3 ms·
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach. It is in fact possible to backd
by _8j50 4y ago
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach.
It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access. It is possible to also design public auditing of such systems so that a warrant or lawful order being used to intercept communications can be logged and audited by the public. Warrants are not forever secret, with that stipulation a check against abuse of lawful intercept can be incorporated into non-E2E encrypted protocols.
However, what I have learned is that it isn't just privacy or government overreach technophiles like many on HN seem to use as a reason but also a desire to undermine legitimate lawful intercept in foreign countries.
"What if the Chinese government intercepts dissident communication" they're the legit authority there, it will be publicly audited still but they have every right to do so and you have no say in what a foreign government does in their own jurisdiction.
The internet itself should be eradicated if we can't do everything at all costs to prevent harm against the weakest.
- skripp 4y ago[flagged]
- _8j50 4y agoAn insult is not an argument.
- viridian 4y agoIsn't your argument essentially saying that a nation's sovereign body, no matter what their laws, are not only expected, but also justified and morally correct in enforcing those laws, without any regard to the nature of those laws? By this argument, one would believe that it is imperative for communications networks to assist Nazi Germany in the location and rounding up of undesired people as a part of Gleichschaltung, and that to not do this is to cede power to pedophiles.
- _8j50 4y agoYes that is my argument. Until Nazis try to invade your country. However, you are free to stop providing seevices entirely in that country if you disagree with their laws.
- shkkmo 4y ago> It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. > Warrants are not forever secret Says who? > check against abuse of lawful intercept can be incorporated into non-E2E encrypted protocols. Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority? > The internet itself should be eradicated if we can't do everything at all costs to prevent harm against the weakest. At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal.
- _8j50 4y ago> Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. Then let's bring back public executions and cruel punishment. You know what else isn't desirable? Tolerating CSAM. > Says who? Alright, then secrecy of the warrant fails public audit checks. > Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority? They already have authority just not the technical ability. You should use legal and political avenues to address a naughty government. Tolerating CSAM because you refuse to accept political realities or convince your ow citizens on the matter is a terrible thing. I don't what you are referring to regarding inadequate checks, I am proposing a system similar to CT logs for PKI except new encryption can't happen without public audit log of LEO authorizarion to intercept traffic. > At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal. If the choice is between tolerating CSAM and eradicating the internet, the choice is easy for me, why isn't it for you? Fortunately, as you obviously know but chose to ignore for the sake of maligning me, we don't need to eradicate the internet in order to do our best to get rid of CSAM so clearly you knew that wasn't my intention but you misconstructed what I said for the sake of internet rage.
- computerfriend 4y ago> you have no say in what a foreign government does in their own jurisdiction. This is a disgraceful, anti-intellectual attitude.
- _8j50 4y agoSo you were being an intellectual when supporting undermining of a sovreign nation's abilitu to self-determine their fate? Look at the mirror.