4 ms·
"normal" changes over time: a hundred years ago it wasn't normal to talk with literally all of your friends and family remotely all the time, nowadays it is. C
by pera 3y ago
"normal" changes over time: a hundred years ago it wasn't normal to talk with literally all of your friends and family remotely all the time, nowadays it is.
Countries signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should respect Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
- pif 3y ago> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his ... correspondence Still, nobody was ever shocked that a judge could order letters to be open or telephones to be tapped. And yet, as soon as someone asks whether we should consider something similar for electronic encryption, HN reacts as if this was something never heard of, nor imaginable.
- pera 3y agoThis is about mass surveillance, not about court orders for wiretapping a person who is being investigated for a crime.
- pif 3y agoWhether for one person or for everybody, eavesdropping requires encryption to be breakable. We must accept that serious discussion on this issue is not yet closed, and we must accept that one possible outcome is that encryption be banned. Treating a recent advancement in computing technology as the most natural of the things is not good advocacy of an issue.
- pera 3y ago> eavesdropping requires encryption to be breakable This is false.
- pif 3y agoI'm sincerely interested in an example. Thanks in advance!
- pera 3y agohttps://boingboing.net/2016/12/05/uk-cops-beat-phone-encryption.html https://boingboing.net/2016/12/05/uk-cops-beat-phone-encrypt... https://www.wired.com/story/smartphone-encryption-law-enforcement-tools/ https://www.wired.com/story/smartphone-encryption-law-enforc... https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/encrypted-messages-dont-always-stay-private-heres-what-that-means-for-you/ https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/encrypted-messages-dont-al... https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7b4gg/anom-phone-arcaneos-fbi-backdoor https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7b4gg/anom-phone-arcaneos-f... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-08/fbi-afp-underworld-crime-bust-an0m-cash-drugs-murder/100197246 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-08/fbi-afp-underworld-cr... https://www.wired.com/2015/01/silk-road-trial-undercover-dhs-fbi-trap-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.wired.com/2015/01/silk-road-trial-undercover-dhs... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/mossad_hacked_s.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/mossad_hacked... https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/law-enforcement-access-to-encrypted-data-legislative-responses-and-the-charter/ https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/law-enforcement-access-...
- knewter 3y ago> encryption be banned You want a law that says we can't share prime numbers?
- pif 3y agoI'm not sure you read any of my comments, apart the one you replied to. My only point is that discussions concerning the use of encryption must be accepted, because there is nothing inherently evil or unnatural in them. Don't let's get shocked any time someone proposes something that goes against some folks' credo, and let's debate the proposal in a constructive manner.
- knewter 3y agoI maintain that banning the sharing of prime numbers is outside of the powers of a legitimate government, regardless.