4 ms·
I'm getting some surprisingly mixed messages on here because I've come into the discussion with a couple of assumptions, so I'd like to try to clear those up.
by Zikes 12y ago
I'm getting some surprisingly mixed messages on here because I've come into the discussion with a couple of assumptions, so I'd like to try to clear those up.
1. Do we have the right to private, secure, anonymous communications?
2. If yes, do we have the right to be outraged when our government attempts to subvert our private communications, most especially with broadly-scoped warrants or tactics that can expose your communications to any potential listeners?
- tedunangst 12y agoIf nobody is trying to subvert your private communications, you don't need secure private communications in the first place. If you assume you need secure comms, you should assume people will try to subvert and break your secure comms.
- nickysielicki 12y ago"If nobody is trying to search your home, you don't need locks in the first place."
- tedunangst 12y agoIs that not true?
- striking 12y agoThis metaphor works well. What about thieves (internet criminals) or nosy passersby (script kiddies)? Don't you need protection against those, too?
- paulhebert 12y agoI think his point is you can never be sure when someone is trying to break in to your house/subvert your communications, so it makes sense to take precautions. I don't want the government actively working to weaken house lock standards for a lot of the same reasons I don't want them working to subvert privacy technology. Admittedly, in this case the metaphor is kind of flawed since SR2 is the equivalent of a drug dealer's home, which the Feds would have no qualms about breaking in to.
- jzwinck 12y agoIceland has an interesting mechanism related to this. Some driveways have a gate with one vertical post on each side, and three removable horizontal beams. If the beams are moved aside, you may enter. If all three beams are hung in place, you must not enter. If two beams are up, you should seek permission to enter. That's how I remember it, anyway. The point being, yes, you do need a lock or some mechanism to say "outsiders should stop here." You need this for two reasons: first so that honest people know where they are not welcome, and second so that dishonest people can be shown clearly to have broken a social contract.
- diminoten 12y agoYou have a right to be outraged over anything you like, one does not follow from the other. However outrage doesn't do anything. It's not useful. What's useful is a better service for obtaining #1.
- nickysielicki 12y agoLet me rephrase for him, "Is it reasonable to be outraged..."
- mc_hammer 12y agoi think skip the outrage and kick the cops, thieves and scammers and pedos off the internet.