5 ms·

If you support this sort of system, you are saying that individuals should be able to place themselves above democracy. Like it or not, we have a legal system t

by tedks 12y ago

If you support this sort of system, you are saying that individuals should be able to place themselves above democracy. Like it or not, we have a legal system that entitles the government to execute lawfully obtained warrants. Tech companies seeking to make this harder are acting against democracy. It's time for Silicon Valley to decide what side it's on: Democracy, or the alternative.

lutorm 12y ago
Our democratic system has enacted laws that say encryption is legal. Why do you think following the law is somehow "acting against democracy" here?
- tedks 12y ago
  It's in the intent. I don't think anyone is denying that Apple and Google are doing this to make it harder for police to search through user files. They could have implemented this at any point since the inception of AES, and are doing it now because of the backlash against PRISM. They want to demonstrate to users that they care more about them as individuals than they do about their role in a democratic society. Notice also that your comment, and others respondents to me in this thread, are not disputing my actual point, i.e., that bundling crypto features in products is meant to put individuals above the reach of the democratic legal system.
alasdair_ 12y ago
>Like it or not, we have a legal system that entitles the government to execute lawfully obtained warrants. The same legal system also says using encryption is perfectly legal.
Zigurd 12y ago
Some people would say they are putting themselves above oligarchy.
- tedks 12y ago
  But they're wrong. The United States is, whether you like it or not, a democracy. Voters can be influenced, but they still decide the outcome. Everything backends to them. If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Gilens and Page think they have shown that's only true for trivial matters: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-... People vote all the time in all kinds of undemocratic systems. Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?
    - tedks 12y ago
      The interview you link to points out numerous problems with that study, but beyond that, the very existence and success of activist groups disproves that premise. If the United States was truly an oligarchy, gay marriage or marijuana legalization would never have happened. Lawrence Lessig is making serious progress with his Rootstrikers group, and the fact that he's doing so proves that ordinary citizens do have political influence. Battles aren't won overnight, but >Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal? Do you think I'm saying this? If so, where? Or are you asking leading questions in order to put words in my mouth? In which case, are you seriously saying that democracy is an idea we should totally abandon in order to embrace the rule of whoever-can-summon-the-most-technological-power?
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        The oligrachs have little or no money to lose on those issues. You used the word "extralegal." What does that apply to if not the use of encryption in mobile devices?
noarchy 12y ago
You might as well have thrown in the term "patriotism" while you on that buzzword kick. There is nothing in the actions of Apple or Google that will prevent search warrants from being issued. Now you'll need to go directly to the person who owns the device in question. As for what happens then is likely to depend on the country and how the courts view this, from a self-incrimination perspective.

by tedks 12y ago

lutorm 12y ago

Our democratic system has enacted laws that say encryption is legal. Why do you think following the law is somehow "acting against democracy" here?

tedks 12y ago
It's in the intent. I don't think anyone is denying that Apple and Google are doing this to make it harder for police to search through user files. They could have implemented this at any point since the inception of AES, and are doing it now because of the backlash against PRISM. They want to demonstrate to users that they care more about them as individuals than they do about their role in a democratic society. Notice also that your comment, and others respondents to me in this thread, are not disputing my actual point, i.e., that bundling crypto features in products is meant to put individuals above the reach of the democratic legal system.

alasdair_ 12y ago

>Like it or not, we have a legal system that entitles the government to execute lawfully obtained warrants. The same legal system also says using encryption is perfectly legal.

Zigurd 12y ago

Some people would say they are putting themselves above oligarchy.

tedks 12y ago
But they're wrong. The United States is, whether you like it or not, a democracy. Voters can be influenced, but they still decide the outcome. Everything backends to them. If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Gilens and Page think they have shown that's only true for trivial matters: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-... People vote all the time in all kinds of undemocratic systems. Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?
  - tedks 12y ago
    The interview you link to points out numerous problems with that study, but beyond that, the very existence and success of activist groups disproves that premise. If the United States was truly an oligarchy, gay marriage or marijuana legalization would never have happened. Lawrence Lessig is making serious progress with his Rootstrikers group, and the fact that he's doing so proves that ordinary citizens do have political influence. Battles aren't won overnight, but >Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal? Do you think I'm saying this? If so, where? Or are you asking leading questions in order to put words in my mouth? In which case, are you seriously saying that democracy is an idea we should totally abandon in order to embrace the rule of whoever-can-summon-the-most-technological-power?
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      The oligrachs have little or no money to lose on those issues. You used the word "extralegal." What does that apply to if not the use of encryption in mobile devices?

noarchy 12y ago

You might as well have thrown in the term "patriotism" while you on that buzzword kick. There is nothing in the actions of Apple or Google that will prevent search warrants from being issued. Now you'll need to go directly to the person who owns the device in question. As for what happens then is likely to depend on the country and how the courts view this, from a self-incrimination perspective.