6 ms·

When I encrypt, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Period. Stop trying to violate that privacy, unless you are accusing me a specific crime and you h

When I encrypt, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Period. Stop trying to violate that privacy, unless you are accusing me a specific crime and you have probable cause.

jessriedel 13y ago
I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the recent PRISM brouhaha hinges on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Everyone agrees that you do. Telephone calls (made in non-public places) explicitly enjoy this expectation. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privac... Rather, the recent issue is a disagreement over what constitutes a violation of privacy, e.g. whether electronic collection of data (without a human listener) constitutes violation.
- genwin 13y ago
  It would also be an obvious privacy violation for the NSA to install cameras in our bedrooms, even if they promised to never watch the video without a warrant.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Yes, but that's because it would require access to your bedroom, not because it's evil to capture data per se. What if, instead, you had a bedroom camera (maybe for tracking frisky escapades) and it streamed wirelessly to a home server? The more relevant question then becomes whether it's OK for the NSA (or rather, FBI) to sit on the street and capture that WiFi stream from a public road. As you consider this question, also consider how many open WiFi hotspots you've ever used (or broke the WEP for) in your hacking career. :) The idea that it's OK to hack the stupid because their system was so open to attack might finally die due to PRISM, if people are intellectually honest with themselves.
    - svachalek 13y ago
      I think there's a significant difference between using an open (or even poorly secured, although I've never done that) hotspot in order to get onto the internet, vs deliberately capturing personal data from that hotspot with the intention to analyze it and possibly use it to harm the subjects of that data.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  "the recent issue is a disagreement over..." Wait, there are no "issues", there is no "disagreement", not in any conventional fashion. From the state, we have seen nothing but the boiler-plate propaganda that comes out when any large bureaucracy faces an embarrassment. They sort-of say it's OK to invade the privacy of (any vaguely accused) terrorists, they sort-of say they can look at anything and it's not an invasion of privacy and they sort-of say they can collect anything and as long they don't look its not an invasion of privacy. But none of it matters, it's not a "debate", there are no "disagreements" in the sense of a dialogue. These are just press releases arguments are clearly wrong to everyone but morons, and they are naturally aimed for the mass of the morons out there (or the mass of ignorant and prefer-to-be-ignorant if you want).
- grey-area 13y ago
  Rather, the recent issue is a disagreement over what constitutes a violation of privacy, e.g. whether electronic collection of data (without a human listener) constitutes violation. If you think accessing private communications should not be allowed except in limited circumstances, you should be very worried by the storing of all this information. The implications are that anyone's privacy can be violated simply because of a policy change by those agencies who store and swap this information across national borders at some unspecified point in the future. In addition to future use by your national agency - your data might be collected in one country, and used in 10 others without control. The only way to stop future abuse is not to collect the data. The intelligence agencies have arrogated to themselves the right to listen to any communication by using lawyerly arguments like yours over the difference between collection and listening, and denying that they are using all this information they are collecting without proper legal authority (of course for the NSA, that legal authority turns out to be a six-monthly rubber stamp on their procedures, not oversight of their actual work, but oversight of what they say they do). So I think your distinction between storing and accessing is unimportant and not worth arguing about - storage enables later access, so once it has all been stored, you have no control over the way it will be used (and it will be used).
rayiner 13y ago
So "reasonable expectation of privacy" is an objective standard. The question isn't, do you, (betterunix personally), expect information to be private, but do people in general reasonably expect information information they throw out onto the intertubes to be private (in other words, you can't create zones of privacy by having a subjective expectation of privacy). I don't think that's the kind of clear-cut argument you'd like it to be. To me, for example, if I'm letting AT&T or Verizon see the encrypted bits (as well as any intermediate carriers and backbone operators), I don't really have a privacy expectation on the encrypted bits themselves. I might be persuaded that I have a privacy expectation on the decrypted bits, however.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > if I'm letting AT&T or Verizon see the encrypted bits (as well as any intermediate carriers and backbone operators), I don't really have a privacy expectation Why? Because ISPs handle your data, they get to spy on you? If you asked UPS to ship a memory card full of photos, does that give them permission to copy it and use it how they wish?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Your ISP is already "spying" on you. They subject the bits you send to traffic analysis, they might do deep packet inspection, they record your use of the network, etc. Also, the government doesn't need a warrant to intercept a UPS package.
    - rosser 13y ago
      Also, the government doesn't need a warrant to intercept a UPS package. [citation needed]
      - nsp 13y ago
        It's hard* to find credible sources on this on the open web, if you read something like the Silk Road[illegal eBay for drugs, you pay with bitcoin] forums on tor, this is widely reported, and verified by self-proclaimed employees of the companies(ups FedEx). More convincingly vendors universally ship through USPS explicitly because they provide a warrant. Disclaimers: I am not a customer, and have not used the service, but believe that looking at the security methods used by those actively prosecuted is a decent way to figure out with precautions/security measures work. *though a quick google of ups open package on warrant will reveal many on dubious forums
alan_cx 13y ago
Now, encryption is probable cause...
seclorum 13y ago
The argument goes: you are using public networks over which you have zero control, so there is no expectation whatsoever of any privacy, at all.

When I encrypt, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Period. Stop trying to violate that privacy, unless you are accusing me a specific crime and you have probable cause.

jessriedel 13y ago

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the recent PRISM brouhaha hinges on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Everyone agrees that you do. Telephone calls (made in non-public places) explicitly enjoy this expectation. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privac... Rather, the recent issue is a disagreement over what constitutes a violation of privacy, e.g. whether electronic collection of data (without a human listener) constitutes violation.

genwin 13y ago
It would also be an obvious privacy violation for the NSA to install cameras in our bedrooms, even if they promised to never watch the video without a warrant.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yes, but that's because it would require access to your bedroom, not because it's evil to capture data per se. What if, instead, you had a bedroom camera (maybe for tracking frisky escapades) and it streamed wirelessly to a home server? The more relevant question then becomes whether it's OK for the NSA (or rather, FBI) to sit on the street and capture that WiFi stream from a public road. As you consider this question, also consider how many open WiFi hotspots you've ever used (or broke the WEP for) in your hacking career. :) The idea that it's OK to hack the stupid because their system was so open to attack might finally die due to PRISM, if people are intellectually honest with themselves.
  - svachalek 13y ago
    I think there's a significant difference between using an open (or even poorly secured, although I've never done that) hotspot in order to get onto the internet, vs deliberately capturing personal data from that hotspot with the intention to analyze it and possibly use it to harm the subjects of that data.
joe_the_user 13y ago
"the recent issue is a disagreement over..." Wait, there are no "issues", there is no "disagreement", not in any conventional fashion. From the state, we have seen nothing but the boiler-plate propaganda that comes out when any large bureaucracy faces an embarrassment. They sort-of say it's OK to invade the privacy of (any vaguely accused) terrorists, they sort-of say they can look at anything and it's not an invasion of privacy and they sort-of say they can collect anything and as long they don't look its not an invasion of privacy. But none of it matters, it's not a "debate", there are no "disagreements" in the sense of a dialogue. These are just press releases arguments are clearly wrong to everyone but morons, and they are naturally aimed for the mass of the morons out there (or the mass of ignorant and prefer-to-be-ignorant if you want).
grey-area 13y ago
Rather, the recent issue is a disagreement over what constitutes a violation of privacy, e.g. whether electronic collection of data (without a human listener) constitutes violation. If you think accessing private communications should not be allowed except in limited circumstances, you should be very worried by the storing of all this information. The implications are that anyone's privacy can be violated simply because of a policy change by those agencies who store and swap this information across national borders at some unspecified point in the future. In addition to future use by your national agency - your data might be collected in one country, and used in 10 others without control. The only way to stop future abuse is not to collect the data. The intelligence agencies have arrogated to themselves the right to listen to any communication by using lawyerly arguments like yours over the difference between collection and listening, and denying that they are using all this information they are collecting without proper legal authority (of course for the NSA, that legal authority turns out to be a six-monthly rubber stamp on their procedures, not oversight of their actual work, but oversight of what they say they do). So I think your distinction between storing and accessing is unimportant and not worth arguing about - storage enables later access, so once it has all been stored, you have no control over the way it will be used (and it will be used).

rayiner 13y ago

So "reasonable expectation of privacy" is an objective standard. The question isn't, do you, (betterunix personally), expect information to be private, but do people in general reasonably expect information information they throw out onto the intertubes to be private (in other words, you can't create zones of privacy by having a subjective expectation of privacy). I don't think that's the kind of clear-cut argument you'd like it to be. To me, for example, if I'm letting AT&T or Verizon see the encrypted bits (as well as any intermediate carriers and backbone operators), I don't really have a privacy expectation on the encrypted bits themselves. I might be persuaded that I have a privacy expectation on the decrypted bits, however.

smokeyj 13y ago
> if I'm letting AT&T or Verizon see the encrypted bits (as well as any intermediate carriers and backbone operators), I don't really have a privacy expectation Why? Because ISPs handle your data, they get to spy on you? If you asked UPS to ship a memory card full of photos, does that give them permission to copy it and use it how they wish?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Your ISP is already "spying" on you. They subject the bits you send to traffic analysis, they might do deep packet inspection, they record your use of the network, etc. Also, the government doesn't need a warrant to intercept a UPS package.
  - rosser 13y ago
    Also, the government doesn't need a warrant to intercept a UPS package. [citation needed]
    - nsp 13y ago
      It's hard* to find credible sources on this on the open web, if you read something like the Silk Road[illegal eBay for drugs, you pay with bitcoin] forums on tor, this is widely reported, and verified by self-proclaimed employees of the companies(ups FedEx). More convincingly vendors universally ship through USPS explicitly because they provide a warrant. Disclaimers: I am not a customer, and have not used the service, but believe that looking at the security methods used by those actively prosecuted is a decent way to figure out with precautions/security measures work. *though a quick google of ups open package on warrant will reveal many on dubious forums

alan_cx 13y ago

Now, encryption is probable cause...

seclorum 13y ago

The argument goes: you are using public networks over which you have zero control, so there is no expectation whatsoever of any privacy, at all.