6 ms·

Disclaimer: I work for MS. My opinions are my own, but they are biased. I think we need to make a distinction between automated services and humans eavesdroppi

by jjcm 13y ago

Disclaimer: I work for MS. My opinions are my own, but they are biased. I think we need to make a distinction between automated services and humans eavesdropping. I'd feel weird if someone was snooping in on my conversations and clicking my links, but on the other hand I very much appreciate the little bot that sits in my IRC channel and displays the title of any page linked. Both monitor the chat and access links, but I value one and feel weird about another. I don't think there's a way to truly make a distinction between the two though, and I think saying, "nothing is ever allowed to access your communications" removes the possibilities for a lot of added functionality (the link bot being just the base camp of the mountain of things that are possible). I think the better choice here is to ensure that the public has a way to communicate securely, and that our mental model of "trust usually, distrust as the exception" needs to move to "distrust usually, trust as the exception". This is similar to how sudo works in a way - we maintain a lower level of security usually for the convenience, then escalate only when needed.

pyre 13y ago
1. There is more transparency with your IRC bot. 2. Joining/forming another IRC channel is cheaper than creating a competitor to Skype. 3. MS looking at your messages implies that they have the ability to do so. If the conversation were entirely secure, only the other end of the conversation would be able to. 4. MS eavesdropping at all means that when law enforcement comes knocking, they can do so too. Law enforcement is not always your friend. More so in some countries than others. 5. The 'link bot' can be implemented in the client, rather than by a middle-man. 6. Such 'beneficial processing' could be opt-in at the client level. The message is encrypted between clients. Once a client has it, the message can be processed locally or sent off for processing. Sure this adds delay, but it's a trade-off for privacy.
belorn 13y ago
The distinction between eavesdropping and an irc bot is intent, context, and result. Intent: A irc bot that provide titles do so to translate machine readable URL's to human readable Title's to benefit both the one who writes it and reads it. Intent: A eavesdropper tries to extract meaning out of being in a privileged position between two speakers. Context: An irc is a public forum or at least a forum for invited participants. Expectation of privacy is low. Context: A private communication between two parties is private. Expectation of privacy is high. Result: An IRC bot that do what everyone in an irc channel is aware of is good. People feel happy by the increased value. Result: An eavesdropper makes people feel scared, insecure and angry. It makes society worse, causes physical damage to people, and are destructive. It really doesn't matter if its an automated or a human that does the eavesdropping. intent, context, and result do.
vidarh 13y ago
The bot is "in plain sight", and can be kicked and banned by ops. That's a major difference. Further, the bot is only given the ability to eavesdrop when enabled by authorized participants (e.g. it was either invited or not kickbanned by people who could see when it joined the channel). The visibility and lack of expectation of privacy creates a very different situation. If this "MS bot" showed up in your conversation and said "hi, I'm going to visit every URL you post unless you kick me off this conversation", it'd be a very different situation.
new299 13y ago
ircbots generally operate in public or group channels. I think there' a distinction between this and a bot operating in a private communications channel. >I think the better choice here is to ensure that the public has a way to communicate securely and that our mental model of "trust usually, distrust as the exception" needs to move to "distrust usually, trust as the exception". I can't square this with your previous stance easily. This would for me imply that private communicates should have end-to-end encryption. And that another party couldn't intercept URLs unless they were explicitly transmitted out of band by the client (which I would guess isn't the case here).
mtgx 13y ago
If that "automated eavesdropping" can be accessed by humans later, than no I don't think there should be a difference at all. It's the same thing. The only difference with the latter is that it doesn't happen in real-time. But the damage can be just as bad. So from that point of view, there's absolutely no difference.
np422 13y ago
Just no. Plain and simple NO! We don't need to make any distinctions. Private conversations are private. And gentlemen don't read each others mail. Automated or otherwise.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
batgaijin 13y ago
What about when the automated service makes a summary of an email conversation? Honestly I don't know what to think of this matter. All I know is that the capabilities of a malevolent intelligent individual are skyrocketing frankly. As a dictator once said: Wish for sunshine, but build dykes.

by jjcm 13y ago

pyre 13y ago

1. There is more transparency with your IRC bot. 2. Joining/forming another IRC channel is cheaper than creating a competitor to Skype. 3. MS looking at your messages implies that they have the ability to do so. If the conversation were entirely secure, only the other end of the conversation would be able to. 4. MS eavesdropping at all means that when law enforcement comes knocking, they can do so too. Law enforcement is not always your friend. More so in some countries than others. 5. The 'link bot' can be implemented in the client, rather than by a middle-man. 6. Such 'beneficial processing' could be opt-in at the client level. The message is encrypted between clients. Once a client has it, the message can be processed locally or sent off for processing. Sure this adds delay, but it's a trade-off for privacy.

belorn 13y ago

The distinction between eavesdropping and an irc bot is intent, context, and result. Intent: A irc bot that provide titles do so to translate machine readable URL's to human readable Title's to benefit both the one who writes it and reads it. Intent: A eavesdropper tries to extract meaning out of being in a privileged position between two speakers. Context: An irc is a public forum or at least a forum for invited participants. Expectation of privacy is low. Context: A private communication between two parties is private. Expectation of privacy is high. Result: An IRC bot that do what everyone in an irc channel is aware of is good. People feel happy by the increased value. Result: An eavesdropper makes people feel scared, insecure and angry. It makes society worse, causes physical damage to people, and are destructive. It really doesn't matter if its an automated or a human that does the eavesdropping. intent, context, and result do.

vidarh 13y ago

The bot is "in plain sight", and can be kicked and banned by ops. That's a major difference. Further, the bot is only given the ability to eavesdrop when enabled by authorized participants (e.g. it was either invited or not kickbanned by people who could see when it joined the channel). The visibility and lack of expectation of privacy creates a very different situation. If this "MS bot" showed up in your conversation and said "hi, I'm going to visit every URL you post unless you kick me off this conversation", it'd be a very different situation.

new299 13y ago

ircbots generally operate in public or group channels. I think there' a distinction between this and a bot operating in a private communications channel. >I think the better choice here is to ensure that the public has a way to communicate securely and that our mental model of "trust usually, distrust as the exception" needs to move to "distrust usually, trust as the exception". I can't square this with your previous stance easily. This would for me imply that private communicates should have end-to-end encryption. And that another party couldn't intercept URLs unless they were explicitly transmitted out of band by the client (which I would guess isn't the case here).

mtgx 13y ago

If that "automated eavesdropping" can be accessed by humans later, than no I don't think there should be a difference at all. It's the same thing. The only difference with the latter is that it doesn't happen in real-time. But the damage can be just as bad. So from that point of view, there's absolutely no difference.

np422 13y ago

Just no. Plain and simple NO! We don't need to make any distinctions. Private conversations are private. And gentlemen don't read each others mail. Automated or otherwise.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

batgaijin 13y ago

What about when the automated service makes a summary of an email conversation? Honestly I don't know what to think of this matter. All I know is that the capabilities of a malevolent intelligent individual are skyrocketing frankly. As a dictator once said: Wish for sunshine, but build dykes.