4 ms·

>Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. It is a poor metaphor because locks prevent invasion not enable privacy. Banning encryption is such an attack

>Locking your door at night is a poor metaphor. It is a poor metaphor because locks prevent invasion not enable privacy. Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. Encryption is the fundamental unit of network privacy.

delusional 5y ago
I think that's a pretty good metaphor. I have been stuck on the parallels between locks and encryption for a while. This kinda cleared that up.
fsflover 5y ago
> Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
- docmars 5y ago
  The right to privacy, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after all!
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    Yes, and the government has created convenient carve outs for its self. For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. For searches of your vehicle, all the police need is probable cause. The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Throughout US history, there is a march towards ignoring citizens rights, through political, judicial, and bureaucratic maneuvering. The constitution is a piece of paper. There are people who’s full time job is to separate your understanding of your rights from what is written in that document. When they’re clever enough, they will allow state violence to be imposed on you with no repercussions.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Can't you go to the court if you disagree that they had a probable cause?
      - thyrsus 5y ago
        If you're rich or can afford the months of devoting your life to that, yes.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. The judicial branch can choose not to enforce the Constitution, contrary to its duty and purpose, but what they can't do—what no branch of the government can do without amending the Constitution—is legally authorize any agent of the government to perform a search or seize property (i.e. issue a warrant—whether they use that term or not) without "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The text is perfectly clear and permits no exceptions or "carve outs". I doubt the intent was for the police to issue their own warrants, but even if the judiciary grants them that power they still have to fulfill the requirements. Of course if you're just saying that what they can get away with in practice and what the Constitution actually allows are two different things, I agree. There are rights, constitutional and otherwise—and then there is power. Every time they do this, however, it undermines whatever legitimacy or respect they might have otherwise had. Any thug can steal your stuff or invade your privacy and have a chance at getting away with it. To the extent a government wants its actions to be seen as legitimate it can't afford to ignore that "piece of paper" it was founded on. > The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. What counts as "probable cause" is indeed the weakest part of the 4th Amendment. At the very least, if a given "cause" does not lead to the target's conviction in a majority of cases, of a crime sufficient to justify the search, then you cannot reasonably consider it "probable". Unfortunately that can only be observed in retrospect. It would have been better to require full compensation to the victim for any search or seizure which does not lead to their conviction, ensuring that the incentives are properly aligned.
  - xhkkffbf 5y ago
    Unreasonable search and seizure is written out explicitly but privacy is not.
heavyset_go 5y ago
If you want to stick with the house metaphor, then curtains, blinds, fences and doors would fit the comparison.
- parineum 5y ago
  I considered writing that it's more like building your house out of glass. The important point I'm trying to convey is that banning encryption is so extreme that it makes invasion of privacy something that someone can accidentally do. You have to try not to look, similar to if a person was nude in front of you against their will.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  Just ban walls in washrooms. You have nothing to hide there, do you, citizen?
dskloet 5y ago
You can't have security without privacy.

delusional 5y ago

I think that's a pretty good metaphor. I have been stuck on the parallels between locks and encryption for a while. This kinda cleared that up.

fsflover 5y ago

> Banning encryption is such an attack on privacy that it's closer to banning clothes and easing concerns by making looking at naked people illegal. This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.

docmars 5y ago
The right to privacy, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after all!
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  Yes, and the government has created convenient carve outs for its self. For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. For searches of your vehicle, all the police need is probable cause. The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Throughout US history, there is a march towards ignoring citizens rights, through political, judicial, and bureaucratic maneuvering. The constitution is a piece of paper. There are people who’s full time job is to separate your understanding of your rights from what is written in that document. When they’re clever enough, they will allow state violence to be imposed on you with no repercussions.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. So this makes the 4th amendment irrelevant in these circumstances. Can't you go to the court if you disagree that they had a probable cause?
    - thyrsus 5y ago
      If you're rich or can afford the months of devoting your life to that, yes.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > For example in Carroll v. United States, the judicial branch surrendered its authority to authorize searches to the executive branch. The judicial branch can choose not to enforce the Constitution, contrary to its duty and purpose, but what they can't do—what no branch of the government can do without amending the Constitution—is legally authorize any agent of the government to perform a search or seize property (i.e. issue a warrant—whether they use that term or not) without "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The text is perfectly clear and permits no exceptions or "carve outs". I doubt the intent was for the police to issue their own warrants, but even if the judiciary grants them that power they still have to fulfill the requirements. Of course if you're just saying that what they can get away with in practice and what the Constitution actually allows are two different things, I agree. There are rights, constitutional and otherwise—and then there is power. Every time they do this, however, it undermines whatever legitimacy or respect they might have otherwise had. Any thug can steal your stuff or invade your privacy and have a chance at getting away with it. To the extent a government wants its actions to be seen as legitimate it can't afford to ignore that "piece of paper" it was founded on. > The police, of course, determine if they have probable cause. What counts as "probable cause" is indeed the weakest part of the 4th Amendment. At the very least, if a given "cause" does not lead to the target's conviction in a majority of cases, of a crime sufficient to justify the search, then you cannot reasonably consider it "probable". Unfortunately that can only be observed in retrospect. It would have been better to require full compensation to the victim for any search or seizure which does not lead to their conviction, ensuring that the incentives are properly aligned.
- xhkkffbf 5y ago
  Unreasonable search and seizure is written out explicitly but privacy is not.

heavyset_go 5y ago

If you want to stick with the house metaphor, then curtains, blinds, fences and doors would fit the comparison.

parineum 5y ago
I considered writing that it's more like building your house out of glass. The important point I'm trying to convey is that banning encryption is so extreme that it makes invasion of privacy something that someone can accidentally do. You have to try not to look, similar to if a person was nude in front of you against their will.
inter_netuser 5y ago
Just ban walls in washrooms. You have nothing to hide there, do you, citizen?

dskloet 5y ago

You can't have security without privacy.