4 ms·

What are actual laws you're thinking of that aren't attacks on end to end encryption? All of this is already highly illegal the difficulties are finding and pro

by rtkwe 3y ago

What are actual laws you're thinking of that aren't attacks on end to end encryption? All of this is already highly illegal the difficulties are finding and prosecuting the criminals.

throwaway290 3y ago
Finding and prosecuting is the point? What made people do it before is mental illness. What makes people do it now more and more is additionally profit. The e2e apps and crypto is what drives their profit. But critically there are ways of keeping e2e without being complicit in crime. Things like Apple's hash matching or requiring all messaging apps to do on device scan are that. Pretending these compromises are unacceptable because they affect your privacy is a nonce move. You routinely compromise your privacy in much bigger ways in order to live in society, every time you are searched at security or present ID for verification etc, but when it comes to doing anything to help victims who unlike you can't even stand up for themselves you are suddenly the unyielding freedom fighter.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > Things like Apple's hash matching or requiring all messaging apps to do on device scan are that. No thanks. It's bad enough that our devices often play fast and loose with our privacy as it is, but don't want my devices to be violating my privacy in ways where errors can have legal consequences for me. Beyond that, these sorts of systems will always be increased in scope by people who want to abuse them for their own purposes.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > No thanks. I was not making a suggestion, I was stating facts.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  There's no way to have E2E encryption that's strong against government overreach that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop. It's a moral conundrum that anyone interested in preserving privacy is going to have to grapple with in the end, your tools are going to be used by criminals to evade justice no matter how many exceptions or tools you try to include to differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys". Even things in the neighborhood of Apple's hash and device scans can only detect existing minimally altered images and also fall down to context if they try to detect more general issues like "nude children". We don't even have to get hypothetical about false positives of anti-CSAM measures [0] they're already out there happening. The devices are blind to context and the occurrence of actual CSAM are rare (blessedly) but there's a whole genre of "my kid did something cute in the tub" that look a lot like it without the context to a machine. [0] https://9to5google.com/2022/08/22/google-locked-account-medical-photo-story/ https://9to5google.com/2022/08/22/google-locked-account-medi...
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > There's no way to have E2E encryption that's strong against government overreach that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop > There's no way to have cash that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop Life is not black and white. You can have freedom enabling technologies like cash but you acquiesce to cash controls, maximum transaction amounts, personal searches if there is reasonable suspicion and so on. Same applies to e2e encryption or anything else. To think otherwise just in this case is a nonce move, you have not refuted my points in the slightest.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      To do all of those you have to go to the person and perform the search, the law can also go to a person and perform a search of their E2E encrypted files by getting a warrant and requiring them to unlock the devices. Providing a back door in E2E for law enforcement gives them the weakness to search anyone's traffic with or without a warrant, it's also an ambivalent weakness anyone can potentially exploit. Compromises in digital systems for communications are infinitely more abusable than any physical search because they can be performed automatically and at a massive scale, pretending they won't or can be trusted to follow the law is ignoring the 2 decades of evidence we've been given since the Patriot Act allowed mass wiretapping. Do you remember parallel construction? Room 641A? The rubber stamp of the FISA courts?
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        > To do all of those you have to go to the person and perform the search, the law can also go to a person and perform a search of their E2E encrypted files by getting a warrant and requiring them to unlock the devices. Violation of privacy in person is still bad. They can know your hidden illnesses or anything else people generally keep private. Something that you can't find out from texts. There are plenty of examples where you don't need to be in person. Like financial transactions. You submit to your income to be disclosed to the government, and that the government will not freeze your money for no reason. The capability to freeze is key in order to combat profit from crime, kidnappings, blackmail etc. If you forgo that you get anarchy. If you don't trust your government's checks and balances to take measures in public benefit, you should elect a different one. But the ability to take measures is important, more technical solutions will not solve a human problem as time always shows.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  We don't have to "pretend". Those compromises are unacceptable.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    They are perfectly acceptable. In fact if you live in a civilized society I can guarantee you that you accept equivalent compromises in all areas of your life at all times. If it's only in this case that you're up in arms about, that's telling.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Even when "civilized" society forces such laws on me, I accept nothing. I go out of my way to avoid this stuff. You can guarantee absolutely nothing, you don't know a single thing about me. Take your pedophilia accusations somewhere else, they don't work on me. I'm wise to your strategy.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        "e2e & crypto does not hurt children" is techbro's equivalent of "guns do not kill people". The lower bounds of morality in this industry will never cease to amaze...
        matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Correct. Encryption does not hurt chilren and guns do not kill people. Humans do all that.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Any tool that is useful, is useful for both good and bad purposes. Any tool that is rendered not useful for bad purposes, has also been rendered not useful for good purposes. There is no such thing as a compromise. It requires pretending (or ignorance) to imagine that there is even any sort of compromise logically or physically possible.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > Any tool that is useful, is useful for both good and bad purposes. Exactly. Which means tradeoffs. Like cash enables freedom, it also means that there are measures to reduce its use for bad purposes (including maximum transaction limits, how much you can carry in/out of country, etc) that we all agree to. Like using public transport enables mass killings, it also means there are measures to reduce that (security inspections, etc). Like advances in science and tech enable cool gadgets, they also enable deadly weapons and that's why their export is regulated (sanctions, etc). If you want to have absolute freedom, please go start with those things instead of child abuse. It's top of double standard to agree to compromise when it concerns your personal adult freedom, but not when it concerns innocent and powerless victims. > There is no such thing as a compromise. It requires pretending (or ignorance) to imagine that there is even any sort of compromise logically or physically possible. Dude, it literally does not follow from what you write before this sentence. Any tool that can be used for good can also be used for bad, and there are always compromises in order to restrict its uses for bad.

by rtkwe 3y ago

What are actual laws you're thinking of that aren't attacks on end to end encryption? All of this is already highly illegal the difficulties are finding and prosecuting the criminals.

throwaway290 3y ago

Finding and prosecuting is the point? What made people do it before is mental illness. What makes people do it now more and more is additionally profit. The e2e apps and crypto is what drives their profit. But critically there are ways of keeping e2e without being complicit in crime. Things like Apple's hash matching or requiring all messaging apps to do on device scan are that. Pretending these compromises are unacceptable because they affect your privacy is a nonce move. You routinely compromise your privacy in much bigger ways in order to live in society, every time you are searched at security or present ID for verification etc, but when it comes to doing anything to help victims who unlike you can't even stand up for themselves you are suddenly the unyielding freedom fighter.

kelnos 3y ago
> Things like Apple's hash matching or requiring all messaging apps to do on device scan are that. No thanks. It's bad enough that our devices often play fast and loose with our privacy as it is, but don't want my devices to be violating my privacy in ways where errors can have legal consequences for me. Beyond that, these sorts of systems will always be increased in scope by people who want to abuse them for their own purposes.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > No thanks. I was not making a suggestion, I was stating facts.
rtkwe 3y ago
There's no way to have E2E encryption that's strong against government overreach that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop. It's a moral conundrum that anyone interested in preserving privacy is going to have to grapple with in the end, your tools are going to be used by criminals to evade justice no matter how many exceptions or tools you try to include to differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys". Even things in the neighborhood of Apple's hash and device scans can only detect existing minimally altered images and also fall down to context if they try to detect more general issues like "nude children". We don't even have to get hypothetical about false positives of anti-CSAM measures [0] they're already out there happening. The devices are blind to context and the occurrence of actual CSAM are rare (blessedly) but there's a whole genre of "my kid did something cute in the tub" that look a lot like it without the context to a machine. [0] https://9to5google.com/2022/08/22/google-locked-account-medical-photo-story/ https://9to5google.com/2022/08/22/google-locked-account-medi...
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > There's no way to have E2E encryption that's strong against government overreach that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop > There's no way to have cash that doesn't also facilitate crime full stop Life is not black and white. You can have freedom enabling technologies like cash but you acquiesce to cash controls, maximum transaction amounts, personal searches if there is reasonable suspicion and so on. Same applies to e2e encryption or anything else. To think otherwise just in this case is a nonce move, you have not refuted my points in the slightest.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    To do all of those you have to go to the person and perform the search, the law can also go to a person and perform a search of their E2E encrypted files by getting a warrant and requiring them to unlock the devices. Providing a back door in E2E for law enforcement gives them the weakness to search anyone's traffic with or without a warrant, it's also an ambivalent weakness anyone can potentially exploit. Compromises in digital systems for communications are infinitely more abusable than any physical search because they can be performed automatically and at a massive scale, pretending they won't or can be trusted to follow the law is ignoring the 2 decades of evidence we've been given since the Patriot Act allowed mass wiretapping. Do you remember parallel construction? Room 641A? The rubber stamp of the FISA courts?
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      > To do all of those you have to go to the person and perform the search, the law can also go to a person and perform a search of their E2E encrypted files by getting a warrant and requiring them to unlock the devices. Violation of privacy in person is still bad. They can know your hidden illnesses or anything else people generally keep private. Something that you can't find out from texts. There are plenty of examples where you don't need to be in person. Like financial transactions. You submit to your income to be disclosed to the government, and that the government will not freeze your money for no reason. The capability to freeze is key in order to combat profit from crime, kidnappings, blackmail etc. If you forgo that you get anarchy. If you don't trust your government's checks and balances to take measures in public benefit, you should elect a different one. But the ability to take measures is important, more technical solutions will not solve a human problem as time always shows.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
We don't have to "pretend". Those compromises are unacceptable.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  They are perfectly acceptable. In fact if you live in a civilized society I can guarantee you that you accept equivalent compromises in all areas of your life at all times. If it's only in this case that you're up in arms about, that's telling.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Even when "civilized" society forces such laws on me, I accept nothing. I go out of my way to avoid this stuff. You can guarantee absolutely nothing, you don't know a single thing about me. Take your pedophilia accusations somewhere else, they don't work on me. I'm wise to your strategy.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      "e2e & crypto does not hurt children" is techbro's equivalent of "guns do not kill people". The lower bounds of morality in this industry will never cease to amaze...
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Correct. Encryption does not hurt chilren and guns do not kill people. Humans do all that.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Any tool that is useful, is useful for both good and bad purposes. Any tool that is rendered not useful for bad purposes, has also been rendered not useful for good purposes. There is no such thing as a compromise. It requires pretending (or ignorance) to imagine that there is even any sort of compromise logically or physically possible.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > Any tool that is useful, is useful for both good and bad purposes. Exactly. Which means tradeoffs. Like cash enables freedom, it also means that there are measures to reduce its use for bad purposes (including maximum transaction limits, how much you can carry in/out of country, etc) that we all agree to. Like using public transport enables mass killings, it also means there are measures to reduce that (security inspections, etc). Like advances in science and tech enable cool gadgets, they also enable deadly weapons and that's why their export is regulated (sanctions, etc). If you want to have absolute freedom, please go start with those things instead of child abuse. It's top of double standard to agree to compromise when it concerns your personal adult freedom, but not when it concerns innocent and powerless victims. > There is no such thing as a compromise. It requires pretending (or ignorance) to imagine that there is even any sort of compromise logically or physically possible. Dude, it literally does not follow from what you write before this sentence. Any tool that can be used for good can also be used for bad, and there are always compromises in order to restrict its uses for bad.