3 ms·

I don't understand, who else than the government has the right to tap internet lines ? If there's nobody, encryption does not protect your privacy, since invest

by jokoon 11y ago

I don't understand, who else than the government has the right to tap internet lines ? If there's nobody, encryption does not protect your privacy, since investigations require warrants. The problem is that the more the government watches everybody, the more people will encrypt. The logical path would to forbid anybody to tap lines. Then, of course, encryption would not be necessary, since data would flow securely. Also, as long as its the authorities, as long as data does not fall into the hand of private interests (which is a risk), I don't see what the government would do about this ability to spy on its people since government represent the interest of voters. Ideally of course, in reality there would be many abuses. By the way I don't understand why the authorities benefit for using Tor.

michaelmior 11y ago
> The logical path would to forbid anybody to tap lines. Then, of course, encryption would not be necessary, since data would flow securely. Why does forbidding someone from tapping somehow make data more secure? Just because it's forbidden doesn't mean it won't happen. > as long as data does not fall into the hands of private interests This is a risk because it's impossible to prevent. Especially as wireless networks become more and more common. It's impossible for all practical purposes to prevent wireless signals from being collected.
- jokoon 11y ago
  Well internet infrastructures should be made secure and be considered as sensitive. That way it would be shielded from many small criminals. > impossible to prevent Well putting good encryption standards would mitigate this by a lot. And isn't the sector of mobile antennas a walled garden ? Of course if nothing is regulated to give the government a chance to tap it, then consumers will always try to conceal their behaviors and criminals will never be caught. On the other hand, if the government properly regulates how data infrastructures are kept safe from private interests and if it's properly audited and made public, it will gain the trust of consumers and it will make the FBI's job much easier. I honestly doubt the government will really want to let everyone have the opportunity to get away with the law because the technology allows it. There are strategies to protect citizens from private interests while doing investigations. The problem with tor is that the government can end up systematically crack if they want, so using stealth tools isn't the road that makes sense. It boils down to trust. If trust goes down, it makes things much easier from criminals, since the FBI's job will be so much harder, since everyone effectively doesn't trust government. Anyway, I'm not so knowledgeable about all that, but it's true that the law must evolve on technology. Guilty until proven otherwise should be the norm, and privacy matters, but if everybody is paranoiac like a criminal would and protects their data because nothing is regulated and because private companies always take a peek, then nothing will change.
  - michaelmior 11y ago
    > guilty until proven otherwise should be the norm This is a scary statement to me. Why should it be assumed that I am guilty of something because I don't want my communication to be read? This amounts to saying that I have no right to privacy. It seems that you're saying that I should just trust the government to not read my messages if I am innocent. However, I don't think it's fair to say that I only have the right to privacy if I trust the government to stay out of my communications because that's not really privacy at all.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
"The authorities" created Tor, and it was created so that spies can report back securely. The more Tor traffic there is, the more secure are they from being caught.
- jokoon 11y ago
  Safe from what ? Outside of the US then ? Because I don't understand why US internet lines would not be made secure from private interests.

by jokoon 11y ago

michaelmior 11y ago

> The logical path would to forbid anybody to tap lines. Then, of course, encryption would not be necessary, since data would flow securely. Why does forbidding someone from tapping somehow make data more secure? Just because it's forbidden doesn't mean it won't happen. > as long as data does not fall into the hands of private interests This is a risk because it's impossible to prevent. Especially as wireless networks become more and more common. It's impossible for all practical purposes to prevent wireless signals from being collected.

jokoon 11y ago
Well internet infrastructures should be made secure and be considered as sensitive. That way it would be shielded from many small criminals. > impossible to prevent Well putting good encryption standards would mitigate this by a lot. And isn't the sector of mobile antennas a walled garden ? Of course if nothing is regulated to give the government a chance to tap it, then consumers will always try to conceal their behaviors and criminals will never be caught. On the other hand, if the government properly regulates how data infrastructures are kept safe from private interests and if it's properly audited and made public, it will gain the trust of consumers and it will make the FBI's job much easier. I honestly doubt the government will really want to let everyone have the opportunity to get away with the law because the technology allows it. There are strategies to protect citizens from private interests while doing investigations. The problem with tor is that the government can end up systematically crack if they want, so using stealth tools isn't the road that makes sense. It boils down to trust. If trust goes down, it makes things much easier from criminals, since the FBI's job will be so much harder, since everyone effectively doesn't trust government. Anyway, I'm not so knowledgeable about all that, but it's true that the law must evolve on technology. Guilty until proven otherwise should be the norm, and privacy matters, but if everybody is paranoiac like a criminal would and protects their data because nothing is regulated and because private companies always take a peek, then nothing will change.
- michaelmior 11y ago
  > guilty until proven otherwise should be the norm This is a scary statement to me. Why should it be assumed that I am guilty of something because I don't want my communication to be read? This amounts to saying that I have no right to privacy. It seems that you're saying that I should just trust the government to not read my messages if I am innocent. However, I don't think it's fair to say that I only have the right to privacy if I trust the government to stay out of my communications because that's not really privacy at all.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

"The authorities" created Tor, and it was created so that spies can report back securely. The more Tor traffic there is, the more secure are they from being caught.

jokoon 11y ago
Safe from what ? Outside of the US then ? Because I don't understand why US internet lines would not be made secure from private interests.