4 ms·

"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know,

"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world." -- excerpt from A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, March 9, 1993

imoverclocked 3y ago
> March 9, 1993 It's funny (not haha-funny) how political policy in 2023 is still trying to catch up to morality understood 30 years ago. I remember being annoyed at newscasters abusing the term "hackers" in the late 90s and extremely broad definitions of "hacking" being applied in court-rulings. It must still be really difficult to comprehend tech and the consequences of these kinds of policies for policy makers. Either that or policy makers really are maleficent towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- DocTomoe 3y ago
  Oh, politics understands that alright, don't you worry about that. Politicians are the enemies of privacy for the masses, because a transparent population is a population that is easier controlled and manipulated. That's also why terms are being used deliberately incorrectly, to move legitimate positions nearer to criminal activity. Just ask anyone interested in hobbyist chemistry.
  - whydoyoucare 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > That way build sympathy for the law-breakers how do you build sympathy for law-breakers...? i'm having a hard time understating...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - eigen 3y ago
      > 1984. I think it was 1986, as in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. [1] > That way build sympathy for the law-breakers, then legitimize them via immigration reforms that only benefit the illegals it was noted "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans" 1. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s1200 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s1200
      - tastyfreeze 3y ago
        I don't really care if somebody entered the country legally or not. Eventually, everybody assimilates. However, I am not ok extending benefits paid for by taxes to non-citizens. As long as there are politicians trying to give tax paid benefits to "illegal" immigrants I will be against illegal immigration.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The term "illegal aliens" is an invention. "Immigrant" doesn't care about legality; it is literally just someone who has moved from another locale. Labeling one variant "legal" and another "illegal" is perfectly reasonable.
quickthrower2 3y ago
By that definition I would say secrecy is also necessary for an open society. For example my bank password is something I don’t want anyone to know.
- louloulou 3y ago
  I agree, but I don't think that's a good example. The only reason for the existence of a bank password is to enable private interactions between yourself and the bank (and the government through their financial surveillance). A better example would be encryption keys.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    I agree with that. And using your example automated encryption keys schemes, for example https.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  In practice your bank password is indeed a secret, and that's a bad thing, because that above definition is wrong, which is why I prefer to think about the U2 lyric (from "The Fly"): "They say a Secret is something you tell one other person, so I'm telling you, child". The bank knows your password. Which means they (or more precisely their agents, employees, etc.) can lose it yet they'll probably try to blame you. It is possible to not have this happen via what's called an Augmented PAKE - the bank wouldn't know your password, but they'd be able to check you still remembered it - however almost certainly none of the systems you use today do this.
  - joebob42 3y ago
    Don't they usually store a hash of it? And doesn't it therefore for the most part work exactly the way you say it ideally should? Of course leaking the hash of my password might make it easier to crack, to some extent, but if they've done a good job then this is much better than it being something the bank can trivially lose.

imoverclocked 3y ago

> March 9, 1993 It's funny (not haha-funny) how political policy in 2023 is still trying to catch up to morality understood 30 years ago. I remember being annoyed at newscasters abusing the term "hackers" in the late 90s and extremely broad definitions of "hacking" being applied in court-rulings. It must still be really difficult to comprehend tech and the consequences of these kinds of policies for policy makers. Either that or policy makers really are maleficent towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

DocTomoe 3y ago
Oh, politics understands that alright, don't you worry about that. Politicians are the enemies of privacy for the masses, because a transparent population is a population that is easier controlled and manipulated. That's also why terms are being used deliberately incorrectly, to move legitimate positions nearer to criminal activity. Just ask anyone interested in hobbyist chemistry.
- whydoyoucare 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > That way build sympathy for the law-breakers how do you build sympathy for law-breakers...? i'm having a hard time understating...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - eigen 3y ago
    > 1984. I think it was 1986, as in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. [1] > That way build sympathy for the law-breakers, then legitimize them via immigration reforms that only benefit the illegals it was noted "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans" 1. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s1200 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/s1200
    - tastyfreeze 3y ago
      I don't really care if somebody entered the country legally or not. Eventually, everybody assimilates. However, I am not ok extending benefits paid for by taxes to non-citizens. As long as there are politicians trying to give tax paid benefits to "illegal" immigrants I will be against illegal immigration.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The term "illegal aliens" is an invention. "Immigrant" doesn't care about legality; it is literally just someone who has moved from another locale. Labeling one variant "legal" and another "illegal" is perfectly reasonable.

quickthrower2 3y ago

By that definition I would say secrecy is also necessary for an open society. For example my bank password is something I don’t want anyone to know.

louloulou 3y ago
I agree, but I don't think that's a good example. The only reason for the existence of a bank password is to enable private interactions between yourself and the bank (and the government through their financial surveillance). A better example would be encryption keys.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  I agree with that. And using your example automated encryption keys schemes, for example https.
tialaramex 3y ago
In practice your bank password is indeed a secret, and that's a bad thing, because that above definition is wrong, which is why I prefer to think about the U2 lyric (from "The Fly"): "They say a Secret is something you tell one other person, so I'm telling you, child". The bank knows your password. Which means they (or more precisely their agents, employees, etc.) can lose it yet they'll probably try to blame you. It is possible to not have this happen via what's called an Augmented PAKE - the bank wouldn't know your password, but they'd be able to check you still remembered it - however almost certainly none of the systems you use today do this.
- joebob42 3y ago
  Don't they usually store a hash of it? And doesn't it therefore for the most part work exactly the way you say it ideally should? Of course leaking the hash of my password might make it easier to crack, to some extent, but if they've done a good job then this is much better than it being something the bank can trivially lose.