4 ms·

There is nothing dumb about these people. It's important to understand the underlying belief that drives stupid encryption policy though. They interpret a limit

There is nothing dumb about these people. It's important to understand the underlying belief that drives stupid encryption policy though. They interpret a limit on their omniscience as a limit on their sovereignty. If I could summarize the way people I've met in government moralize policies like these it's, "Leviathan, c'est moi." Consequently, I don't know that they are persuaded by principle or reason. They understand power, but that's about it. The main thing that comes out of laws that sabotage encryption is they shift the burden of proof of innocence onto the accused, because if there are encrypted files involved, there is no legal presumption of innocence. This is the most serious crux of the issue: anti-encryption laws violate the presumption of innocence that underpins the western legal system, and that's what makes them so desirable to certain establishments. Encryption isn't about hiding anything, it's about whether there is a physical/logical limit to the discretion of the state, and whether the presumption of innocence of the accused is an inalienable right or just a convention.

starkd 4y ago
Right. If it's not "think of the children", it's "you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong".
- jaywalk 4y ago
  And the undeniable fact is that nearly everyone is doing something wrong (with highly varying degrees of wrongness, of course) every single day.
  - justin_oaks 4y ago
    Or can appear to be wrong. This is really the problem of the "nothing to hide" arguments. It isn't that you have anything to hide so much as people can use the information against you by interpreting it wrong, removing necessary context, bringing up old information that is no longer relevant today (e.g. youthful indiscretions), etc.
    - californical 4y ago
      Like imagine you and a college friend have a running joke where you do something slightly offensive to each other, and the other person acts all surprised. To you both, that’s just a funny running joke, but it could be taken out of context and shared with the world to make you look like a creep. If someone has a record of that, they can cut out the part right afterwards where you laugh and hug. Will it be used against you? Probably not. But what a powerful weapon for someone to have hanging over your head.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Or things that weren't considered wrong become wrong 20 years later.
- snarf21 4y ago
  Exactly. And my first response is to ask that person to hand be their unlocked phone. I promise to keep anything I learn secret. They care about their privacy, no one elses.
flipbrad 4y ago
I suspect there are some that instead think in much more utilitarian terms: yes, of course bad guys will continue to use other services that don't accept a backdoor. But those will be easier to target for covert action instead. Getting criminals off the mainstream platforms saves money and effort! Yes, everyone else has their privacy thrown away for no direct good reason, but that's an acceptable cost of keeping them safe.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  But that's the rhetorical distraction from the concrete legal and charter or constitutional question of the relationship between encryption and the presumption of innocence. It's a much better framing than encryption as freedom of speech or uncodified notions of privacy - this is a straight up challenge to whether individuals have any inaliable rights in your society, or, as mere subjects of the crown in the UK and commonwealth, the discretion of the sovereign is absolute. America's bill of rights is unique in the world, but the next order question if the presumption of innocence isn't defined as a right is, has it been defined in precedent - which it certainly has. IANAL or a legalist at all, but I have done a great deal of work related to encryption policy and privacy within government (infosec and privacy in the public sector is essentially government governance), and encryption and privacy are a forcing functions for a lot of very important questions about sovereignty and state.
  - flipbrad 4y ago
    Playing devil's advocate here, I'm not sure why encryption would be the forcing factor there and not, for instance, CCTV, blanket data retention or preflight passenger screening? If presumption of innocence necessarily had to mean immunity from precautionary, non-discriminating security measures, then none of the things I listed should be happening (NB: I'm not saying they're OK, I'm just saying the ship sailed on your argument long ago). And there's nothing rhetorical about my comment, so far as I can see. As for the UK, the discretion of the sovereign hasn't been absolute for many many centuries.
    - 4y ago
JTbane 4y ago
Someone needs to tell these govt fools that the cat is out of the bag on encryption, you can go on github and download libraries that would allow anyone to make an encrypted messenger.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Okay, but when you’re a subject of an investigation and you’re found to be using those libraries, you’re assumed guilty. Defend yourself against „but you are using encryption, you’re guilty, prove to us you DIDN’T do anything wrong” argument.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

starkd 4y ago

Right. If it's not "think of the children", it's "you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong".

jaywalk 4y ago
And the undeniable fact is that nearly everyone is doing something wrong (with highly varying degrees of wrongness, of course) every single day.
- justin_oaks 4y ago
  Or can appear to be wrong. This is really the problem of the "nothing to hide" arguments. It isn't that you have anything to hide so much as people can use the information against you by interpreting it wrong, removing necessary context, bringing up old information that is no longer relevant today (e.g. youthful indiscretions), etc.
  - californical 4y ago
    Like imagine you and a college friend have a running joke where you do something slightly offensive to each other, and the other person acts all surprised. To you both, that’s just a funny running joke, but it could be taken out of context and shared with the world to make you look like a creep. If someone has a record of that, they can cut out the part right afterwards where you laugh and hug. Will it be used against you? Probably not. But what a powerful weapon for someone to have hanging over your head.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Or things that weren't considered wrong become wrong 20 years later.
snarf21 4y ago
Exactly. And my first response is to ask that person to hand be their unlocked phone. I promise to keep anything I learn secret. They care about their privacy, no one elses.

flipbrad 4y ago

I suspect there are some that instead think in much more utilitarian terms: yes, of course bad guys will continue to use other services that don't accept a backdoor. But those will be easier to target for covert action instead. Getting criminals off the mainstream platforms saves money and effort! Yes, everyone else has their privacy thrown away for no direct good reason, but that's an acceptable cost of keeping them safe.

motohagiography 4y ago
But that's the rhetorical distraction from the concrete legal and charter or constitutional question of the relationship between encryption and the presumption of innocence. It's a much better framing than encryption as freedom of speech or uncodified notions of privacy - this is a straight up challenge to whether individuals have any inaliable rights in your society, or, as mere subjects of the crown in the UK and commonwealth, the discretion of the sovereign is absolute. America's bill of rights is unique in the world, but the next order question if the presumption of innocence isn't defined as a right is, has it been defined in precedent - which it certainly has. IANAL or a legalist at all, but I have done a great deal of work related to encryption policy and privacy within government (infosec and privacy in the public sector is essentially government governance), and encryption and privacy are a forcing functions for a lot of very important questions about sovereignty and state.
- flipbrad 4y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here, I'm not sure why encryption would be the forcing factor there and not, for instance, CCTV, blanket data retention or preflight passenger screening? If presumption of innocence necessarily had to mean immunity from precautionary, non-discriminating security measures, then none of the things I listed should be happening (NB: I'm not saying they're OK, I'm just saying the ship sailed on your argument long ago). And there's nothing rhetorical about my comment, so far as I can see. As for the UK, the discretion of the sovereign hasn't been absolute for many many centuries.
  - 4y ago

JTbane 4y ago

Someone needs to tell these govt fools that the cat is out of the bag on encryption, you can go on github and download libraries that would allow anyone to make an encrypted messenger.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
Okay, but when you’re a subject of an investigation and you’re found to be using those libraries, you’re assumed guilty. Defend yourself against „but you are using encryption, you’re guilty, prove to us you DIDN’T do anything wrong” argument.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]