4 ms·

I find it a little absurd that this even needs to be said. As long as we're still humans, we'll always want private communications. Always. Even if US and all o

by devx 13y ago

I find it a little absurd that this even needs to be said. As long as we're still humans, we'll always want private communications. Always. Even if US and all of the world's "democracies" turn into totalitarian surveillance states, we'll still want to have private communications with each other, and we'll find ways to do it - especially if in such a world the governments have no shame nor limitation in abusing that power (which you can bet will happen, and is already happening. We're just now finding out about some of them).

nathan_long 13y ago
Absolutely. I think privacy is even fundamental to relationships. Imagine if every conversation with a loved one had to be carried out on a stage with a microphone. It would destroy the relationship because there would be no intimacy. Privacy means, in part, freedom to be yourself.
rayiner 13y ago
For most of history, the way people communicated in private was to invite someone into their home and talk to them. That way still exists. All of the means of communication that were private in 1789 still are. What you're asking for is to go another step: to be able to spew unencrypted bits all over the internet for any of hundreds of sysadmins and network engineers to see, then turn around and claim its private. You want to broadcast your location in real time to Google and ATT, who sells it to advertisers, then claim its private. Maybe you should be able to do that. But its disingenuous to claim that what you're asking for is basic human private communication. What you're asking for is for the government to treat the internet as something other than what it is: a public network designed with almost no thought to keeping information private. At the most basic level, being a routed network with no built in encryption IP leaks your data out to every intermediate router on the way to the destination. SMTP passes your clear text email through multiple servers on the way to someone's inbox. Its a vast system designed with no thought to leaking your private data out into the world. Maybe its because nobody teaches low level networking in school anymore, but I'm amazed at how many technologists indulge what is a technical fiction: that the two ends of a socket are connected by a private link.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >That way still exists. All of the means of communication that were private in 1789 still are. If you ignore cell phones and cars that constantly broadcast their positions, surveillance cameras everywhere, and that there are no sidewalks and no commons anymore, so where would you meet these people and how would you meet with them without the information being observed and stored? The only possible goal of a system intended to flawlessly prevent 'terrorist' conspiracy is to create a system that flawlessly prevents unrecorded association and communication. The Stasi managed it with technology that was available in 1789. This has nothing to do with computers, other than the terrible fact that they make doing this a lot cheaper.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  For most of history, the way people communicated in private was to invite someone into their home and talk to them. That way still exists. For most of history, the way people communicated at all was to speak to someone face to face. Luckily for us, modern technology provides other options. Surely you're not seriously suggesting that the principle of privacy and the arguments for why it is a good thing do not apply in any new context? What you're asking for is to go another step: to be able to spew unencrypted bits all over the internet for any of hundreds of sysadmins and network engineers to see, then turn around and claim its private. I don't see anyone here claiming that. It seems to me more often in this general debate people are asking for rather more reasonable things, like: 1. If you send data you intend to be private over the Internet, for example by encrypting it and sending it to a specific recipient, you shouldn't have to worry about crackers, communication services, or governments that don't have a good reason expending significant resources to infringe your privacy anyway. 2. If you choose to share some personal information with a modern service like Facebook, and choose to use the provided options to restrict who else gets to see it, you shouldn't log onto Facebook one day and find it's all been shared with other people anyway. 3. If you do want to visit someone to communicate in person the old-fashioned way, you shouldn't have to forfeit all of your normal rights and be subject to arbitrary invasions of your person and possessions just to travel. None of these things matter if you live in a quiet countryside village and the only people you ever want to communicate with privately are your neighbours, but for most people in the western world, these activities are a normal part of modern life, and it is not unreasonable to expect governments and laws to protect everyone's privacy while they do them.
lnanek2 13y ago
Wanting something and expecting it from public companies like the phone company and Microsoft are different things, however. I think almost anyone on the street knows about phone taps from TV and movies for example, so there's almost no one who thinks your phone can't be tapped. I don't really follow this writer's claim that all the stuff built on top and later somehow magically becomes private. Nor that there will be mass consumer adoption of some solution that avoids possible tapping at the cost of other things, such as network size and price. If you went door to door asking people to pay twice their phone bill for an untappable phone, how many do you think would say yes? I think not many. The writer claims many.

by devx 13y ago

nathan_long 13y ago

Absolutely. I think privacy is even fundamental to relationships. Imagine if every conversation with a loved one had to be carried out on a stage with a microphone. It would destroy the relationship because there would be no intimacy. Privacy means, in part, freedom to be yourself.

rayiner 13y ago

For most of history, the way people communicated in private was to invite someone into their home and talk to them. That way still exists. All of the means of communication that were private in 1789 still are. What you're asking for is to go another step: to be able to spew unencrypted bits all over the internet for any of hundreds of sysadmins and network engineers to see, then turn around and claim its private. You want to broadcast your location in real time to Google and ATT, who sells it to advertisers, then claim its private. Maybe you should be able to do that. But its disingenuous to claim that what you're asking for is basic human private communication. What you're asking for is for the government to treat the internet as something other than what it is: a public network designed with almost no thought to keeping information private. At the most basic level, being a routed network with no built in encryption IP leaks your data out to every intermediate router on the way to the destination. SMTP passes your clear text email through multiple servers on the way to someone's inbox. Its a vast system designed with no thought to leaking your private data out into the world. Maybe its because nobody teaches low level networking in school anymore, but I'm amazed at how many technologists indulge what is a technical fiction: that the two ends of a socket are connected by a private link.

pessimizer 13y ago
>That way still exists. All of the means of communication that were private in 1789 still are. If you ignore cell phones and cars that constantly broadcast their positions, surveillance cameras everywhere, and that there are no sidewalks and no commons anymore, so where would you meet these people and how would you meet with them without the information being observed and stored? The only possible goal of a system intended to flawlessly prevent 'terrorist' conspiracy is to create a system that flawlessly prevents unrecorded association and communication. The Stasi managed it with technology that was available in 1789. This has nothing to do with computers, other than the terrible fact that they make doing this a lot cheaper.
Silhouette 13y ago
For most of history, the way people communicated in private was to invite someone into their home and talk to them. That way still exists. For most of history, the way people communicated at all was to speak to someone face to face. Luckily for us, modern technology provides other options. Surely you're not seriously suggesting that the principle of privacy and the arguments for why it is a good thing do not apply in any new context? What you're asking for is to go another step: to be able to spew unencrypted bits all over the internet for any of hundreds of sysadmins and network engineers to see, then turn around and claim its private. I don't see anyone here claiming that. It seems to me more often in this general debate people are asking for rather more reasonable things, like: 1. If you send data you intend to be private over the Internet, for example by encrypting it and sending it to a specific recipient, you shouldn't have to worry about crackers, communication services, or governments that don't have a good reason expending significant resources to infringe your privacy anyway. 2. If you choose to share some personal information with a modern service like Facebook, and choose to use the provided options to restrict who else gets to see it, you shouldn't log onto Facebook one day and find it's all been shared with other people anyway. 3. If you do want to visit someone to communicate in person the old-fashioned way, you shouldn't have to forfeit all of your normal rights and be subject to arbitrary invasions of your person and possessions just to travel. None of these things matter if you live in a quiet countryside village and the only people you ever want to communicate with privately are your neighbours, but for most people in the western world, these activities are a normal part of modern life, and it is not unreasonable to expect governments and laws to protect everyone's privacy while they do them.

lnanek2 13y ago

Wanting something and expecting it from public companies like the phone company and Microsoft are different things, however. I think almost anyone on the street knows about phone taps from TV and movies for example, so there's almost no one who thinks your phone can't be tapped. I don't really follow this writer's claim that all the stuff built on top and later somehow magically becomes private. Nor that there will be mass consumer adoption of some solution that avoids possible tapping at the cost of other things, such as network size and price. If you went door to door asking people to pay twice their phone bill for an untappable phone, how many do you think would say yes? I think not many. The writer claims many.