5 ms·

Trotting out every argument against E2E encryption, but in reverse… secure communication for me, but not for thee. Accountability doesn’t need to be real time

Trotting out every argument against E2E encryption, but in reverse… secure communication for me, but not for thee. Accountability doesn’t need to be real time - every word is recorded, either centrally or by multiple body cam mics. All those recordings are accessible where accountability really matters - in court.

jchw 3y ago
I don't really see why this is similar to the usual E2EE argument. these communications are public record on purpose, whereas people's personal conversations are not. Bringing that into this is pointless, especially since I doubt this is E2EE in the same sense that private chats are.
- giantg2 3y ago
  These communications also contain personal and sometimes sensitive information of citizens.
  - jchw 3y ago
    I can see how that is an issue, but I still think bringing the E2EE argument in here is completely beside the point, and I think your point here serves to illustrate that: if a private chat didn't contain potentially sensitive information, it wouldn't make it any more reasonable to argue against being able to encrypt it. It may very well be that what the NYPD is doing is ultimately the right way to go, but you can't get there by comparing it to the typical E2EE debate.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      I'm not comparing it to E2EE. I'm stating there is personal information in the messages. The subject doesn't have a choice to how that information is transmitted or protected. There should be a duty for the government to protect that person's info if they have the power to force the person to disclose it. Most recording are not by default public record either. Oftentimes it needs to be censored before being released to protect sensitive information, like subject addresses, license numbers, etc.
      - jchw 3y ago
        I see. Yeah, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I was replying about honestly, so this is more of a tangent.
        giantg2 3y ago
        It was mostly meant as an add-on response to your parent.
devwastaken 3y ago
"oops the records are gone. Can't rule based on absence of evidence." Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and apply criminal charges. You're comparing apples to oranges. Every time gov moves power away from the people they're doing it for the benefit of those in power. Not for you. Even if it works now it will be abused the second the current governance is replaced. NY, like most big cities, is already incredibly corrupt. If you believe adding more power on top is proper then you're playing football with people's lives.
- giantg2 3y ago
  What are they getting over the radio that can't be recorded in person? The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.
  - HaZeust 3y ago
    ¿Por que no los dos? It NEVER hurts to know the radio-ins for scenes and if inaccurate information is given, if something unbecoming is shared to one officer by another, if there is conspiracy to participate in the blue wall of silence [1], and many more scenarios. Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both. You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
    - giantg2 3y ago
      They use cell phones for the stuff they don't want people to hear. "If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings" Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
agreed. 90% of the time someone uses a "me..thee" phrasing, it is associated with a superficial and juvenile take. Different standards apply in different situations. The devil is always in the details with drawing the line. Simply noticing a difference and making it rhyme is not a criticism. "sirens for me, speed limits for thee" isn't a clever point.
chrismcb 3y ago
All these recordings can be out should be accessible in court. But everyone knows that won't always be the case. In addition you might not know they need to be accessible
woodruffw 3y ago
> secure communication for me, but not for thee. Nobody would be opposed to the NYPD having an authenticated channel for their communications. Having an encrypted one diminishes the public’s oversight during a time of already diminished oversight. Comparing the public’s right to privacy with a government agency’s desire to further escape accountability is a category error. (More to the point: the precipitating factor for all of this was Eric Garner’s death at the hands of the NYPD; they would not have been held accountable had someone not noticed their chatter as he was being killed[1]. Timeliness of public access absolutely matters.) [1]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-is-spending-390-million-on-a-new-encrypted-radio-system https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-is-spending-390-million-on-a...
- gorkish 3y ago
  In my experience it seems there is not a lot of understanding, even among people who are technology oriented, that it is possible to do strong cryptographic authentication without encryption. Whether from oversight or purposeful omission, it's an option that very rarely surfaces in discussion.

jchw 3y ago

I don't really see why this is similar to the usual E2EE argument. these communications are public record on purpose, whereas people's personal conversations are not. Bringing that into this is pointless, especially since I doubt this is E2EE in the same sense that private chats are.

giantg2 3y ago
These communications also contain personal and sometimes sensitive information of citizens.
- jchw 3y ago
  I can see how that is an issue, but I still think bringing the E2EE argument in here is completely beside the point, and I think your point here serves to illustrate that: if a private chat didn't contain potentially sensitive information, it wouldn't make it any more reasonable to argue against being able to encrypt it. It may very well be that what the NYPD is doing is ultimately the right way to go, but you can't get there by comparing it to the typical E2EE debate.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    I'm not comparing it to E2EE. I'm stating there is personal information in the messages. The subject doesn't have a choice to how that information is transmitted or protected. There should be a duty for the government to protect that person's info if they have the power to force the person to disclose it. Most recording are not by default public record either. Oftentimes it needs to be censored before being released to protect sensitive information, like subject addresses, license numbers, etc.
    - jchw 3y ago
      I see. Yeah, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I was replying about honestly, so this is more of a tangent.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        It was mostly meant as an add-on response to your parent.

devwastaken 3y ago

"oops the records are gone. Can't rule based on absence of evidence." Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and apply criminal charges. You're comparing apples to oranges. Every time gov moves power away from the people they're doing it for the benefit of those in power. Not for you. Even if it works now it will be abused the second the current governance is replaced. NY, like most big cities, is already incredibly corrupt. If you believe adding more power on top is proper then you're playing football with people's lives.

giantg2 3y ago
What are they getting over the radio that can't be recorded in person? The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.
- HaZeust 3y ago
  ¿Por que no los dos? It NEVER hurts to know the radio-ins for scenes and if inaccurate information is given, if something unbecoming is shared to one officer by another, if there is conspiracy to participate in the blue wall of silence [1], and many more scenarios. Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both. You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
  - giantg2 3y ago
    They use cell phones for the stuff they don't want people to hear. "If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings" Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

agreed. 90% of the time someone uses a "me..thee" phrasing, it is associated with a superficial and juvenile take. Different standards apply in different situations. The devil is always in the details with drawing the line. Simply noticing a difference and making it rhyme is not a criticism. "sirens for me, speed limits for thee" isn't a clever point.

chrismcb 3y ago

All these recordings can be out should be accessible in court. But everyone knows that won't always be the case. In addition you might not know they need to be accessible

woodruffw 3y ago

> secure communication for me, but not for thee. Nobody would be opposed to the NYPD having an authenticated channel for their communications. Having an encrypted one diminishes the public’s oversight during a time of already diminished oversight. Comparing the public’s right to privacy with a government agency’s desire to further escape accountability is a category error. (More to the point: the precipitating factor for all of this was Eric Garner’s death at the hands of the NYPD; they would not have been held accountable had someone not noticed their chatter as he was being killed[1]. Timeliness of public access absolutely matters.) [1]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-is-spending-390-million-on-a-new-encrypted-radio-system https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-is-spending-390-million-on-a...

gorkish 3y ago
In my experience it seems there is not a lot of understanding, even among people who are technology oriented, that it is possible to do strong cryptographic authentication without encryption. Whether from oversight or purposeful omission, it's an option that very rarely surfaces in discussion.