3 ms·

> Far better to test it in court with a stupid revenge porn website than testing it with a case of, for example, a whistleblower where authorities feels they ne

by tragic 12y ago

> Far better to test it in court with a stupid revenge porn website than testing it with a case of, for example, a whistleblower where authorities feels they need to win. Disclaimer: I'm one of the less privacy-obsessed posters on here. Even so: really? Hypothetically speaking, if the US state apparatus wants to clamp down on Tor and anonymising services, then you don't want your test case to be a whistleblower for whom there may turn out to be wider public sympathy. You want it to be some obvious, incontrovertible scumbag. Plays much, much nicer in the public gallery. That's just how it's done. Cf. how a more punitive defamation regime in the UK was won on the back not of politicians trying to protect their expenses or some such, but the hacking of a dead teenager's voicemail and various other dirty tricks of the gutter press. This is just the way you do things.

xophe 12y ago
Yes, exactly this. If they lose, then there's going to be precedent for when the stakes are high. And I can't see how they can totally escape culpability, since they can't even turn over the source if they wanted to. The anonymity Tor provides is fundamental from an Internet activist perspective but in the eyes of the law (and the world outside our tech bubble) it's aiding and abetting. There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. I don't feel good about this at all.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. Wait, what? Is that true? It isn't true, as far as I know, in the UK.
  - schoen 12y ago
    Also not true in the U.S. (unless "not allowed to" means "the government has successfully deterred it" rather than "it's illegal").
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  > There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. We can, it just requires that end users manage the keys if they don't want them turned over to the government by a third party (eg, the telephone company).
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  > There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. We can, it just requires that end users manage the keys if they don't want them turned over to the government by a third party (eg, the telephone company).

by tragic 12y ago

xophe 12y ago

Yes, exactly this. If they lose, then there's going to be precedent for when the stakes are high. And I can't see how they can totally escape culpability, since they can't even turn over the source if they wanted to. The anonymity Tor provides is fundamental from an Internet activist perspective but in the eyes of the law (and the world outside our tech bubble) it's aiding and abetting. There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. I don't feel good about this at all.

DanBC 12y ago
> There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. Wait, what? Is that true? It isn't true, as far as I know, in the UK.
- schoen 12y ago
  Also not true in the U.S. (unless "not allowed to" means "the government has successfully deterred it" rather than "it's illegal").
NotAtWork 12y ago
> There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. We can, it just requires that end users manage the keys if they don't want them turned over to the government by a third party (eg, the telephone company).
NotAtWork 12y ago
> There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines. We can, it just requires that end users manage the keys if they don't want them turned over to the government by a third party (eg, the telephone company).