3 ms·

> 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 forbiddin

> 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.

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.