4 ms·

Sounds heartwrenching until you see a story like this: https://youtu.be/hKLIxxBrM-o https://youtu.be/hKLIxxBrM-o To absolutely no sane person's surprise, the m

Sounds heartwrenching until you see a story like this: https://youtu.be/hKLIxxBrM-o https://youtu.be/hKLIxxBrM-o To absolutely no sane person's surprise, the main audience of e.g. anti-censorship platforms is exactly people who typically feel or find themselves censored, which in a harmonious or at least well-functioning society will not be a particularly cheritable set of individuals. In one where that's not the case, the audience would change alongside too, sure, but clearly these narratives mismatch reality, at least for now. Conversely, (actually) high privacy platforms will be primarily seeked out and leveraged by those who value precisely that. While the privacy scares have been pretty serious for a while, for now that is still both evidently, and indeed obviously, in good part criminals or other high risk individuals. It's like trying to pretend people are shopping for regular items on .onion webshops rather than for contraband. I'm sure that crowd exists, but like, who are we trying to fool here exactly? Performative victimhood only works so well, and until such blatantly deceptive narrative is being pushed, you may very well see your doomsday scenario realized. It's a trivially vulnerable position, so much so that it feels like a rhetorical trap almost. Like a poet self-sabotaging the monetization of their work, while waxing poetic about how they're (financially) un(der)appreciated. Although people have been getting into anti-government conspiracies pretty hard in the past few years, and governments have been working hard to demolish whatever good standing they have in parallel, so that does help your case I suppose. One may even recognize this miraculously well oiled process and nosedive in social trust as uncoincidental, in fact. But I digress. I wouldn't wanna spread conspiracy theories after all, would I?

jodrellblank 5mo ago
I skim-watched your link and it doesn’t seem to support your thesis. First, the secure end-to-end encryption was broken by international police and messages were read without making it illegal. Second they suggest reading hundreds of thousands of people’s messages to catch a dozen or so gang members - not supporting your claim that only crooks use it. Third, the video ends by the gang leader saying he was working for the President; not supporting your implication that criticism of government is all baseless conspiracy theories.
- perching_aix 5mo ago
  I have very serious concerns on the human vs LLM effort that went into this comment, but sure, let's go point by point then. The first counterpoint I can't even decipher, it makes no grammatical sense. Are you saying that law-enforcement-intercepted encrypted messages are not necessarily illegal? ...why would they be? Sounds like a strawman. The second is explicitly a strawman. I intentionally left space for legitimate use, because it's a trivial rhetorical target, so I just said that it primarily interests "illegitimate" use for now. While I do not have actually comprehensive data on the Sky userbase, the way these devices were distributed, the volume of criminal-use-connected messages uncovered, and the globally dispersed gang use presented in the video did suggest to me exactly what I said. I'm not sure why you think "just catching a dozen or so gang members" is a reasonable takeaway either, given that the video's focus was exactly just those people. We can take issue with this, and downgrade this to just being evidence of significant (in the statistical terminology sense of the word) criminal use rather than primary criminal use. I just both fail to find that particularly compelling, and don't really feel like arguing on your behalf. The third counterpoint I also struggle to decipher. It seems to also build on a strawman like the other two points. You accuse me of implying that "criticism of govt is all baseless conspiracy theories". I don't know how you managed to extract such a thing out of what I wrote, so I'm not sure how to respond. Governments around the world are routinely criticized, have plenty of perfectly valid things going against them, on which both the media and the general public report on plenty. It is - thankfully - only a select few places in the world where such speech is actually restricted. Now that was more a part of my point.
  - jodrellblank 5mo ago
    The first counterpoint is that you took the position E2E Encrypted messaging will be made illegal because of criminals. The video you linked to support this shows criminals being caught without banning E2E encrypted messaging. Therefore your link does not support the claim that catching criminals needs E2EE apps banning. The second is not a strawman, you claimed that only criminals are attracted to E2EE messaging when the link you gave showed some 170 thousand users of that specific messaging app with no suggestion that most of them were criminals. "I just said that it primarily interests "illegitimate" use for now" yes you did say that, and that thing you said is not supported by your link. The third is about your writing about how people who want privacy are performative victims who are falling into anti-government conspiracy theories, but your link shows a thing which was not a conspiracy theory and the government in question actually was accused of targetting their political enemies with gangs, and it would be reasonable to want privacy against such. > "I don't know how you managed to extract such a thing out of what I wrote" > "But I digress. I wouldn't wanna spread conspiracy theories after all, would I?" maybe write less of this winky-face bs and just say what you mean.
cyphar 5mo ago
Well-funded criminal networks like the ones in the video you linked would have little issue if all e2ee chat apps disappeared tomorrow, they have enough money and operational incentives to pay someone to make custom encrypted chat apps (not to mention the myriad of open source ones available). The only people actually hurt by banning e2ee are regular people. > It's like trying to pretend people are shopping for regular items on .onion webshops rather than for contraband. I'm sure that crowd exists, but like, who are we trying to fool here exactly? Based on public metrics, 3% of Tor traffic is .onion traffic and it is incredibly likely the vast majority of that is the Facebook .onion service (based on some stats posted by Facebook a few years ago). So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal.
- perching_aix 5mo ago
  Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do. > So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal. How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?
  - cyphar 5mo ago
    > Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do. Given how many of them have been CIA honeypots, they must have amazing marketing. > How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make? Nice trick -- make a very clear implication and claim that you didn't make a positive claim.
    - perching_aix 5mo ago
      The implication (representing a belief, not a claim) was about the nature of item purchases on .onion webshops (that they're primarily contraband), not about the composition of .onion or Tor traffic. If anything, the attempt to pivot to that was a trick. You may still fault me for mixing in beliefs into an argument, it is of poor form from me. Up to you. But then I don't think sentiments are just pure hard logic and evidence, so it'd have been potentially more dishonest from me to exclude it than to not.

jodrellblank 5mo ago

I skim-watched your link and it doesn’t seem to support your thesis. First, the secure end-to-end encryption was broken by international police and messages were read without making it illegal. Second they suggest reading hundreds of thousands of people’s messages to catch a dozen or so gang members - not supporting your claim that only crooks use it. Third, the video ends by the gang leader saying he was working for the President; not supporting your implication that criticism of government is all baseless conspiracy theories.

perching_aix 5mo ago
I have very serious concerns on the human vs LLM effort that went into this comment, but sure, let's go point by point then. The first counterpoint I can't even decipher, it makes no grammatical sense. Are you saying that law-enforcement-intercepted encrypted messages are not necessarily illegal? ...why would they be? Sounds like a strawman. The second is explicitly a strawman. I intentionally left space for legitimate use, because it's a trivial rhetorical target, so I just said that it primarily interests "illegitimate" use for now. While I do not have actually comprehensive data on the Sky userbase, the way these devices were distributed, the volume of criminal-use-connected messages uncovered, and the globally dispersed gang use presented in the video did suggest to me exactly what I said. I'm not sure why you think "just catching a dozen or so gang members" is a reasonable takeaway either, given that the video's focus was exactly just those people. We can take issue with this, and downgrade this to just being evidence of significant (in the statistical terminology sense of the word) criminal use rather than primary criminal use. I just both fail to find that particularly compelling, and don't really feel like arguing on your behalf. The third counterpoint I also struggle to decipher. It seems to also build on a strawman like the other two points. You accuse me of implying that "criticism of govt is all baseless conspiracy theories". I don't know how you managed to extract such a thing out of what I wrote, so I'm not sure how to respond. Governments around the world are routinely criticized, have plenty of perfectly valid things going against them, on which both the media and the general public report on plenty. It is - thankfully - only a select few places in the world where such speech is actually restricted. Now that was more a part of my point.
- jodrellblank 5mo ago
  The first counterpoint is that you took the position E2E Encrypted messaging will be made illegal because of criminals. The video you linked to support this shows criminals being caught without banning E2E encrypted messaging. Therefore your link does not support the claim that catching criminals needs E2EE apps banning. The second is not a strawman, you claimed that only criminals are attracted to E2EE messaging when the link you gave showed some 170 thousand users of that specific messaging app with no suggestion that most of them were criminals. "I just said that it primarily interests "illegitimate" use for now" yes you did say that, and that thing you said is not supported by your link. The third is about your writing about how people who want privacy are performative victims who are falling into anti-government conspiracy theories, but your link shows a thing which was not a conspiracy theory and the government in question actually was accused of targetting their political enemies with gangs, and it would be reasonable to want privacy against such. > "I don't know how you managed to extract such a thing out of what I wrote" > "But I digress. I wouldn't wanna spread conspiracy theories after all, would I?" maybe write less of this winky-face bs and just say what you mean.

cyphar 5mo ago

Well-funded criminal networks like the ones in the video you linked would have little issue if all e2ee chat apps disappeared tomorrow, they have enough money and operational incentives to pay someone to make custom encrypted chat apps (not to mention the myriad of open source ones available). The only people actually hurt by banning e2ee are regular people. > It's like trying to pretend people are shopping for regular items on .onion webshops rather than for contraband. I'm sure that crowd exists, but like, who are we trying to fool here exactly? Based on public metrics, 3% of Tor traffic is .onion traffic and it is incredibly likely the vast majority of that is the Facebook .onion service (based on some stats posted by Facebook a few years ago). So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal.

perching_aix 5mo ago
Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do. > So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal. How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?
- cyphar 5mo ago
  > Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do. Given how many of them have been CIA honeypots, they must have amazing marketing. > How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make? Nice trick -- make a very clear implication and claim that you didn't make a positive claim.
  - perching_aix 5mo ago
    The implication (representing a belief, not a claim) was about the nature of item purchases on .onion webshops (that they're primarily contraband), not about the composition of .onion or Tor traffic. If anything, the attempt to pivot to that was a trick. You may still fault me for mixing in beliefs into an argument, it is of poor form from me. Up to you. But then I don't think sentiments are just pure hard logic and evidence, so it'd have been potentially more dishonest from me to exclude it than to not.