22 ms·

I find it very naive that people think that they can solve the NSA/PRISM spying problems just by getting some laws changed. The NSA's activities are already pr

I find it very naive that people think that they can solve the NSA/PRISM spying problems just by getting some laws changed. The NSA's activities are already probably both illegal and unconstitutional. The problem isn't that the laws aren't protecting the people: The problem is the laws are being ignored. Politicians and co. have made it very clear that they can't be trusted, regardless of the law: Big Brother is determined to watch you. We need both: Our privacy needs to be enshrined in law; and we need to make it as hard as possible for it to be violated, by use of strong encryption. Just like it's illegal for people to come into our home uninvited, but we still fit locks to our doors. It's not one or the other. We have to have both.

rtpg 13y ago
I'm glad you ended by saying we need both, because rule of law is pretty important to, at least in establishing social norms. Stronger encryption is always welcome I'd imagine, but if the keys are given away, no amount of encryption can fix that.
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
I agree we need both. Coincidentally I read "Crack my Software"[0] just prior to reading this. So it strikes me this is not unlike the "arms race" with copy-protection and DRM. Where we are the publisher and the NSA is the cracker. Ultimately DRM alone can't do the job. There needs to be a legal environment. Also there needs to be a culture of owning not stealing (which implies an economy of sufficient prosperity). Or the opposite, a culture of never owning[1]. Likewise, encryption is an arms race. Long-term, of course we should seek and use better encryption. But also, we need a legal and cultural shift in favor of privacy. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338013 [1]: Not to push the analogy, but another path is a (very rough, approximate) analog of "free software": As you abandon proprietary software, abandon privacy. Don't fight to protect privacy. Accept "life in a small town". I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out it's another way to defuse the encryption arms race, by stepping out of it.

rtpg 13y ago

I'm glad you ended by saying we need both, because rule of law is pretty important to, at least in establishing social norms. Stronger encryption is always welcome I'd imagine, but if the keys are given away, no amount of encryption can fix that.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

I agree we need both. Coincidentally I read "Crack my Software"[0] just prior to reading this. So it strikes me this is not unlike the "arms race" with copy-protection and DRM. Where we are the publisher and the NSA is the cracker. Ultimately DRM alone can't do the job. There needs to be a legal environment. Also there needs to be a culture of owning not stealing (which implies an economy of sufficient prosperity). Or the opposite, a culture of never owning[1]. Likewise, encryption is an arms race. Long-term, of course we should seek and use better encryption. But also, we need a legal and cultural shift in favor of privacy. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338013 [1]: Not to push the analogy, but another path is a (very rough, approximate) analog of "free software": As you abandon proprietary software, abandon privacy. Don't fight to protect privacy. Accept "life in a small town". I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out it's another way to defuse the encryption arms race, by stepping out of it.