4 ms·

Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a

Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.

bityard 10mo ago
I don't agree with it myself, but there are people who seem to want to frame "the right to be forgotten" as a privacy issue.
- Almondsetat 10mo ago
  Even if it were a privacy issue, it would be impossible to enforce it technologically via FOSS software, because, by definition, the user at the other end could run a forked version with remote deletion disabled.
- rapnie 10mo ago
  Just one example, but trying to get that revenge porn off the web, can be seen as an attempt to restore ones privacy. Where others should not have the right to continue to peek into ones private life.
  - bityard 10mo ago
    That's not quite the kind of thing I was talking about. I think that is generally already covered by current laws in most places? The right-to-be-forgotten advocates argue that everyone should have the right to demand that any trace of their previous online existence be deleted. On social media of course, but also independent web forums, chat logs, git commits, etc.
tenthirtyam 10mo ago
IIRC it is possible to have some clever encryption so that the person you sent your message to can prove to their own satisfaction that it came from you, but they cannot prove to anyone else that it came from you. Which gives you plausible deniability; you can always claim that your contact forged the message. Can't remember what the algorithm is called.
- gabrielhidasy 10mo ago
  Isn't the scheme simply agreeing in a shared key and both using it? I'll know that the message is from you if it's signed with that key and is not from me and vice versa, but neither of us can prove who created the message.
- upofadown 10mo ago
  No particular name. Just deniability. I personally like to call this particular scheme, deniability through claimed forgery. Not particularly clever. You just provide your correspondent with what they need to forge your messages after the end of the session. I don't know if it actually could work in practice: https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability
- XorNot 10mo ago
  Off The Record chat did this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-record_messaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-record_messaging

Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.

bityard 10mo ago

I don't agree with it myself, but there are people who seem to want to frame "the right to be forgotten" as a privacy issue.

Almondsetat 10mo ago
Even if it were a privacy issue, it would be impossible to enforce it technologically via FOSS software, because, by definition, the user at the other end could run a forked version with remote deletion disabled.
rapnie 10mo ago
Just one example, but trying to get that revenge porn off the web, can be seen as an attempt to restore ones privacy. Where others should not have the right to continue to peek into ones private life.
- bityard 10mo ago
  That's not quite the kind of thing I was talking about. I think that is generally already covered by current laws in most places? The right-to-be-forgotten advocates argue that everyone should have the right to demand that any trace of their previous online existence be deleted. On social media of course, but also independent web forums, chat logs, git commits, etc.

tenthirtyam 10mo ago

IIRC it is possible to have some clever encryption so that the person you sent your message to can prove to their own satisfaction that it came from you, but they cannot prove to anyone else that it came from you. Which gives you plausible deniability; you can always claim that your contact forged the message. Can't remember what the algorithm is called.

gabrielhidasy 10mo ago
Isn't the scheme simply agreeing in a shared key and both using it? I'll know that the message is from you if it's signed with that key and is not from me and vice versa, but neither of us can prove who created the message.
upofadown 10mo ago
No particular name. Just deniability. I personally like to call this particular scheme, deniability through claimed forgery. Not particularly clever. You just provide your correspondent with what they need to forge your messages after the end of the session. I don't know if it actually could work in practice: https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability
XorNot 10mo ago
Off The Record chat did this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-record_messaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-record_messaging