3 ms·

> Law enforcement has more power than ever before because of digital technology. When a fraction gets larger overall, and both the numerator and denominator ha

> Law enforcement has more power than ever before because of digital technology. When a fraction gets larger overall, and both the numerator and denominator have changed, it can be difficult to say which quantity is to blame. Digital technology has given potential bad guys new powers too: you can get radicalised online, you can download bomb-making manuals (over TOR, if you have any sense), or you can get involved in phishing and ransomware and crypto rug-pulls and other cybercrime that wouldn't exist without technology. In some ways, law enforcement has much less power than ever before. That does not automatically mean I'm for, or against, any specific bill. But it does mean that an intellectually honest pro-privacy answer has to acknowledge this and then make an argument why the benefits of end-to-end encryption outweigh the risks - which, personally speaking, I don't think is that hard an argument to make. (Part of such an argument might be that, in areas where law enforcement has less power than before, it's because the crimes involve people or servers outside of their jurisdiction. Banning e2e whatsapp from e.g. one US citizen to another would do precisely nothing about that.)

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
On the topic of "outside of their jurisdiction", one method used by overseas scammers is spoofing phone numbers to make calls and SMS messages appear local, providing at least an initial layer of legitimacy. How (the actual fuck) can telecomms companies not have this under control? (I know it has to be much more complicated than I could fathom, but on the other hand, are they not in control of their own networks? If not, that's pretty scary given the telecomms industry is both highly profitable and powerful). This problem doesn't need a master key, it needs appropriate regulation to bring said telecomms companies slightly further away from a status of complete dereliction of duty.
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  I've read some articles on how international phone systems "work", and it blows my mind how crappy and wild-westey it is.
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  Spam SMS is also an entrypoint into a target's phone for spyware/tracking purposes, eg Pegasus. Perhaps the powers-that-be would prefer to retain that possible entrypoint, and thus have no incentive to resolve the spam "problem".
nimbius 3y ago
>you can get radicalised online Great. Ted Kaczynski and a host of other malfeasants were radicalized through books and philosophy but we didnt turn public libraries into listening posts or start banning books wholesale. since theres no tangible KPI it can also be argued most netizens do not get radicalized online. the best defense against radicalization is education and open discussion. prevention, instead of detection. > you can get involved in phishing and ransomware and crypto rug-pulls and other cybercrime that wouldn't exist without technology. confidence art is a tale as old as time itself. that somehow because criminal activity takes place online I am supposed to hand a duplicate key to all my locks over to the state is a pretty weak argument.
- admax88qqq 3y ago
  Your moral outrage is not a convincing argument to those who would consider the authorities having a master key. Technology _does_ give criminals and terrorists new avenues and techniques to commit harm. If you want to convince people who think "well I have nothing to hide from the authorities and I'm scared of terrorists so I'd prefer authorities be able to read what they need to keep me safe" then you need a stronger argument that acknowledges how technology also enables nefarious ones. Because ultimately those are the people you have to convince, as there's a lot of them and they're ready to vote in favour. Moral outrage just gets those of us who agree nodding along.
  - nimbius 3y ago
    id argue no, ultimately the voice of cowardice and ignorance does not deserve equal vote. A child understands a kitchen stove, but isnt given wholesale authority to ban them when theyre burned. people who cannot understand the implications of security outside of rare events and pop culture should not be invited to participate in the legislation of its outcome. its how you wind up with things like the TSA. i acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though.
    - admax88qqq 3y ago
      > acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though. aye there's the rub

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

On the topic of "outside of their jurisdiction", one method used by overseas scammers is spoofing phone numbers to make calls and SMS messages appear local, providing at least an initial layer of legitimacy. How (the actual fuck) can telecomms companies not have this under control? (I know it has to be much more complicated than I could fathom, but on the other hand, are they not in control of their own networks? If not, that's pretty scary given the telecomms industry is both highly profitable and powerful). This problem doesn't need a master key, it needs appropriate regulation to bring said telecomms companies slightly further away from a status of complete dereliction of duty.

brokenmachine 3y ago
I've read some articles on how international phone systems "work", and it blows my mind how crappy and wild-westey it is.
brokenmachine 3y ago
Spam SMS is also an entrypoint into a target's phone for spyware/tracking purposes, eg Pegasus. Perhaps the powers-that-be would prefer to retain that possible entrypoint, and thus have no incentive to resolve the spam "problem".

nimbius 3y ago

>you can get radicalised online Great. Ted Kaczynski and a host of other malfeasants were radicalized through books and philosophy but we didnt turn public libraries into listening posts or start banning books wholesale. since theres no tangible KPI it can also be argued most netizens do not get radicalized online. the best defense against radicalization is education and open discussion. prevention, instead of detection. > you can get involved in phishing and ransomware and crypto rug-pulls and other cybercrime that wouldn't exist without technology. confidence art is a tale as old as time itself. that somehow because criminal activity takes place online I am supposed to hand a duplicate key to all my locks over to the state is a pretty weak argument.

admax88qqq 3y ago
Your moral outrage is not a convincing argument to those who would consider the authorities having a master key. Technology _does_ give criminals and terrorists new avenues and techniques to commit harm. If you want to convince people who think "well I have nothing to hide from the authorities and I'm scared of terrorists so I'd prefer authorities be able to read what they need to keep me safe" then you need a stronger argument that acknowledges how technology also enables nefarious ones. Because ultimately those are the people you have to convince, as there's a lot of them and they're ready to vote in favour. Moral outrage just gets those of us who agree nodding along.
- nimbius 3y ago
  id argue no, ultimately the voice of cowardice and ignorance does not deserve equal vote. A child understands a kitchen stove, but isnt given wholesale authority to ban them when theyre burned. people who cannot understand the implications of security outside of rare events and pop culture should not be invited to participate in the legislation of its outcome. its how you wind up with things like the TSA. i acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though.
  - admax88qqq 3y ago
    > acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though. aye there's the rub