4 ms·

When I was standing in the field in the Middle Ages, harvesting turnips, and I said to the guy next to me: I don't think I like our prince. There was no permane

by fwn 2y ago

When I was standing in the field in the Middle Ages, harvesting turnips, and I said to the guy next to me: I don't think I like our prince. There was no permanent record of that. If I was standing at the loom and I said to the weaver next to me: I don't think we're getting enough of a share of the value of our work, then there was no permanent record of that. Today, if I ask my colleague on MS Teams what he wants for lunch, IT will probably still be able to process that message automatically 30 years from now. Without a persistent record, privacy was the default. All messages were ephemeral. Large-scale automated surveillance power is a contemporary anomaly, and it is currently uncertain whether open and democratic societies will survive this very recent and dangerous threat.

whynotmaybe 2y ago
You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. We got so distracted by shiny new tools that we forgot what it was underneath. My grandfather, before the modern computer era, used to say "words fade, writings stays". Trying to prevent government from breaking encryption won't solve the underlying issue that we are naive.
- andelink 2y ago
  Am I wrong to expect a letter I send someone via mail to not be opened and read by the post office first? I’ll be damned if I ever reach your level of indifference.
  - whynotmaybe 2y ago
    No, you can expect that it won't be read. But nobody can assure you that it never will. This is the same with email or IM. I don't go around giving my Gmail password to everyone, but I know that many processes at Gmail read my mails. I don't consider it indifference to know that every written conversation I make could be read by someone. Nobody should blindly trust anyone telling you the opposite.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Don't blindly trust it, but that's the whole point of end to end encryption!
      - whynotmaybe 2y ago
        What's the point of encryption? It's to protect data for some time, not forever. All encryption can (and will) be broken. I was there when Md5 became obsolete and was replaced with Sha-1 ( made by the nsa) which is now also obsolete. I was there when all 8 letters password on windows could be cracked in minutes. And discovered that windows kept a copy of the hash locally, unless your password was +15chars. Don't blindly trust end to end encryption.
      - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
        That's the whole point of this thread that end to end encryption like Signal faces threat from government. End to end encryption means nothing if you downloaded binary from app store and some entity controls the binary. They could potentially turn off end to end for specific user without the user noticing that.
- fwn 2y ago
  > You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. No, I am comparing communication in general and it just so happens that in the past all communication was oral and now we all work from home and converse through large online platforms. If, in the future, people move their communication to brain implants (help us God - any God), then brain implant telepathy would be the method of communication most in need of protection, to preserve or reclaim the important and centuries-old default of private, unmonitored communication. New forms of communication do not change or diminish the legitimate and important need for private communication.
  - whynotmaybe 2y ago
    We've been using written discussions for thousands of years [1] but people expect the same reality for oral and written. You and I are both heading towards the same goal, private discussions. But, I'm saying that it will never happen if there's an electronic device involved and you want it to happen with it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81... , written c. 1750 BC.

by fwn 2y ago

whynotmaybe 2y ago

You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. We got so distracted by shiny new tools that we forgot what it was underneath. My grandfather, before the modern computer era, used to say "words fade, writings stays". Trying to prevent government from breaking encryption won't solve the underlying issue that we are naive.

andelink 2y ago
Am I wrong to expect a letter I send someone via mail to not be opened and read by the post office first? I’ll be damned if I ever reach your level of indifference.
- whynotmaybe 2y ago
  No, you can expect that it won't be read. But nobody can assure you that it never will. This is the same with email or IM. I don't go around giving my Gmail password to everyone, but I know that many processes at Gmail read my mails. I don't consider it indifference to know that every written conversation I make could be read by someone. Nobody should blindly trust anyone telling you the opposite.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Don't blindly trust it, but that's the whole point of end to end encryption!
    - whynotmaybe 2y ago
      What's the point of encryption? It's to protect data for some time, not forever. All encryption can (and will) be broken. I was there when Md5 became obsolete and was replaced with Sha-1 ( made by the nsa) which is now also obsolete. I was there when all 8 letters password on windows could be cracked in minutes. And discovered that windows kept a copy of the hash locally, unless your password was +15chars. Don't blindly trust end to end encryption.
    - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
      That's the whole point of this thread that end to end encryption like Signal faces threat from government. End to end encryption means nothing if you downloaded binary from app store and some entity controls the binary. They could potentially turn off end to end for specific user without the user noticing that.
fwn 2y ago
> You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. No, I am comparing communication in general and it just so happens that in the past all communication was oral and now we all work from home and converse through large online platforms. If, in the future, people move their communication to brain implants (help us God - any God), then brain implant telepathy would be the method of communication most in need of protection, to preserve or reclaim the important and centuries-old default of private, unmonitored communication. New forms of communication do not change or diminish the legitimate and important need for private communication.
- whynotmaybe 2y ago
  We've been using written discussions for thousands of years [1] but people expect the same reality for oral and written. You and I are both heading towards the same goal, private discussions. But, I'm saying that it will never happen if there's an electronic device involved and you want it to happen with it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81... , written c. 1750 BC.