7 ms·

I don't think blanket statements like this are true, and I don't think they're a healthy way to frame the debate. To take a non-trivial example, requiring cars

by whakim 4y ago

I don't think blanket statements like this are true, and I don't think they're a healthy way to frame the debate. To take a non-trivial example, requiring cars to bear license plates - something almost everyone accepts, at least in the United States - has a lot of upsides like enforcement of traffic laws. Sure, perhaps traffic cameras aid totalitarian states in tracking the movements of citizens, but I think most people agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms of privacy. This is a long way of saying that, even as a strong privacy advocate, it's worth noting that the tradeoff is real and the terms of debate ought to be over whether the tradeoff is a good one or not. In the case of encryption, this is a difficult question for us to answer because we're essentially asking how many crimes might have been prevented or might have gone unpunished had the perpetrators used encrypted communications. That being said, I think the security state would be hitting us over the head with these statistics if they could actually make a coherent case - the fact that Reid Blackman is instead making a fallacious comparison between encryption and the nuclear launch codes suggests that the figures don't add up.

FigmentEngine 4y ago
false and dangerous analogy. knowing your number plate is comparable to knowing your phone number, rather than the real analogy of bugging your converation in the car. the number plate yields metadata about journeys, not the actual conversation. "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a problem with barcodes on milk"
- w0m 4y ago
  > "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a problem with barcodes on milk" I mean; unless you pay cash for ~everything your spending habits have generally been wide open since the 50s in the name of convenience.
  - novok 4y ago
    Vast majority of transactions were still mostly cash beyond some basic "pay my rent and utility bills and buy a car" until maybe starting at the 80s / 90s, and using credit cards back then was done wayyyy less than even the early 2000s.
    - w0m 4y ago
      True. For some perspective, half my work group wasn't yet born in the time periods you're referencing.
pdonis 4y ago
> I think most people agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms of privacy. I think most people have never even considered the matter in those terms; they just accept that license plates are how we do things and don't bother asking why. When you actually ask why, your claimed upsides don't, IMO, actually amount to much. Enforcement of traffic laws? Most of those are revenue sources for local jurisdictions, not improvements in safety. If someone does no harm when violating a traffic law, there's nothing actually worth enforcing from a safety perspective; and if someone does do harm, how much help is a license plate in tracking them down? What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but get found later because their license plates were known? A large enough fraction that license plates for everyone are justified taking into account the privacy downsides? This, btw, is the same logic you apply yourself in the latter part of your post. And your conclusion? > I think the security state would be hitting us over the head with these statistics if they could actually make a coherent case Which means that, since they're not, there actually isn't a case. And I agree with that--both for license plates and for encryption backdoors. And for other claims that we need to give up our privacy for some other supposed benefit.
- nl 4y ago
  > What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but get found later because their license plates were known? As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%. So yes, it is a trade-off and in this case I agree with the OP that is is worth it.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%. My anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth (which is not much in either case), is exactly the opposite: in every traffic accident I have been involved in, neither I nor anyone else left the scene. (Btw, when you say "aggressive car behaviors", are these things that actually caused harm?) As far as actual data that would be strong enough to justify imposing public policy on everyone, I don't think it's there.
heavyset_go 4y ago
ALPR systems were controversial when they were first implemented, as it gave governments ways to track people who are not even suspected of committing crimes. I still oppose them, as do other activist groups, but that infringement upon privacy was lost in battle a decade ago to "who cares, the police say they arrested a kid selling pot to his friends with ALPR and I have nothing to hide". As it stands now, there are ALPR systems at every intersection in my neighborhood. If some weirdo with access to the system, which might be anyone that the government contracts with, wants to stalk me, their ex, etc, they can now do it with the push of a button and with little to no oversight.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  This partiuclar method should be deprecated in favor of using AirTags.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I still oppose them, as do other activist groups, but that infringement upon privacy was lost in battle a decade ago to "who cares, the police say they arrested a kid selling pot to his friends with ALPR and I have nothing to hide". I had colleague like that. I then asked "sure, let me install camera in your bedroom, you have nothing to hide, right?" He STFU about it after...
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Part of me is convinced that some people like that would be easily persuaded into putting cameras in their bedrooms if they were told it would keep them safe from burglars/murderers/terrorists/pedophiles/bears/tigers[1]/or whatever boogeyman they particularly don't like. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Previous poster wasn't talking about automatic scanning of all license plates, but about license plates themselves and (maybe) speed cameras and the like. These are two different things.
uconnectlol 4y ago
> license plates That's funny, someone noticed it. License plates are a giant privacy problem. Yes, even before Snowden had to tell us, we had totalitarian bullshit like requiring ID (and the prospect of 10*X years of jail if you fake it) for hotels, receiving mail, and driving. You bring up a good point that the one you are replying to is absolutely correct, not just on a blanket statement level. There's almost no exceptions to it.
ilyt 4y ago
> I don't think blanket statements like this are true, and I don't think they're a healthy way to frame the debate. To take a non-trivial example, requiring cars to bear license plates - something almost everyone accepts, at least in the United States - has a lot of upsides like enforcement of traffic laws. Sure, perhaps traffic cameras aid totalitarian states in tracking the movements of citizens, but I think most people agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms of privacy. That's terrible comparison. Cars are in public by default, more than that with cameras you don't even need to have license plates to track someone, they just make it easier. There is also very little stuff that would be privacy violating, yeah, sure, someone might note that your plates showed up at your lover's house but... they could just record you exiting the car, same with any illegal stuff. The social contract is also different, you're allowed to drive on public infrastructure funded by everyone, and in return you need to have car that not massive safety hazard and abide by law. Communication has nothing to do with it > This is a long way of saying that, even as a strong privacy advocate, it's worth noting that the tradeoff is real and the terms of debate ought to be over whether the tradeoff is a good one or not. I'm sad to inform you that cat is out of the bag for decade or two now, and if criminals chose to have encrypted communication they don't need Signal for it. The cat will not go back into the bag no matter how much legislation tries. The math doesn't care for politician's feelings. There is no tradeoff here - bad guys can do it already using many other ways, it's just trying to limit it for the normal people > In the case of encryption, this is a difficult question for us to answer because we're essentially asking how many crimes might have been prevented or might have gone unpunished had the perpetrators used encrypted communications. The other side is people dying or getting jailed because their tyrannical government didn't like what they chatted about.
- whakim 4y ago
  > That's terrible comparison. To be clear, I'm not arguing that encrypted communication is a 1:1 analogue to license plates. I'm arguing that they both reduce privacy to some extent, and therefore it's not right to simply say the tradeoffs are never worth it. (I would also quibble with your application of social contracts, but I don't think the details are actually that relevant given the above.) > I'm sad to inform you that cat is out of the bag for decade or two now I didn't intend for this to be an actual policy debate; I understand that you can't legislate away encryption. I was simply making the point these debates (is encrypted communication a social good?) aren't totally tradeoff-free, and pretending they are won't get us anywhere constructive. > There is no tradeoff here - bad guys can do it already using many other ways, it's just trying to limit it for the normal people. While you can't legislate away encryption itself, it's naive to think that governments have no control over how popular and widespread encryption becomes. "Bad guys can do it" doesn't mean "bad guys will do it" - the mountain of unencrypted communication used as evidence in the criminal justice system proves that. I'm firmly pro-Signal, but my guess is that if the government banned Signal tomorrow, fewer bad guys would use encrypted communication just because Signal is easy to use and most criminals aren't James Bond-style supervillains. (There are, of course, second-order effects that I wouldn't want to start speculating about.)

by whakim 4y ago

FigmentEngine 4y ago

false and dangerous analogy. knowing your number plate is comparable to knowing your phone number, rather than the real analogy of bugging your converation in the car. the number plate yields metadata about journeys, not the actual conversation. "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a problem with barcodes on milk"

w0m 4y ago
> "i mean people who argue for privacy would never have a problem with barcodes on milk" I mean; unless you pay cash for ~everything your spending habits have generally been wide open since the 50s in the name of convenience.
- novok 4y ago
  Vast majority of transactions were still mostly cash beyond some basic "pay my rent and utility bills and buy a car" until maybe starting at the 80s / 90s, and using credit cards back then was done wayyyy less than even the early 2000s.
  - w0m 4y ago
    True. For some perspective, half my work group wasn't yet born in the time periods you're referencing.

pdonis 4y ago

> I think most people agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms of privacy. I think most people have never even considered the matter in those terms; they just accept that license plates are how we do things and don't bother asking why. When you actually ask why, your claimed upsides don't, IMO, actually amount to much. Enforcement of traffic laws? Most of those are revenue sources for local jurisdictions, not improvements in safety. If someone does no harm when violating a traffic law, there's nothing actually worth enforcing from a safety perspective; and if someone does do harm, how much help is a license plate in tracking them down? What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but get found later because their license plates were known? A large enough fraction that license plates for everyone are justified taking into account the privacy downsides? This, btw, is the same logic you apply yourself in the latter part of your post. And your conclusion? > I think the security state would be hitting us over the head with these statistics if they could actually make a coherent case Which means that, since they're not, there actually isn't a case. And I agree with that--both for license plates and for encryption backdoors. And for other claims that we need to give up our privacy for some other supposed benefit.

nl 4y ago
> What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but get found later because their license plates were known? As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%. So yes, it is a trade-off and in this case I agree with the OP that is is worth it.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%. My anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth (which is not much in either case), is exactly the opposite: in every traffic accident I have been involved in, neither I nor anyone else left the scene. (Btw, when you say "aggressive car behaviors", are these things that actually caused harm?) As far as actual data that would be strong enough to justify imposing public policy on everyone, I don't think it's there.

heavyset_go 4y ago

ALPR systems were controversial when they were first implemented, as it gave governments ways to track people who are not even suspected of committing crimes. I still oppose them, as do other activist groups, but that infringement upon privacy was lost in battle a decade ago to "who cares, the police say they arrested a kid selling pot to his friends with ALPR and I have nothing to hide". As it stands now, there are ALPR systems at every intersection in my neighborhood. If some weirdo with access to the system, which might be anyone that the government contracts with, wants to stalk me, their ex, etc, they can now do it with the push of a button and with little to no oversight.

eptcyka 4y ago
This partiuclar method should be deprecated in favor of using AirTags.
ilyt 4y ago
> I still oppose them, as do other activist groups, but that infringement upon privacy was lost in battle a decade ago to "who cares, the police say they arrested a kid selling pot to his friends with ALPR and I have nothing to hide". I had colleague like that. I then asked "sure, let me install camera in your bedroom, you have nothing to hide, right?" He STFU about it after...
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Part of me is convinced that some people like that would be easily persuaded into putting cameras in their bedrooms if they were told it would keep them safe from burglars/murderers/terrorists/pedophiles/bears/tigers[1]/or whatever boogeyman they particularly don't like. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
Beltalowda 4y ago
Previous poster wasn't talking about automatic scanning of all license plates, but about license plates themselves and (maybe) speed cameras and the like. These are two different things.

uconnectlol 4y ago

> license plates That's funny, someone noticed it. License plates are a giant privacy problem. Yes, even before Snowden had to tell us, we had totalitarian bullshit like requiring ID (and the prospect of 10*X years of jail if you fake it) for hotels, receiving mail, and driving. You bring up a good point that the one you are replying to is absolutely correct, not just on a blanket statement level. There's almost no exceptions to it.

ilyt 4y ago

> I don't think blanket statements like this are true, and I don't think they're a healthy way to frame the debate. To take a non-trivial example, requiring cars to bear license plates - something almost everyone accepts, at least in the United States - has a lot of upsides like enforcement of traffic laws. Sure, perhaps traffic cameras aid totalitarian states in tracking the movements of citizens, but I think most people agree that license plates are a good societal tradeoff in terms of privacy. That's terrible comparison. Cars are in public by default, more than that with cameras you don't even need to have license plates to track someone, they just make it easier. There is also very little stuff that would be privacy violating, yeah, sure, someone might note that your plates showed up at your lover's house but... they could just record you exiting the car, same with any illegal stuff. The social contract is also different, you're allowed to drive on public infrastructure funded by everyone, and in return you need to have car that not massive safety hazard and abide by law. Communication has nothing to do with it > This is a long way of saying that, even as a strong privacy advocate, it's worth noting that the tradeoff is real and the terms of debate ought to be over whether the tradeoff is a good one or not. I'm sad to inform you that cat is out of the bag for decade or two now, and if criminals chose to have encrypted communication they don't need Signal for it. The cat will not go back into the bag no matter how much legislation tries. The math doesn't care for politician's feelings. There is no tradeoff here - bad guys can do it already using many other ways, it's just trying to limit it for the normal people > In the case of encryption, this is a difficult question for us to answer because we're essentially asking how many crimes might have been prevented or might have gone unpunished had the perpetrators used encrypted communications. The other side is people dying or getting jailed because their tyrannical government didn't like what they chatted about.

whakim 4y ago
> That's terrible comparison. To be clear, I'm not arguing that encrypted communication is a 1:1 analogue to license plates. I'm arguing that they both reduce privacy to some extent, and therefore it's not right to simply say the tradeoffs are never worth it. (I would also quibble with your application of social contracts, but I don't think the details are actually that relevant given the above.) > I'm sad to inform you that cat is out of the bag for decade or two now I didn't intend for this to be an actual policy debate; I understand that you can't legislate away encryption. I was simply making the point these debates (is encrypted communication a social good?) aren't totally tradeoff-free, and pretending they are won't get us anywhere constructive. > There is no tradeoff here - bad guys can do it already using many other ways, it's just trying to limit it for the normal people. While you can't legislate away encryption itself, it's naive to think that governments have no control over how popular and widespread encryption becomes. "Bad guys can do it" doesn't mean "bad guys will do it" - the mountain of unencrypted communication used as evidence in the criminal justice system proves that. I'm firmly pro-Signal, but my guess is that if the government banned Signal tomorrow, fewer bad guys would use encrypted communication just because Signal is easy to use and most criminals aren't James Bond-style supervillains. (There are, of course, second-order effects that I wouldn't want to start speculating about.)