7 ms·

Well, don't completely give up hope just yet! All the tools needed to create the world you mentioned exist today. We have good open-source encryption that can

by smtddr 13y ago

Well, don't completely give up hope just yet! All the tools needed to create the world you mentioned exist today. We have good open-source encryption that can be applied to all sorts of data and hide your tracks if you really want to. What we don't have(yet) is something so easy that the general public can do it. Like, tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted and only the receiving party can decrypt it. GPG/PGP-plugins could be added to just about anything. Hang in there and keep up the fight. Keep explaining your point of view to anyone who will listen. There have been times in history where seemingly-invinsible corporations and/or groups of very privileged people get overturned when the general public "wake up" to what's going on. Even what's going on in North Korea won't last forever, there will be someday that one major incident that domino-effects into the downfall of that whole system. "And never forget, the internet only knows what you tell it... more or less" --me!

montagg 13y ago
> What we don't have(yet) is something so easy that the general public can do it. Companies are starting to realize that providing a good experience is the most important thing your company can do to stay relevant. Dreams often die in execution -- but I think we're getting to a point where a group of dedicated individuals focused on creating an exceptional Internet experience built on privacy and encryption really could make something happen. I used to use GPG on Linux and OS X. I tried so very hard to keep using it. But it was the biggest pain in the ass, so eventually I just gave it up. I pulled up my key not long ago and had totally forgotten my passphrase. The devil is in the details. Creating something familiar, something usable, and something that the average person would actually want to use is the part we need to get right.
- wyager 13y ago
  Have you used the new GPGTools client for OS X yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to encrypt emails. I don't even have to put a second thought in. OS X also supports S/MIME out of the box, which is just as easy (if not easier) to use after you get it set up.
  - montagg 13y ago
    I used something similar back in 2007 and it just became a pain. It was never unusable -- lots of people do it -- it was just never truly seamless for what I saw as decreasing value for the minor frustration. The experience of using this kind of technology should be as embedded in everyday life as keeping your keys with you all the time, in my opinion. That's how you get people to do it more.
smsm42 13y ago
>>> tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted and only the receiving party can decrypt it. Or so you think until it turns out an amendment to 2000-page farm appropriation bill actually mandated a government backdoor to be installed into any phone legally sold in the US, and 100% of US providers implemented in 5 years ago. And this backdoor is accessible without warrant since you communicate over public airwaves so you have no expectation of privacy.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  do you have details on this, not being snarky, i genuinely want to know.
  - mwilcox 13y ago
    http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/01/carrier-iq-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-what-you-need-to&#x2F http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/01/carrier-iq-what-it-is-wha...;
- pldpld 13y ago
  use another OS, http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-carrier-iq http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-...
loup-vaillant 13y ago
> Like, tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted Not good enough: you have to think of activating it. And even if you do, most traffic will still be unencrypted, making it easier for spies to tell who may have something to hide, and when they do. To have real good, actual privacy, everything should be encrypted by default, the internet itself should be a giant scrambling overlay network such as Tor, and people should have symmetric bandwidth to encourage decentralization —no more need for YouTube. I don't see it happen in the following decades.
- shawnz 13y ago
  What's the problem with most traffic being unencrypted? If you have something in particular that you want hidden, it's possible to make sure that it gets hid. What more do you need?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - cgag 13y ago
    You not to know I'm hiding anything at all.
    - zhemao 13y ago
      Exactly. They may not know what you're hiding, but if they see small portions of your internet traffic are encrypted using a scheme very different from your regular traffic, flags are raised. Then it's simply a matter of sending an NSL to whoever they need to in order to get the content of the message.
      - gizmo686 13y ago
        >Then it's simply a matter of sending an NSL to whoever they need to in order to get the content of the message. If its done right, there are only 2 people capable of getting the content of the message: you and the intended recipient.
ebiester 13y ago
We still haven't figured out a way around rubber hose decryption, and the sad truth is that we're more likely to draw attention to ourselves by encrypting everything in personal email than we are by trying to fly under the radar. I'm still terrified of a second McCarthyism.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  There is no perfect way around rubber hose decryption, but we've some defenses. Off the top of my head, some significant ones: 1) Proper anonymity, so they don't know who to beat. 2) Deniable encryption. 3) Steganography. 4) (with 2) Sacrificial data of less significance to "give up" after sufficient beatings. 5) Social norms against beatings and similar coercion, extending to extreme circumstances. 6) Governmental transparency. Neither individually nor collectively are these perfect security (and some are only relevant to certain circumstances) but they help to limit it.
  - urza 13y ago
    7) destroy the data (or key) in case everything else fails
rbanffy 13y ago
> Like, tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted and only the receiving party can decrypt it. That's not enough. They still know who you talk to, where you are and just about everything except the contents of your conversation.

by smtddr 13y ago

montagg 13y ago

> What we don't have(yet) is something so easy that the general public can do it. Companies are starting to realize that providing a good experience is the most important thing your company can do to stay relevant. Dreams often die in execution -- but I think we're getting to a point where a group of dedicated individuals focused on creating an exceptional Internet experience built on privacy and encryption really could make something happen. I used to use GPG on Linux and OS X. I tried so very hard to keep using it. But it was the biggest pain in the ass, so eventually I just gave it up. I pulled up my key not long ago and had totally forgotten my passphrase. The devil is in the details. Creating something familiar, something usable, and something that the average person would actually want to use is the part we need to get right.

wyager 13y ago
Have you used the new GPGTools client for OS X yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to encrypt emails. I don't even have to put a second thought in. OS X also supports S/MIME out of the box, which is just as easy (if not easier) to use after you get it set up.
- montagg 13y ago
  I used something similar back in 2007 and it just became a pain. It was never unusable -- lots of people do it -- it was just never truly seamless for what I saw as decreasing value for the minor frustration. The experience of using this kind of technology should be as embedded in everyday life as keeping your keys with you all the time, in my opinion. That's how you get people to do it more.

smsm42 13y ago

>>> tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted and only the receiving party can decrypt it. Or so you think until it turns out an amendment to 2000-page farm appropriation bill actually mandated a government backdoor to be installed into any phone legally sold in the US, and 100% of US providers implemented in 5 years ago. And this backdoor is accessible without warrant since you communicate over public airwaves so you have no expectation of privacy.

throwaway2048 13y ago
do you have details on this, not being snarky, i genuinely want to know.
- mwilcox 13y ago
  http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/01/carrier-iq-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-what-you-need-to&#x2F http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/01/carrier-iq-what-it-is-wha...;
pldpld 13y ago
use another OS, http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-carrier-iq http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-...

loup-vaillant 13y ago

> Like, tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted Not good enough: you have to think of activating it. And even if you do, most traffic will still be unencrypted, making it easier for spies to tell who may have something to hide, and when they do. To have real good, actual privacy, everything should be encrypted by default, the internet itself should be a giant scrambling overlay network such as Tor, and people should have symmetric bandwidth to encourage decentralization —no more need for YouTube. I don't see it happen in the following decades.

shawnz 13y ago
What's the problem with most traffic being unencrypted? If you have something in particular that you want hidden, it's possible to make sure that it gets hid. What more do you need?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cgag 13y ago
  You not to know I'm hiding anything at all.
  - zhemao 13y ago
    Exactly. They may not know what you're hiding, but if they see small portions of your internet traffic are encrypted using a scheme very different from your regular traffic, flags are raised. Then it's simply a matter of sending an NSL to whoever they need to in order to get the content of the message.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      >Then it's simply a matter of sending an NSL to whoever they need to in order to get the content of the message. If its done right, there are only 2 people capable of getting the content of the message: you and the intended recipient.

ebiester 13y ago

We still haven't figured out a way around rubber hose decryption, and the sad truth is that we're more likely to draw attention to ourselves by encrypting everything in personal email than we are by trying to fly under the radar. I'm still terrified of a second McCarthyism.

dllthomas 13y ago
There is no perfect way around rubber hose decryption, but we've some defenses. Off the top of my head, some significant ones: 1) Proper anonymity, so they don't know who to beat. 2) Deniable encryption. 3) Steganography. 4) (with 2) Sacrificial data of less significance to "give up" after sufficient beatings. 5) Social norms against beatings and similar coercion, extending to extreme circumstances. 6) Governmental transparency. Neither individually nor collectively are these perfect security (and some are only relevant to certain circumstances) but they help to limit it.
- urza 13y ago
  7) destroy the data (or key) in case everything else fails

rbanffy 13y ago

> Like, tap a padlock icon on your cellphone and suddenly anything your phone does is encrypted and only the receiving party can decrypt it. That's not enough. They still know who you talk to, where you are and just about everything except the contents of your conversation.