ms·

>>Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just t

>>Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. When any of the top 10 search results I sample for the term 'encryption backdoor' use it in the manner I referred to, It's a safe assumption that this is how the term is conventionally understood, and thus the correct definition of the term. >>backdoors are usually covert That doesn't contradict what I said. >>but are intrinsically somewhat fuzzy to define. Yes I can agree that the definitions of terms are somewhat fuzzy, but I think I can reasonably call Taler's eavesdropping mechanism a backdoor. >>The fact that you personally don't want income levels for merchants to be auditable by the state does not mean no one else wants that transparency (merchants included). Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Even merchants that want to disclose their finances to state authorities would want to retain control over when and where they disclose that information, rather than providing a permanent open book to taxing authorities. >>A nontrivial number of software merchants would like it if my browser didn't have inspector tools and didn't let me look at the source code of pages that they sent me That's irrelevant to whether it's a backdoor. Your browser is not a tool that they use. It's a tool that you use. Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. I think at this point you're being pedantic and not discussing this in good faith.

danShumway 5y ago
> In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. Look, I'm not the person who started word-for-word quoting random blogs to win a technicality fight about how a specific word was being used. You want to escape from pedantry, great. Here's the non-pedantic reality: Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. You want the non-pedantic argument about language? Language is (as you say) a convention, it's descriptive not prescriptive -- and the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. > Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Citation needed. > Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. Wat. You're just making things up now.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy from the state: https://taler.net/en/features.html https://taler.net/en/features.html >>Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering. It is explicitly anti-privacy for a subset of users. The comparison to Clipper Chip, outside of pedantic bad-faith misinterpretations of the qualities being compared, is entirely appropriate. >>the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. Citation needed. >>Citation needed. My assertion is based solely on common sense. Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? >>You're just making things up now. What part of what I said are you alleging is incorrect?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy Taler is designed to make it harder to avoid taxes, it is orthogonal whether or not that impacts privacy. The comparison to the clipper chip is wildly inappropriate, there is a difference between taxation and the ability of the state to monitor literally all encrypted messaging between parties. There is obviously a difference between those two things. > the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. [...] Citation needed. That language is descriptive and not perscriptive? Merriam Webster and Ludwig Wittgenstein. That people widely aren't looking at Taler's design as a backdoor? This comment thread and the responses of security professionals and prominent privacy advocates. Your original comments about a backdoor wouldn't be this far down the page if the community agreed with them. The response to GNU Taler from people embedded in the Free/Libre software movement would be different if people thought this was a covert spying operation. They don't. > Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? They might like living in a society with public roads. This might be difficult to hear, but the majority of people in the US don't want taxation abolished, that's not a popular political position. It's fine for you to believe that taxation is theft and it's fine for you to advocate that taxation is theft, but even you sincerely believe that taxation is theft you still have to be able to go into these kinds of conversations understanding that's a minority position, even among a lot of people producing and selling goods.

danShumway 5y ago

> In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. Look, I'm not the person who started word-for-word quoting random blogs to win a technicality fight about how a specific word was being used. You want to escape from pedantry, great. Here's the non-pedantic reality: Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. You want the non-pedantic argument about language? Language is (as you say) a convention, it's descriptive not prescriptive -- and the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. > Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Citation needed. > Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. Wat. You're just making things up now.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy from the state: https://taler.net/en/features.html https://taler.net/en/features.html >>Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering. It is explicitly anti-privacy for a subset of users. The comparison to Clipper Chip, outside of pedantic bad-faith misinterpretations of the qualities being compared, is entirely appropriate. >>the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. Citation needed. >>Citation needed. My assertion is based solely on common sense. Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? >>You're just making things up now. What part of what I said are you alleging is incorrect?
- danShumway 5y ago
  > Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy Taler is designed to make it harder to avoid taxes, it is orthogonal whether or not that impacts privacy. The comparison to the clipper chip is wildly inappropriate, there is a difference between taxation and the ability of the state to monitor literally all encrypted messaging between parties. There is obviously a difference between those two things. > the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. [...] Citation needed. That language is descriptive and not perscriptive? Merriam Webster and Ludwig Wittgenstein. That people widely aren't looking at Taler's design as a backdoor? This comment thread and the responses of security professionals and prominent privacy advocates. Your original comments about a backdoor wouldn't be this far down the page if the community agreed with them. The response to GNU Taler from people embedded in the Free/Libre software movement would be different if people thought this was a covert spying operation. They don't. > Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? They might like living in a society with public roads. This might be difficult to hear, but the majority of people in the US don't want taxation abolished, that's not a popular political position. It's fine for you to believe that taxation is theft and it's fine for you to advocate that taxation is theft, but even you sincerely believe that taxation is theft you still have to be able to go into these kinds of conversations understanding that's a minority position, even among a lot of people producing and selling goods.