4 ms·

I think your devices should have government-mandated backdoors if and only if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to high

• alfalfasprout 11mo ago
  Even if you're a public servant, a backdoor is a big security risk.
  • mito88 11mo ago
    exactly!
• notaustinpowers 11mo ago
  Backdoors exist for everyone or they exist for no one, this technology isn't one that has room for a gray area to debate. If it can be deployed to public servant devices, it can be deployed to your device.
  • konmok 11mo ago
    Only if they're using the same devices everyone else uses. If they're required to use a certain kind of hardware, or they're required to submit their device for hardware modification, this stops being an issue, doesn't it?
  • aeurielesn 11mo ago
    Not according to Chat Control at least where politicians are exempting themselves from State surveillance.
    • forgetfulness 11mo ago
      Great way to fight the allegations that EU politicians are corrupt and unaccountable, there
  • jmward01 11mo ago
    That is totally not true. They can be forced to install an app on their device that creates the backdoors. Companies do that all the time. An OS doesn't need to have backdoors built into it for backdoors to be added to it. Kinda the point of an OS is that it is general purpose.
• ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  I've been saying this for years: the more power you have the higher standard you should be held in. In most societies on the planet it's the other way around.
  • colordrops 11mo ago
    Everyone agrees with this obviously but it's like saying that we should be able to levitate or live in utopia. It's almost a law of nature that the types that become powerful are not your most savory individuals and will use the power to reinforce their positions.
    • tjwebbnorfolk 11mo ago
      This is obviously true, but people will downvote it because they don't like it.
    • Ar-Curunir 11mo ago
      You're talking like society hasn't changed power structures over the years. How things are is not some unchangeable physical law.
      • colordrops 11mo ago
        I never said it was a physical law, hence the word "almost". Just saying it's a strong trend. Why is everyone so literal here?
    • xmprt 11mo ago
      > It's almost a law of nature We have tons of different systems for accumulating power all over the world. Corporate structures, democracy vs autocracy, etc. In each of those societies, we see different types of leaders on a sliding scale of savoriness. My point is that clearly there are some forms of governance which result in more savory people and so you can argue that it's the systems that define the outcomes rather than any "law of nature".
    • martin-t 11mo ago
• bluGill 11mo ago
  Even then the backdoor should be on their government device and not the personal devices. Note that having their personal device when doing government work should be prohibited (that is you can't have it in your pocket when working). As is using your personal device for anything government (other than a formula check your government device call/text - employees should be regularly tested that they report any government communication that doesn't follow the formula)
  • moomin 11mo ago
    I mean, this already isn’t permitted in the US yet somehow I’ve read her emails and his signal chats.
    • paulryanrogers 11mo ago
      Send those doing that to jail. We already do for lower ranked individuals.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
  I'm torn. I don't want backdoors but I do think police with a warrant from a judge should be able to access your phone.
  • bigyabai 11mo ago
    I'm reminded of Mr. Fart's Favorite Colors here - is it even possible to provide warranted exception, protected from abuse?
  • dizlexic 11mo ago
    Then you must provide access to your phone or be held in jail indefinitely / until you comply for violating that court order.
  • bravoetch 11mo ago
    There's a top tier DEFCON talk by the Lavabit email guy. He explains where the line is for access to phones and other encrypted information. I'll try to summarize - 1 - Law enforcement have actual information about the probable contents of your phone (like an incriminating filename will do). They can reasonably expect to get a warrant and access to your stuff. 2 - They don't know what's there at all, and have no probable indication of the contents, and in this case they cannot expect access because they would just be going fishing. Having said that - backdoors are bad.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
      I assume if they were fishing the judge wouldn't sign a warrant.
• lucideer 11mo ago
  > if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to higher standards of conduct than politicians and cops. Last time I checked, politicians and cops are private citizens... Wherever you stand on this, I can't understand the justification for this "one rule for thee" position.
  • retr0rocket 11mo ago
    You cant understand why the people with a monopoly on violence and force have higher scrutiny?
  • thatcat 11mo ago
    They're actually public figures and have different standards since they're being paid by the public to represent their interests.
  • threethirtytwo 11mo ago
    Logistically, when you combine private citizenship with government you get corruption problems because incentives are so misaligned. In fact private citizenship combined with government is the origin of corruption. Think about it, as a government official your incentive should be to preserve order, fairness and honor. As a private citizen your goal is to optimize the amount of money you make via business or employment through whatever means possible. That means exploiting loopholes and possibly when no one is looking, breaking the law. The incentives are orthoganol and it does make sense to have a different set of rights and rules for government officials and private citizens. The minute you take the attitudes of private business/citizens into the world of government you get people creating rules that are corrupt.
    • mothballed 11mo ago
      I'd argue the incentives of elected government and private citizens are even more misaligned than "private" ones. Elected government official doesn't own or have perpetual interest. All he can do is plunder as fast as he can in his unowned fiefdom before it passes on to the next guy. Fully private government would have incentive at least to preserve the value of the "Kingdom" if nothing else for his own children and because he sees the Kingdom as his own and destroying it for short term gain would be irrational.
• reactordev 11mo ago
  That is a terrible, terrible idea. It would make it even easier to hack them, blackmail them, snoop on top secret information. The list goes on. No, the correct answer is - no backdoors because crypto, because security, because of theft, because of France, or any other government or Uncle Sam. If they want to protect the children, hunt crime, catch drug dealers, they are going to have to learn criminology.
• lazide 11mo ago
  Why would politicians and cops want to be held (actually) to a higher standard?
  • SirMaster 11mo ago
    Who says they would? The point is the people would vote to have them held to this higher standard. They represent the people's will. They shouldnt get to choose other than their personal vote, the people choose. If they don't agree with what the people choose then they can leave politics.
    • lazide 11mo ago
      Sure, and how is that working out right now?
• theideaofcoffee 11mo ago
  As much as I want to agree with you, no, backdoors for them mean backdoors for everyone else. It's all or nothing. Now, they should be held to a higher standard, and face stiffer penalty than the regular prole because they should be the example-setters. Do better policing (and that doesn't include trying to backdoor devices), but backdoors aren't the answer.
• thomastjeffery 11mo ago
  The only problem with that train of thought is that you are advocating a lower standard. Backdoors are not a superior option in any circumstance whatsoever. The standard of conduct we need (and are failing) to hold politicians and cops to is actual security and responsibility. Some of the most powerful politicians in the world are leaking private conversations, and no one is holding them accountable. Police are paying private corporations (notably Flock) to build giant monolithic datasets from stalking private citizens, yet neither party is held to any standard whatsoever.
• Wowfunhappy 11mo ago
  We do have things like the Freedom of Information Act in the US, and I think a lot of European countries have similar laws. Yes it isn’t perfect and could be enforced more evenly. But obviously, if you work for the military there is information that needs to be kept secure…
• JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > devices should have government-mandated backdoors if and only if you are a public servant This would be an intelligence bonanza. Better: mandatory, encrypted logging. Officials maintain the keys. When they leave office or are subpoenaed, they have the means to grant access. (If they can send and read their messages, they have the keys.) This is how NARA in the U.S. is supposed to work.
  • shepherdjerred 11mo ago
    > This would be an intelligence bonanza. If you're wanting to do it with all citizens, why not start with public officials? It's no worse than your desired end state
  • clhodapp 11mo ago
    It's even more of an intelligence bonanza when it's done to the private citizens! That's the point of trying to do it!
    • deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  • themafia 11mo ago
    They'll just use a private device or off network server. I don't think we're going to "hack" our way into a just society.
    • JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > don't think we're going to "hack" our way into a just society We're not. But within the scope of technical aids to a solution, there are better and worse options.
  • MSFT_Edging 11mo ago
    > This would be an intelligence bonanza. And ideally an illustration to those in power why backdoors are never a good thing. They won't care if it's not happening to them. But if their devices are suddenly incredibly insecure due to their backdoors, they might just rethink the concept entirely.
• StopDisinfo910 11mo ago
  Isn’t it already the case? Politicians are routinely ordered to surrender their communication to justice to audit what they do. Missing texts from Von Der Leyen is at the heart of Pfizer-gate after all. I don’t really know what to think about this to be honest. I don’t think it’s entirely black and white and I find it surprisingly easy to play devil advocate. Remember that the US government has an insane level of access to private communications via all the post 9/11 laws, how cosy it is with the main tech companies and we know they do a lot of these spying unofficially and with little oversight since Snowden. Meanwhile, France is struggling with an unprecedented level of organised crime activity with the amount of violent crimes reaching worrying level. We are talking murders involving automatic weapons in broad daylight in the middle of the streets of France second largest city. Two weeks ago, the young brother of a famous anti-drug activist was murdered by a hitman while shopping. There has been a huge increase in the quantity of cocaine being smuggled from South America triggering intense gang competition for the control of deal points and the mean in place to tackle the issue increasingly look vastly undersized. Limiting the discussion to it being authoritarian measure is refusing to acknowledge the very real challenge police currently face.