Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Five-Eyes-and-Japan-call-for-Facebook-backdoor-to-monitor-crime
278 comments
> Security alliance worries encrypted messaging apps can be used by bad actors
Same goes for kitchen knives. I don't hear them call for banning those, or have every sale of one tracked and monitored (which would only illustrate the lunacy of their "argument" even more).
Same goes for kitchen knives. I don't hear them call for banning those, or have every sale of one tracked and monitored (which would only illustrate the lunacy of their "argument" even more).
If some politicians thought they could get away with it, they would.
I mean, why do you think they've been trying to progressively restrict guns for years?
Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure
* a large number of people
* from a distance
* with basically no effort
With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring
* even a low number of people (IF even more than one)
* from arm's reach
* with large physical effort.
Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
* a large number of people
* from a distance
* with basically no effort
With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring
* even a low number of people (IF even more than one)
* from arm's reach
* with large physical effort.
Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
Fewer than 200 people die every year in the US (~1 in 1,500,000) from rifle homicides, fewer than the number of people who die from kicks and punches or blunt objects, and yet rifle platforms such as the AR-15 are one of the most popular targets of anti-gun lawmakers and are heavily regulated in many states.
Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". The retort is then usually the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
The entire foundation of the US system of government is built on distrust of all forms or authority.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system
Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system
Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
> The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many".
Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.
Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.
[deleted]
That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America.
There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
The premise of your argument seems to be that the number of victims that a weapon can be unleashed on should not be a criterion for banning it. Am I getting that right?
If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive".
I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive".
I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
Technically, in the United States, you can. Just get all your tax stamps, and make sure the DoE knows about your nuclear material. Good luck finding FOGBANK.
Also good luck filling out all the paperwork. There's a difference between outright banning something and placing an astonishing number of administrative hurdles in the way. Private nuclear weapons come with so much paperwork as to be esssentially impracticable, but never the less possible.
At least that was the verdict last time I looked into the question.
Also good luck filling out all the paperwork. There's a difference between outright banning something and placing an astonishing number of administrative hurdles in the way. Private nuclear weapons come with so much paperwork as to be esssentially impracticable, but never the less possible.
At least that was the verdict last time I looked into the question.
Ahh, I love the McNuke argument. It's like "what about the roads" but for firearms policy. I've actually thought pretty hard about it, but no, I don't think so, and I believe my reason is consistent with the ideology I expressed above. The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Fallout, radiation poisoning, etc. So the government can in fact act to keep these externalities from harming others.
> The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage.
Sure, how about a howitzer then?
What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict.
It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold.
As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
Sure, how about a howitzer then?
What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict.
It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold.
As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
No, I don't want to restrict ownership of howitzers. Though personally, I'd prefer an M61 vulcan. So no, I wouldn't say I'd restrict based on body count.
Just to be clear, you’d be fine with a personally owned nuke if it didn’t have fallout?
The issue is not the fallout but the fact that a nuclear weapon cannot be targeted - it by its very nature and design harms innocent civilians. Compare that to a fierarm, which can obviously be directed one way or the other. It's the same reason I wouldn't load my concealed carry handgun with FMJ rounds.
Realistically, if you fire a howitzer you have zero assurance that the shell will only land upon legitimate targets. The recent hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan are testament to the indiscriminate destructive power of military weapons.
Private ownership of nuclear weapons has a slightly different problem that isn't usually brought up in the "nuclear garden gnome" discussions: it has a capability to break the MAD doctrine. If your country allows anyone to own a warhead (and perhaps also a delivery system), then from the outside perspective, you're an unpredictable first strike threat. Which means suddenly the best option is to preemptively glass you, in order to not have to deal with you anymore.
It's interesting to consider power balance theory in other contexts, eg the # of applications for NICS background checks (a loose proxy for firearm sales) have massively increased this year: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo...
[deleted]
corobo(1)
Actually here in the UK the government did briefly consider banning all knives with points. I know right? Welcome to the nanny state.
(from 2005 but it was brought up again last year...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Off...
(from 2005 but it was brought up again last year...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Off...
This story comes up occasionally and is always misrepresented. Nowhere in the article does it say all knives with points. Nor did the government consider it, beyond being asked to comment on the journal article.
The proposal was from a hospital research group who argued that many stabbings are impulsive and that long knives cause extremely serious penetration injuries. So they suggested banning those knives for home use, or at least blunting the tips.
The response to this is usually "well people could sharpen them?" and sure, but the purpose is risk mitigation. You'd still be able to buy a smaller pointed knife if you wanted.
> The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
They allegedly consulted with chefs who agreed that if you really need to use the tip, a paring knife would be OK. Anecdotally I'd agree - the only thing I use the tip of my chef's knife for is for opening packaging.
The proposal was from a hospital research group who argued that many stabbings are impulsive and that long knives cause extremely serious penetration injuries. So they suggested banning those knives for home use, or at least blunting the tips.
The response to this is usually "well people could sharpen them?" and sure, but the purpose is risk mitigation. You'd still be able to buy a smaller pointed knife if you wanted.
> The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
They allegedly consulted with chefs who agreed that if you really need to use the tip, a paring knife would be OK. Anecdotally I'd agree - the only thing I use the tip of my chef's knife for is for opening packaging.
Sort of the government version of Poe's law.
noir_lord(2)
You are joking, but it's illegal in Japan to carry a locked-blade knives or folding knives with blade longer than 5.5cm. You need a solid reason to carry those, like if you just buy it from the shop (in the original package), or if you are a chef, etc.
Same in the UK, but the police can also decide you don't have a valid reason for a legal to carry pocket knife, and charge you anyway.
Likewise in Ireland[1].
[1]: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/ena...
[1]: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/ena...
Same in Denmark. Perhaps this is standard in a lot of western countries?
Sweden is the same, carrying almost any kind of knife in a public space is generally illegal. There are exceptions, such as construction workers who need to carry knives and other pointy things for work, but generally it's not allowed.
Yet people bring knifes to picnics, walks, hikes all the time.
"Normal use of pocket knife" is how the police formulates one of the exceptions or carve-outs for legitimate use of a knife in public spaces. There is a lot of leeway there.
"Normal use of pocket knife" is how the police formulates one of the exceptions or carve-outs for legitimate use of a knife in public spaces. There is a lot of leeway there.
Yup – in fact I think the picnic case is exemplified in a Swedish Supreme Court ruling. It just goes to show that a lot of laws aren't so clear cut. ;o)
Is fishing legal anywhere in Japan?
If so, then do people have to take the fish home before cleaning them or can they prepare and eat them while camping, etc?
If so, then do people have to take the fish home before cleaning them or can they prepare and eat them while camping, etc?
Fishermen and scuba divers are, in practice, generally not going to be busted by police for having a normal-size knife in Japan. Of course, this is the problem with the legal strategy of “make it illegal but give enforcement discretion to the police” - it adds a lot of uncertainty to what you are actually allowed to do, it allows the government to convict many normal people of a crime if they want to, and it gives the police discretion to get people in trouble for arbitrary reasons.
Yes, this. As the old Soviet saying went, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
When you place the burden on the people and not the state - often through "common sense laws/regulation" - you inherently enable subjective and arbitrary enforcement of the law.
This unfortunate trend not only creates and enables petty tyrants, but disproportionally afflicts the most vulnerable in society and politically disfavored minorities.
When you place the burden on the people and not the state - often through "common sense laws/regulation" - you inherently enable subjective and arbitrary enforcement of the law.
This unfortunate trend not only creates and enables petty tyrants, but disproportionally afflicts the most vulnerable in society and politically disfavored minorities.
>it gives the police discretion to get people in trouble for arbitrary reasons.
it also gives police discretion to avoid getting people into trouble because of too rigid rules. Many countries have a lot of lenience about the enforcement of relatively harmless drugs, for example.
Lenience and judgement on part of a police force is a good thing, and a necessary thing because reality is complicated and rules don't always make sense. The way you frame the issue just shows that you have low trust in your respective police force, in which case the issue is quality of policing, not rigidity of the law.
it also gives police discretion to avoid getting people into trouble because of too rigid rules. Many countries have a lot of lenience about the enforcement of relatively harmless drugs, for example.
Lenience and judgement on part of a police force is a good thing, and a necessary thing because reality is complicated and rules don't always make sense. The way you frame the issue just shows that you have low trust in your respective police force, in which case the issue is quality of policing, not rigidity of the law.
I think that's pretty common, San Francisco has the same types of rules (3 inches is the max if I remember correctly).
Already happening in several city centres in NL : all knives are forbidden, even if you are a tradesman(?) like carpenters etc.
Actually a lot of countries do ban knives. And guns. And anything else bad actors might abuse.
“Anything else bad across might abuse” includes things that people can’t possibly delude themselves into thinking it would be rational to outlaw, such as cars and caustic cleaning agents.
Of course, shockingly few of these ban-heavy countries, with the exception of the East Asian ones, have considered the much more effective strategy of adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors. Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) but having fairly lax object laws (knives are mostly fine, guns are relatively loosely regulated) and it works well for them.
Of course, shockingly few of these ban-heavy countries, with the exception of the East Asian ones, have considered the much more effective strategy of adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors. Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) but having fairly lax object laws (knives are mostly fine, guns are relatively loosely regulated) and it works well for them.
> Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system)
Strict? 25% of Switzerland’s population is foreign-born[1], and they are in the Schengen area, so no passport needed to cross the borders. I’ve cycled through at least three, none of which were even marked.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/...
Strict? 25% of Switzerland’s population is foreign-born[1], and they are in the Schengen area, so no passport needed to cross the borders. I’ve cycled through at least three, none of which were even marked.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/...
"Strict" doesn't necessarily mean "don't let anyone in"; in this case it means "have a rigorous validation process to ensure you only let in very desirable migrants".
Bad actors abuse the government and even the legal system every day. We should probably get rid of those as well.
"Kitchen knives" went too far to be an example. How about door locks?
I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with.
Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe?
Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI.
Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with.
Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe?
Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI.
Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
Governments would absolutely try to ban locks if they were as effective as encryption at keeping anything secure.
> The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
That's what projects like Maskbook do[1]. The problem with those is that the use of such technology can be detected, and thus the small number of users singled out. You'd need steganography for this principle to work, and AFAIK that's already what paranoid criminals are doing. So in reality making E2E encryption inconvenient only penalizes regular honest people.
[1]: https://mask.io/
That's what projects like Maskbook do[1]. The problem with those is that the use of such technology can be detected, and thus the small number of users singled out. You'd need steganography for this principle to work, and AFAIK that's already what paranoid criminals are doing. So in reality making E2E encryption inconvenient only penalizes regular honest people.
[1]: https://mask.io/
Those user sticks out because system such as Maskbook was not designed to hide the fact that it carries encrypted data.
However, a system can be designed to do that with ease. You can encode data in video streams with Fourier transform, you can encode data using English words, you can put encrypted data as JEPG payload etc.
"Bad actors" will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from law enforcement, they'll kill the police in a blink if their account balanced out (On the same note, they can also join and control the police from within), let alone to learn to use encryption. It is the normal people who will feel most of the hurt, because after that they don't even have the protection against bad actors.
However, a system can be designed to do that with ease. You can encode data in video streams with Fourier transform, you can encode data using English words, you can put encrypted data as JEPG payload etc.
"Bad actors" will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from law enforcement, they'll kill the police in a blink if their account balanced out (On the same note, they can also join and control the police from within), let alone to learn to use encryption. It is the normal people who will feel most of the hurt, because after that they don't even have the protection against bad actors.
I live my life assuming everything already has a backdoor and the article title is misleading the populace. Sure, the Five Eyes and Japan might be asking for a backdoor but I postulate the chance they don't already have access to all information they desire is zero. At this point everything is just meant to wear everyone down and increase tolerance until the day "government has access to everything" doesn't matter to the populace.
Secondly, I think people are really naive to consider any justification for catching bad guys. All funding should be going into making the desire "to be a bad guy" zero. That's not going to be done by fear but instead by making a life as "not a bad guy" more attractive. Currently people are living unattractive lives while following the law and society should be making that unattractiveness go away.
Secondly, I think people are really naive to consider any justification for catching bad guys. All funding should be going into making the desire "to be a bad guy" zero. That's not going to be done by fear but instead by making a life as "not a bad guy" more attractive. Currently people are living unattractive lives while following the law and society should be making that unattractiveness go away.
One thing that may help is making laws cut both ways. For instance, it is illegal in my country to not carry health insurance[1]. However, it naturally follows that it is equally illegal for an insurer to refuse coverage.
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. (1894)
[1] among my stock of anecdotes from the States, that I pull out for people here who have never lived there: "uninsured motorist coverage" ... kepashang? (wtf?)
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. (1894)
[1] among my stock of anecdotes from the States, that I pull out for people here who have never lived there: "uninsured motorist coverage" ... kepashang? (wtf?)
They need to make it legal to bring it up in court, it's pretty clear and there's decades of evidence that they are happy to break laws themselves to get the job done, despite caring about privacy I'm not that fussed really. Parallel construction has it's merits and for the most part cops want to improve society, especially for the most dangerous cases.
That said, a scary amount of digital crime cases get dropped by the FBI when they are faced with some scrutiny. Their reasoning really doesn't hold up when they justify it either, got a bit of smell about it.
That said, a scary amount of digital crime cases get dropped by the FBI when they are faced with some scrutiny. Their reasoning really doesn't hold up when they justify it either, got a bit of smell about it.
It’s not enough for the government to read everyone’s messages; they must also work with the platforms to make it seem to the public like the platforms are secure against government snoops, so people will continue to use them freely.
The whole “Apple wouldn’t decrypt the phone for the FBI” is one such false narrative in the media to further this. Apple had already provided the FBI with the phone’s iCloud data, which usually contains backups that have complete plaintext message history. Apple also dropped their plan to encrypt iCloud device backups that would prevent this sort of surveillance, specifically to aid the FBI.
Facebook already provides whatever surveillance law enforcement requests. This is a press hit along the same lines to spread the lie that routine communications on Facebook are not subject to surveillance.
They absolutely are. You can tell this by trying to send banned links via Messenger. A platform that doesn’t surveil the content will necessarily permit them as they will be opaque to the provider. Facebook has many systems in place to monitor and censor message content.
The whole “Apple wouldn’t decrypt the phone for the FBI” is one such false narrative in the media to further this. Apple had already provided the FBI with the phone’s iCloud data, which usually contains backups that have complete plaintext message history. Apple also dropped their plan to encrypt iCloud device backups that would prevent this sort of surveillance, specifically to aid the FBI.
Facebook already provides whatever surveillance law enforcement requests. This is a press hit along the same lines to spread the lie that routine communications on Facebook are not subject to surveillance.
They absolutely are. You can tell this by trying to send banned links via Messenger. A platform that doesn’t surveil the content will necessarily permit them as they will be opaque to the provider. Facebook has many systems in place to monitor and censor message content.
Is there an internet meme (equivalent to a Godwin's law) about "back-doors 'coz of terrists-n-kiddiepron"? I was expecting for it to feature in the article and sure enough there it was.
The narrative that "bad people use X" becomes "bad people used X to do thing Y and the government was helpless to stop it, omg!" in various echo chambers. Soon, news reports start appearing with "Thing X was used by bad person. If only the government could have acted in time, tragedy would have been averted".
The various governments and TLA's arguing about the need for back-doors is akin to them complaining that they can't solve crime because of the invention and use of curtains on windows. I mean, can you picture them arguing that if only people left their curtains wide open all the time then there would be no more crime happening inside houses.
The narrative that "bad people use X" becomes "bad people used X to do thing Y and the government was helpless to stop it, omg!" in various echo chambers. Soon, news reports start appearing with "Thing X was used by bad person. If only the government could have acted in time, tragedy would have been averted".
The various governments and TLA's arguing about the need for back-doors is akin to them complaining that they can't solve crime because of the invention and use of curtains on windows. I mean, can you picture them arguing that if only people left their curtains wide open all the time then there would be no more crime happening inside houses.
> Is there an internet meme (equivalent to a Godwin's law) about "back-doors 'coz of terrists-n-kiddiepron"?
Yes, it's called "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...)
Yes, it's called "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...)
Government will always be a major threat vector to the population. Encypted communication tools have the effect of creating a wider distribution of power which lessens that threat.
I think the trade-off of denying the establishment some control that would empower it to more effectively combat malevolent behavior by fringe elements, in order to better protect the majority from potential abuses and structural exploitation by the establishment, is worth it.
I think the trade-off of denying the establishment some control that would empower it to more effectively combat malevolent behavior by fringe elements, in order to better protect the majority from potential abuses and structural exploitation by the establishment, is worth it.
I tend to agree. There are already well established methods to investigate individuals suspected of some crime without needing SigInt, but it's more expensive.
That's all this is about: cost. It's more expensive and the system would have to dedicate more resources to fewer targets, being forced to prioritize their efforts.
Sure, that means that investigating truly bad people will be more difficult. But, that extra cost means that the average well-meaning person won't be nearly as vulnerable to bad actors who use Total Information Awareness for nefarious purposes.
This shouldn't really be controversial now, in-fact it's a well established principle in criminal law called Blackstone's Ratio.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
That's all this is about: cost. It's more expensive and the system would have to dedicate more resources to fewer targets, being forced to prioritize their efforts.
Sure, that means that investigating truly bad people will be more difficult. But, that extra cost means that the average well-meaning person won't be nearly as vulnerable to bad actors who use Total Information Awareness for nefarious purposes.
This shouldn't really be controversial now, in-fact it's a well established principle in criminal law called Blackstone's Ratio.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
One thing that is never factored into reports by security agencies is the threat posed by the state.
So for instance, in the United States federal framework for criminal crypto enforcement report recently published by the US Department of Justice's Cyber Digital Task Force, it states:
https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1326061/download
>>Because of the global and cross-border nature of transactions involving virtual assets, the lack of consistent AML/ CFT regulation and supervision over VASPs across jurisdictions—and the complete absence of such regulation and supervision in certain parts of the world—is detrimental to the safety and stability of the international financial system.161
This takes it as a priori that state institutions having Total Information Awareness with regard to private financial transactions DOESN'T pose a threat to the "safety and stability of the international financial system."
This is an absurdly totalitarian political philosophy and the infrequency in which it's criticized is extremely dangerous.
So for instance, in the United States federal framework for criminal crypto enforcement report recently published by the US Department of Justice's Cyber Digital Task Force, it states:
https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1326061/download
>>Because of the global and cross-border nature of transactions involving virtual assets, the lack of consistent AML/ CFT regulation and supervision over VASPs across jurisdictions—and the complete absence of such regulation and supervision in certain parts of the world—is detrimental to the safety and stability of the international financial system.161
This takes it as a priori that state institutions having Total Information Awareness with regard to private financial transactions DOESN'T pose a threat to the "safety and stability of the international financial system."
This is an absurdly totalitarian political philosophy and the infrequency in which it's criticized is extremely dangerous.
five eyes is exactly what you would call the secret evil organization in a super robot anime
I prefer to think of five eyes + japan (+ india + south africa + south korea + ...) as Oceania.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, also that's already a phrase used to describe a particular region comprising only of two countries you've mentioned (out of 8+)
It’s a 1984 reference.
I take it you've never read 1984? A shame, it's a good novel.
Isn't it obvious how the widespread knowledge that the government can read everything you do online - your FB posts, your emails, your texts - contributes to the erosion of trust in government and institutions?
As an anecdote, I went to DEFCON last year. I was at a blackjack table and surrounded by midwestern salt-of-the-earth types. I had my badge on which flashed lights, and someone asked if I was "one of those computer hackers" and I said Yes (of course). Then they asked me if it was true that the government could read everything they did on their computer! The very first question! I hesitated, and said yes! The government can indeed read everything they do online! It made the whole table silent.
The mainstream media keeps publishing these hand-wringing articles about how America's faith in institutions has diminished, as if Trump did it all. I argue that the total lack of privacy and argument from the Department of Justice that any privacy is akin to terrorism / criminal behavior kills society more than what they think they protect.
Is not privacy a fundamental American principle? What the hell happened?
As an anecdote, I went to DEFCON last year. I was at a blackjack table and surrounded by midwestern salt-of-the-earth types. I had my badge on which flashed lights, and someone asked if I was "one of those computer hackers" and I said Yes (of course). Then they asked me if it was true that the government could read everything they did on their computer! The very first question! I hesitated, and said yes! The government can indeed read everything they do online! It made the whole table silent.
The mainstream media keeps publishing these hand-wringing articles about how America's faith in institutions has diminished, as if Trump did it all. I argue that the total lack of privacy and argument from the Department of Justice that any privacy is akin to terrorism / criminal behavior kills society more than what they think they protect.
Is not privacy a fundamental American principle? What the hell happened?
9/11 and the “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists” mentality happened.
9/11 certainly provided that argument with a lot more ammo, but the rhetoric has been around for ages. Remember the cold war and McCarthyism?
McCarthyism was bad and I see what you’re saying but it isn’t quite the same thing. McCarthyism wasn’t really about government control but about a sort of mass hysteria. It was more like the Salem witch trials.
Much of the rhetoric during the Cold War actually made these types of government activities unacceptable to the average person because not doing these things was used to differentiate the US from the Soviets. “Microphones in every house? What is this, Soviet Russia?”
Much of the rhetoric during the Cold War actually made these types of government activities unacceptable to the average person because not doing these things was used to differentiate the US from the Soviets. “Microphones in every house? What is this, Soviet Russia?”
>Is not privacy a fundamental American principle? What the hell happened?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and we have not been vigilant.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and we have not been vigilant.
> Is not privacy a fundamental American principle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States says activist judges provided privacy, mostly over the latter half of the twentieth century, but strict constructionists would answer: it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States says activist judges provided privacy, mostly over the latter half of the twentieth century, but strict constructionists would answer: it isn't.
Is it not a slippery slope to wanting access to email and pretext for intercepting?
They already have access to email through subpoenas and warrants.
In the USA, email that has been stored for longer than some (fairly short) period I don't remember offhand doesn't require a warrant to access.
Just think about that for a while.
Just think about that for a while.
Yep, after 180 days it only requires a subpoena (which does not require any court). See the Stored Communications Act.
In my country, our constitution has been updated recently enough that the privacy article explicitly mentions telecommunications: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24680273
> after 180 days it only requires a subpoena (which does not require any court)
If stored on an American third-party server.
If stored on an American third-party server.
Solved by pop3 protocol.
In the EU, the metadata retention directive killed most of this. Though there was a temporary lapse of insanity and some of it was annulled, but it's now making a comeback in various forms... https://radiobruxelleslibera.com/2020/10/09/data-retention-s...
They already have that.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?
2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
There's no need to make them mandatory, most people already have cameras and microphones in their homes, schools and workplaces that the government can access. This is more about getting access to the social graph.
I don’t think that is accurate. Just as with end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, they would have to use targeted 0-day exploits to access the cameras and microphones in people’s homes.
End-to-end encryption doesn’t protect the social graph. They already know who is talking to who; they just don’t know what is being said.
End-to-end encryption doesn’t protect the social graph. They already know who is talking to who; they just don’t know what is being said.
They are already subpoena'ing alexa and Google home recordings, Android and iPhone location data, cell tower pings etc.
I don't think we're far away from court ordered wire taps to compel Google to enable the cameras and microphones.
I don't think we're far away from court ordered wire taps to compel Google to enable the cameras and microphones.
Any such court orders would be sealed indefinitely as well. In 5-10 or so years I predict we will have another Snowden, describing that the NSA has been running a ring -1 process on every single Intel Management Engine co-processor in the entire world.
The vast majority of "smart home" devices automatically shovel all of their camera data to the manufacturer's servers, because most consumers don't want to deal with a NAS box and remote access.
With this kind of architecture, law enforcement doesn't need 0-days, they only need a warrant/NSL, or to just ask the manufacturer nicely. Some manufacturers (e.g. Amazon/Ring) are a little too eager to essentially hand all of their data over to the police in real-time with almost no strings attached.
Devices that don't already upload everything to the cloud (e.g. Apple and Google's pinky-promise that smart assistant audio is processed locally) automatically receive and apply software and firmware updates from the manufacturer / carrier that can arbitrarily change device behavior. The government can and probably does compel these companies to write and push custom firmware to targeted devices.
"We encrypt your data so hard that we couldn't access it even if we wanted to" is almost always a lie, is never verifiable, and is ultimately subject to the same automatic firmware/software update problem.
It will never be possible to secure systems like these from government snooping, and people largely don't seem to care.
With this kind of architecture, law enforcement doesn't need 0-days, they only need a warrant/NSL, or to just ask the manufacturer nicely. Some manufacturers (e.g. Amazon/Ring) are a little too eager to essentially hand all of their data over to the police in real-time with almost no strings attached.
Devices that don't already upload everything to the cloud (e.g. Apple and Google's pinky-promise that smart assistant audio is processed locally) automatically receive and apply software and firmware updates from the manufacturer / carrier that can arbitrarily change device behavior. The government can and probably does compel these companies to write and push custom firmware to targeted devices.
"We encrypt your data so hard that we couldn't access it even if we wanted to" is almost always a lie, is never verifiable, and is ultimately subject to the same automatic firmware/software update problem.
It will never be possible to secure systems like these from government snooping, and people largely don't seem to care.
The vast majority of homes are not in any way smart.
Apple devices don’t force updates. They’re very pushy, yes, and there are a couple of dark patterns in their update notification UI, but my devices aren’t running the latest iOS
Are you using your observations of Apple's user-facing iOS Update UI to conclude that they're not capable of pushing a silent update to an iOS device? You do realize that branded OS updates and even point releases are not the only units of software that receive updates from Apple, right?
Google also asks you if you'd like to update Android, and they currently let you turn off auto-updates in the Play store, but they push updates to their nebulous, infinitely privileged "Play Services" packages frequently and without asking or informing the user. Even if Apple doesn't currently do something similar, it would be foolish to believe that they're not capable of doing so, as an ace-up-their-sleeve in an emergency scenario.
Also baseband firmware is pushed by the carriers silently and is essentially unauthenticated.
You really, really, really should not trust your phone, like, at all.
Google also asks you if you'd like to update Android, and they currently let you turn off auto-updates in the Play store, but they push updates to their nebulous, infinitely privileged "Play Services" packages frequently and without asking or informing the user. Even if Apple doesn't currently do something similar, it would be foolish to believe that they're not capable of doing so, as an ace-up-their-sleeve in an emergency scenario.
Also baseband firmware is pushed by the carriers silently and is essentially unauthenticated.
You really, really, really should not trust your phone, like, at all.
> targeted 0-day exploits
"this app wants access to your microphone: YES/NO"
"this app wants access to your microphone: YES/NO"
Re: 2, just because other encrypted messaging software is widely available doesn’t mean all criminals will use it. We know this because it happens today — see for example ammo and weapons seized after someone posted about killing federal officers on Discord [1], which isn’t e2e encrypted at all!
This isn’t a defense of backdoors, btw — just saying that we can still expect some criminals to use compromised messaging software even if secure alternatives are easily available.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/ammo-guns...
This isn’t a defense of backdoors, btw — just saying that we can still expect some criminals to use compromised messaging software even if secure alternatives are easily available.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/ammo-guns...
Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. So it's unlike having a government-mandated microphone and camera in your home or school, since you could not easily avoid those, and (in most democracies) you have a right to privacy in those places (well, in your home anyway).
If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself. Then you are in control, not some big corp.
If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself. Then you are in control, not some big corp.
>Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms.
Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms.
Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America, since it's used more often than it should for business, and if you don't make yourself accessible for business, you don't eat.
>If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself.
I've been "that guy" trying to tell others about PGP. I still get jokes about acting like I'm hiding from the FBI occasionally, even in this age where privacy is mainstream enough where I can point them to a Joe Rogan podcast featuring Edward Snowden. People care, but it has to be frictionless.
Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms.
Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America, since it's used more often than it should for business, and if you don't make yourself accessible for business, you don't eat.
>If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself.
I've been "that guy" trying to tell others about PGP. I still get jokes about acting like I'm hiding from the FBI occasionally, even in this age where privacy is mainstream enough where I can point them to a Joe Rogan podcast featuring Edward Snowden. People care, but it has to be frictionless.
> Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms.
No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.
No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.
Sure, in the way no one is "forcing" you to use email or a phone. You can opt out if you don't mind being unemployed and alone.
I don't think NOT having a facebook account has ever prevented anyone from getting a job. Rather the opposite, actually.
> I don't think NOT having a facebook account has ever prevented anyone from getting a job. Rather the opposite, actually.
Well, you're wrong. I've had interviewers ask why I host my own blog instead of using Facebook, and said it was very unusual that they couldn't check out my social background.
And Craiglist rental ads often screen applicants using social media, usually Facebook.
Well, you're wrong. I've had interviewers ask why I host my own blog instead of using Facebook, and said it was very unusual that they couldn't check out my social background.
And Craiglist rental ads often screen applicants using social media, usually Facebook.
> Well, you're wrong. I've had interviewers ask why I host my own blog instead of using Facebook, and said it was very unusual that they couldn't check out my social background.
Well, why would an employer need to check your social background? They should care about your skills more than anything else.
Well, why would an employer need to check your social background? They should care about your skills more than anything else.
Yes. You can go and try explain this to them. Good luck.
Well I can be the most technically skilled of my domain, and yet be a total bastard that would bring nothing but trouble in whatever team I would join.
Thus said, a call to previous employers should do the trick.
Thus said, a call to previous employers should do the trick.
How is viewing a Facebook profile in the control of that total bastard a good way of determining whether they should be given a job?
Personally I'm on no social network, on purpose. I've never had any issues. If it was an issue for an employer that I didn't have a Facebook account that their issue not mine.
Personally I'm on no social network, on purpose. I've never had any issues. If it was an issue for an employer that I didn't have a Facebook account that their issue not mine.
> Thus said, a call to previous employers should do the trick.
I don’t know what it’s like where you are (or what it’s like where I am now), but in the U.K. references from a previous employer are limited to confirming that a person worked at a place between specific dates.
This is because everyone gets legal advice warning they may be sued for libel if they either say anything negative or have a policy of saying nothing only for bad employees.
I don’t know how likely the scenario is, but everywhere I’ve worked before I left the U.K. shared that policy and that reasons.
I don’t know what it’s like where you are (or what it’s like where I am now), but in the U.K. references from a previous employer are limited to confirming that a person worked at a place between specific dates.
This is because everyone gets legal advice warning they may be sued for libel if they either say anything negative or have a policy of saying nothing only for bad employees.
I don’t know how likely the scenario is, but everywhere I’ve worked before I left the U.K. shared that policy and that reasons.
> why would an employer need to check your social background? They should care about your skills more than anything else.
I don’t want to work in an office with an unrepentant violent criminal or vigorous racist. Irrespective of their skill.
I don’t want to work in an office with an unrepentant violent criminal or vigorous racist. Irrespective of their skill.
I don't want to work with someone who acts antisocially, but I don't care at all what they do in their private sphere. I couldnt care less if they are racist homophobic pigs posting on 4chan at nights if they dont bring that trash to work. I couldnt care less if they have a conviction and they already pay their dues. But, thats me
In theory, you're right. In actuality, unless you have the clout to make others jump through your hoops to contact you, they won't.
Example: Donald Knuth doesn't use email. This works fine for him because of his reputation, but if I were to quit email and social networks, I'm not influential enough that people would send me snail mail.
Example: Donald Knuth doesn't use email. This works fine for him because of his reputation, but if I were to quit email and social networks, I'm not influential enough that people would send me snail mail.
And you just replied to a comment explaining what happens if you don’t do those things, so you haven’t really added anything new to the conversation but a trite “nobody is forcing you” which was already the premise when the parent comment started.
> 1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?
It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police.
You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police.
You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
So if I rent my apartment, the government can compel a landlord to place recording devices in the residence without serving me a warrant?
It could, if there weren't a century or two of legal precedent for treating your home differently from your phone calls.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24541163 suggests an alternative may be to arrange for your current neighbours to discover a deal on a (nicer/bigger/better located) apartment ... and then, when they move out, place recording devices there.
Depends under which jurisdiction. The Swedish ambassador to North Korea complained to his secretary that the driveway outside was still full of snow. He was about to order some of his own men out, but minutes later a bunch of North Korean labourers appeared and cleared all the snow away in front of his embassy, including the driveway. When he asked the secretary, she told him that she hadn't called anyone. Then they both stared suspiciously at the flower pot.
Do you have a source for this? A quick Google search shows your comment as the top result.
It's just a fun story, bro. Lighten up.
Here's the link: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/VbJAr/i-nord-korea-maa-fo...
Here's the link: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/VbJAr/i-nord-korea-maa-fo...
The government isn’t asking them to share data, because Facebook doesn’t have it to share. The request is for Facebook to change its product so they do have data to share. Just like if the government forced construction companies to install monitoring devices, no?
Technically I think the request is for them to not change their product, and to maintain the status quo.
> How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?
The difference is that the infrastructure is in place and can be turned on at will so it feels within the reach of the people who think they deserved to do that.
They think that deserve it because they believe that the job they do is the most important thing in the world and they can suddenly gain access to an amazing tool that will make their job much more easier and potentially more effective. They believe that the risks are overblown, can be contained with proper measures and well worth it.
If you are a pro-nuclear energy, you can draw an analogy with you desperately wanting nuclear power all over the place.
“So what if a really bad accident can cause an irreparable damage? The new designs would not allow this to happen and the positive aspects are huge. Coal kills much more people. Yes we had chernobyl and fukushima but this time is different”
is very similar to “So what if the surveillance can be used to create a dystopian state? The measures we put in place will prevent it from ever happening and the positives are huge. Terrorist and other criminals cause huge damages and not that many are killed by repressive government. Yes we had the stasi and kgb but this is different”
After all, it is true that it would have been great to a have a power that watch us an protect us, right? The concept is the bedrock of many religions anyway. It’s something that a lot of people want.
The difference is that the infrastructure is in place and can be turned on at will so it feels within the reach of the people who think they deserved to do that.
They think that deserve it because they believe that the job they do is the most important thing in the world and they can suddenly gain access to an amazing tool that will make their job much more easier and potentially more effective. They believe that the risks are overblown, can be contained with proper measures and well worth it.
If you are a pro-nuclear energy, you can draw an analogy with you desperately wanting nuclear power all over the place.
“So what if a really bad accident can cause an irreparable damage? The new designs would not allow this to happen and the positive aspects are huge. Coal kills much more people. Yes we had chernobyl and fukushima but this time is different”
is very similar to “So what if the surveillance can be used to create a dystopian state? The measures we put in place will prevent it from ever happening and the positives are huge. Terrorist and other criminals cause huge damages and not that many are killed by repressive government. Yes we had the stasi and kgb but this is different”
After all, it is true that it would have been great to a have a power that watch us an protect us, right? The concept is the bedrock of many religions anyway. It’s something that a lot of people want.
This is an extremely good observation! I think this likely gets to the heart of how dubious institutional objectives get passed down and realized through truly well-intentioned people.
Nit pick - the best science at the moment suggests that radiation from Chernobyl killed just two hundred people, and Fukushima zero. Your point is a good one but the specific example turns out to be untrue.
I don't want to get into a death toll deal discussion but people killed by KGB and Stasi is just as low.
A politician here a journalist there, people looking at death toll statistics must be wondering what was the big deal about Stasi, Chernobyl, KGB, Fukushima and so on.
A politician here a journalist there, people looking at death toll statistics must be wondering what was the big deal about Stasi, Chernobyl, KGB, Fukushima and so on.
> I don't want to get into a death toll deal discussion but people killed by KGB and Stasi is just as low.
You cant be serious.
You cant be serious.
Please correct me If you believe otherwise. But no indirect deaths please, the nuclear folks don't count these too. No inconveniences, life altering, career ending troubles, those don't appear on the only "few died due to nuclear accidents" statistics too.
To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear however I don't buy the "Chernobyl and Fukushima are note big deal" message that the low death toll numbers convey.
To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear however I don't buy the "Chernobyl and Fukushima are note big deal" message that the low death toll numbers convey.
The death toll from the KGB and associated state violence is likely in the millions, not a few dozen people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_So...
That link doesn't mention the KGB, the deaths and executions it refers to (largely of Communist Party and Red Army personnel) occurred before the KGB even existed, and nothing like what is described happened during the KGB era (1954-1991).
KGB is the direct successor to MGB, which was spun off from punitive branch of NKVD, which itself was a reorganized CheKa.
Huge swathes of KGB operatives worked through all of its organizational incarnations. They did (and Russian FSB still does) refer themselves as 'chekists' informally. Their professional holiday is the CheKa foundation day.
Huge swathes of KGB operatives worked through all of its organizational incarnations. They did (and Russian FSB still does) refer themselves as 'chekists' informally. Their professional holiday is the CheKa foundation day.
Huge swathes of post-war German police, judiciary, political personnel were Nazi Party members[0], but we don't attribute crimes carried out in the Third Reich to West (or East) Germany or its institutions.
If you want to pretend the KGB, or the regime it operated under[1], was just the same as the NKVD under Stalin, then please provide examples of the same crimes (mass killings) occurring from 1954-1991.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunbuch
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization
If you want to pretend the KGB, or the regime it operated under[1], was just the same as the NKVD under Stalin, then please provide examples of the same crimes (mass killings) occurring from 1954-1991.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunbuch
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization
Do you really suggest that West German police was basically Gestapo that changed the name? Because that's what MGB to KGB transition was. The status was changed from Ministry to Committee, that's it.
The policy has been changed under Khrustchev, but thousands of the same butchers that committed massacres of 1930s were serving (often in the same offices) until late 1970s.
The policy has been changed under Khrustchev, but thousands of the same butchers that committed massacres of 1930s were serving (often in the same offices) until late 1970s.
Okay since you want to pretend you don't understand my point: if around 40 members of the embryonic BND came from the SS, even by the head of the BND's own admission[0] in 1953, does that mean "the BND killed millions of people" is a reasonable statement?
Of course not, it's as ridiculous as claiming the KGB, the intelligence agency of anti-Stalinist USSR, killed millions of people, just because an utterly different (Stalin) regime did so while employing some of the same personnel.
If the KGB is just a name change, as you keep trying to pretend, then as I already asked, where are the mass killings perpetrated in the KGB era (1954-1991)?
[0] "Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Org and later president of the BND, [stated] that around 40 of his employees came from the SS and SD ... If there was ignorance on the matter, it was only because no one wanted to know"
Apparently even today, on Hacker News, some people still don't want to know and prefer their own fantasy version of history instead.
"Many Nazi functionaries including Silberbauer, the captor of Anne Frank, transferred over from the Gehlen Organisation to the BND ... Instead of expelling them, the BND even seems to have been willing to recruit more of them"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
"The then-opposition leader and SPD head Kurt Schumacher [...] described the Gehlen Organization as 'riddled' with former members of the murderous Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the SS's intelligence agency"
While relevant to your initial question:
"The British press at the time openly mocked the 'Gestapo boys' working at the BND's headquarters in Pullach, near Munich."
https://archive.is/uKG93
Of course not, it's as ridiculous as claiming the KGB, the intelligence agency of anti-Stalinist USSR, killed millions of people, just because an utterly different (Stalin) regime did so while employing some of the same personnel.
If the KGB is just a name change, as you keep trying to pretend, then as I already asked, where are the mass killings perpetrated in the KGB era (1954-1991)?
[0] "Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Org and later president of the BND, [stated] that around 40 of his employees came from the SS and SD ... If there was ignorance on the matter, it was only because no one wanted to know"
Apparently even today, on Hacker News, some people still don't want to know and prefer their own fantasy version of history instead.
"Many Nazi functionaries including Silberbauer, the captor of Anne Frank, transferred over from the Gehlen Organisation to the BND ... Instead of expelling them, the BND even seems to have been willing to recruit more of them"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
"The then-opposition leader and SPD head Kurt Schumacher [...] described the Gehlen Organization as 'riddled' with former members of the murderous Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the SS's intelligence agency"
While relevant to your initial question:
"The British press at the time openly mocked the 'Gestapo boys' working at the BND's headquarters in Pullach, near Munich."
https://archive.is/uKG93
Allegedly 1800 people is not a
> Huge [swath] of post-war German police, judiciary, political personnel
And the Braunbuch is very dubiously sourced.
> Huge [swath] of post-war German police, judiciary, political personnel
And the Braunbuch is very dubiously sourced.
Living in denial and refusing to accept (historical) facts because you don't happen to like them is really not healthy.
"It's one of the country's worst-kept secrets. Yet questions still surround the presence of former Nazis and war criminals in West Germany's police, secret service (BND) and politics."
https://www.dw.com/en/stasi-files-shed-light-on-west-german-...
"It's one of the country's worst-kept secrets. Yet questions still surround the presence of former Nazis and war criminals in West Germany's police, secret service (BND) and politics."
https://www.dw.com/en/stasi-files-shed-light-on-west-german-...
> I don't buy the "Chernobyl and Fukushima are note big deal" message that the low death toll numbers convey.
Why not? What evidence is there to the contrary? These death tolls vary by a lot, but even the high end is quite low compared to fossil fuels.
The fear people have of radiation seems to be much greater than reality would justify. This causes very serious problems, like evacuating hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily after an accident, destroying their lives due to mostly paranoia[1], as well as slowing down considerably our efforts to lower CO2 emissions (like Germany shutting down all its nuclear facilities even if that causes thousands of deaths due to increased pollution[2]).
[1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Japan-nuclear-sh... [2] https://grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nucle...
Why not? What evidence is there to the contrary? These death tolls vary by a lot, but even the high end is quite low compared to fossil fuels.
The fear people have of radiation seems to be much greater than reality would justify. This causes very serious problems, like evacuating hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily after an accident, destroying their lives due to mostly paranoia[1], as well as slowing down considerably our efforts to lower CO2 emissions (like Germany shutting down all its nuclear facilities even if that causes thousands of deaths due to increased pollution[2]).
[1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Japan-nuclear-sh... [2] https://grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nucle...
Because direct death at the accident is not what makes it big deal but the numbers are used to argue just that.
what is a big deal then? Unusable area? Mining coal or rare earth for solar panel already do that for you on a two order of magnitude difference at least (not counting detroyed montaintops and water pollution). Population displacement? Yeah, again an order of magnitude inferior to dammage caused by mining (this time counting water pollution). Not counting when hydro power fail: two order of magnitude differential just counting china barrage failure.
Would you dissmiss hydro power because of the barrage incident then? Because last time i checked, the death toll, the displacment toll and the lost land caused by hydro power were a lot more than nuclear for sensibly the same power production.
Is it waste that grind your gear? Yeah, speak to the people who live near cadmium mines where nothing can grow anymore. Also a Co2 surplus in high atmosphere last around 100 000 years (order of magnitude here). Compare that to the dangerous radioactive waste. Also, coal mining and burning cause the area around to be more radioactive than the area around fukushima, or French uranium mines. Weird, no?
You know why you really don't like nuclear power? Its because with solar panel, oil and coal, the externalities are paid by poor populations in China, India, Africa or south America. So its better for you (or me). Its because hydro power failure only happened in poor countries. Or rather, country you don't really know or care about. Italia, Brazil, China barrage failure each have death toll superior to fukushima + chernobyl counting displacement caused deaths (avoidable deaths).
Would you dissmiss hydro power because of the barrage incident then? Because last time i checked, the death toll, the displacment toll and the lost land caused by hydro power were a lot more than nuclear for sensibly the same power production.
Is it waste that grind your gear? Yeah, speak to the people who live near cadmium mines where nothing can grow anymore. Also a Co2 surplus in high atmosphere last around 100 000 years (order of magnitude here). Compare that to the dangerous radioactive waste. Also, coal mining and burning cause the area around to be more radioactive than the area around fukushima, or French uranium mines. Weird, no?
You know why you really don't like nuclear power? Its because with solar panel, oil and coal, the externalities are paid by poor populations in China, India, Africa or south America. So its better for you (or me). Its because hydro power failure only happened in poor countries. Or rather, country you don't really know or care about. Italia, Brazil, China barrage failure each have death toll superior to fukushima + chernobyl counting displacement caused deaths (avoidable deaths).
Lots of whataboutism here. In that vein let’s re-introduce asbestos because smoking kills much more people and doesn’t even insulate anything.
Anyway, the big issue is that it could have been(and still can be) much worse. it’s a scalable disaster with consequences outlasting human generations. If you need heroic efforts and enormous resources to contain something and there’s a possibility of that not succeed then you don’t want it happen and it’s a big deal.
Anyway, the big issue is that it could have been(and still can be) much worse. it’s a scalable disaster with consequences outlasting human generations. If you need heroic efforts and enormous resources to contain something and there’s a possibility of that not succeed then you don’t want it happen and it’s a big deal.
> Lots of whataboutism here.
Yes, but im sorry, the discussion is not "nuclear or not nuclear", its nuclear energy or another form of energy
> Anyway, the big issue is that it could have been(and still can be) much worse. it’s a scalable disaster with consequences outlasting human generations. If you need heroic efforts and enormous resources to contain something and there’s a possibility of that not succeed then you don’t want it happen and it’s a big deal.
No, no civil nuclear incident can't be worst than Chernobyl. Right now or in the future. There is no reactor that is using graphite anymore. Even if we lost suddenly all knowledge. Fukushima however, why not. But if its not happening in the next 50 years, it won't happen after with Gen3 and Gen3+ designs. You can argue than gen3+ designs have a greater surface of attack and are no better than gen3 and i could reluctantly agree, however i think a core catcher is a must have on new designs. We never know what can happen, what if we suddenly lost all knowledge on how to operate a fission plant?
Yes, but im sorry, the discussion is not "nuclear or not nuclear", its nuclear energy or another form of energy
> Anyway, the big issue is that it could have been(and still can be) much worse. it’s a scalable disaster with consequences outlasting human generations. If you need heroic efforts and enormous resources to contain something and there’s a possibility of that not succeed then you don’t want it happen and it’s a big deal.
No, no civil nuclear incident can't be worst than Chernobyl. Right now or in the future. There is no reactor that is using graphite anymore. Even if we lost suddenly all knowledge. Fukushima however, why not. But if its not happening in the next 50 years, it won't happen after with Gen3 and Gen3+ designs. You can argue than gen3+ designs have a greater surface of attack and are no better than gen3 and i could reluctantly agree, however i think a core catcher is a must have on new designs. We never know what can happen, what if we suddenly lost all knowledge on how to operate a fission plant?
"what is a big deal then?"
You probably don't know that, but the radioactive cloud from chernobyl contaminated large areas of central europe.
To the point, that I still cannot pick and eat mushrooms out of the forest as much as I like and that every wild boar meat has to be checked for radioactivity and lots of it has to be thrown away. And that a generation had to avoid open playground for some time.
That is a huge impact from just one accident 34 years ago. Which happened far away from us. And also one of the reasons, why nuclear power is not liked very much in germany. Nobody wants a radioactive cloud on a bigger scale.
So I am not for turning all nuclear power plants off now, but as soon as they can be replaced by regenerative energy.
You probably don't know that, but the radioactive cloud from chernobyl contaminated large areas of central europe.
To the point, that I still cannot pick and eat mushrooms out of the forest as much as I like and that every wild boar meat has to be checked for radioactivity and lots of it has to be thrown away. And that a generation had to avoid open playground for some time.
That is a huge impact from just one accident 34 years ago. Which happened far away from us. And also one of the reasons, why nuclear power is not liked very much in germany. Nobody wants a radioactive cloud on a bigger scale.
So I am not for turning all nuclear power plants off now, but as soon as they can be replaced by regenerative energy.
What a good point.
And every individual at each level within the system rationalizes that they are doing the right thing (because in many ways, they are doing things that can be justified as genuinely useful, within a limited perspective - which coincidentally, is the one that most people see), or doesn't think about such things because they have enough shit to worry about in their lives right now.
And every individual at each level within the system rationalizes that they are doing the right thing (because in many ways, they are doing things that can be justified as genuinely useful, within a limited perspective - which coincidentally, is the one that most people see), or doesn't think about such things because they have enough shit to worry about in their lives right now.
> The concept is the bedrock of many religions anyway. It’s something that a lot of people want.
This is exactly the reason communist systems have to destroy religion and replace it with the state. Because if people realise they're not being watched over by some all powerful benevolent entity, and that it is just a bunch of other (self-interested) people, they lose "the faith" pretty quickly.
This is exactly the reason communist systems have to destroy religion and replace it with the state. Because if people realise they're not being watched over by some all powerful benevolent entity, and that it is just a bunch of other (self-interested) people, they lose "the faith" pretty quickly.
I'm not really sure what your point is here. And the reason to be pro-nuclear is the vast quantities of environmentally friendly energy. The argument isn't that Fukushima or Chernobyl won't happen again (although they probably won't) - the argument is that after including Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear power is still, according to the evidence, safer and more environmentally friendly than solar or wind. The damage solar and wind does in terms of habitat damage, waste and effort required is underplayed.
This compares very poorly with a surveillance state, where there is no particular theory that a surveillance state ever does anything good. The nuclear industry base-case positive is 2.5 Petawatts of power a year enabling hundreds of thousands to millions of people to live first world lives. The nuclear industry downside is evacuating Fukushima once every 20 years, no fatalities.
The best-case positive for a surveillance state is people lose any expectation of privacy but a few hundred criminals a year get caught who wouldn't otherwise. The downside is enabling groups like the Chinese to genocide Uighers and effectively suppress resistance, or supressing political resistance in Soviet Russia, or hunting down Jews in Nazi Germany, or all the examples that weren't history-defining catastrophes in various dictatorships. Who knows what sort of damage it will cause in the Five Eyes countries next time a moral hysteria sweeps through the public, but I'd rather not find out.
The issue here isn't the form of the argument, it is the magnitude of the positives and negatives.
This compares very poorly with a surveillance state, where there is no particular theory that a surveillance state ever does anything good. The nuclear industry base-case positive is 2.5 Petawatts of power a year enabling hundreds of thousands to millions of people to live first world lives. The nuclear industry downside is evacuating Fukushima once every 20 years, no fatalities.
The best-case positive for a surveillance state is people lose any expectation of privacy but a few hundred criminals a year get caught who wouldn't otherwise. The downside is enabling groups like the Chinese to genocide Uighers and effectively suppress resistance, or supressing political resistance in Soviet Russia, or hunting down Jews in Nazi Germany, or all the examples that weren't history-defining catastrophes in various dictatorships. Who knows what sort of damage it will cause in the Five Eyes countries next time a moral hysteria sweeps through the public, but I'd rather not find out.
The issue here isn't the form of the argument, it is the magnitude of the positives and negatives.
> This compares very poorly with a surveillance state, where there is no particular theory that a surveillance state ever does anything good.
Alignment. This is a thing which benefits those in power, not the general population; those in power always either think they are acting in the best interest of the people, or don’t care what the interests of the general population are. Either way, surveillance states support whatever goals the people at the top have.
> The best-case positive for a surveillance state is people lose any expectation of privacy but a few hundred criminals a year get caught who wouldn't otherwise.
If you think drugs are a serious problem (I don’t, but governments act like it is, and my brother’s in-laws (who are are Pilipino) support Duterte‘s drugs policy), consider: in the UK 2017-18 crime survey, 9% of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using a drug in the previous year[1].
If the No Drugs Party wants to end drugs forever, how tempting would perfect surveillance be for them? That’s not a mere few criminals, it’s a radical change to society that the No Drugs Party would want to actively pursue.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Alignment. This is a thing which benefits those in power, not the general population; those in power always either think they are acting in the best interest of the people, or don’t care what the interests of the general population are. Either way, surveillance states support whatever goals the people at the top have.
> The best-case positive for a surveillance state is people lose any expectation of privacy but a few hundred criminals a year get caught who wouldn't otherwise.
If you think drugs are a serious problem (I don’t, but governments act like it is, and my brother’s in-laws (who are are Pilipino) support Duterte‘s drugs policy), consider: in the UK 2017-18 crime survey, 9% of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using a drug in the previous year[1].
If the No Drugs Party wants to end drugs forever, how tempting would perfect surveillance be for them? That’s not a mere few criminals, it’s a radical change to society that the No Drugs Party would want to actively pursue.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> the argument is that after including Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear power is still, according to the evidence, safer and more environmentally friendly than solar or wind.
That's really not the argument, but also please don't pretend that this is a fact. This might of been true in the long ago past, but solar has and is innovating and advancing way faster than nuclear. Solar is also on the order of 10x cheaper to build per kWh, 10x faster to build, safer, and doesn't leave you with radioactive materials that you need to store safely for some 50-10,000's years.
That's really not the argument, but also please don't pretend that this is a fact. This might of been true in the long ago past, but solar has and is innovating and advancing way faster than nuclear. Solar is also on the order of 10x cheaper to build per kWh, 10x faster to build, safer, and doesn't leave you with radioactive materials that you need to store safely for some 50-10,000's years.
300 years for dangerous nuclear waste, 2000 if you want to go to average mS levels.
You have your orders of magnitude wrong. Solar panels (as in photovoltaic energy) is the worst "green" energy when accounting for waste and probably the one that caused the most cancer with children near zinc/cadmium mines, but fear not, in the following years they will start killing people near landfills[0][1]. More wastefull in term of minerals too, but veolia might have something to say bout this (Best company working with renewable imo). Maybe in 50 years.
You can't smelt rare earth without a lot of energy, whereas you can reduce iron and CaCO3 with hydrogen and make steel and cement almost carbon-free. And as Fe and CaCO3 are present almost everywhere, you also don't have to globablize the production.
Ow, and if you evalutate the CO2 ton to be around 100$ (i think its at least 4 time this price), solar energy is twice as expensive to build and install as nuclear per kWh(and if we start reducing iron and cement with hydrogen, the difference will only grow). Thats only installed power, not produced power, also not counting energy storage.
I really like wind though and geotermic energy though, i think thermo solar is a good idea (not as good as passive) and maybe next gen solar won't use as much rare earth. Also if you're really interested, you should check how a power grid works.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...
You have your orders of magnitude wrong. Solar panels (as in photovoltaic energy) is the worst "green" energy when accounting for waste and probably the one that caused the most cancer with children near zinc/cadmium mines, but fear not, in the following years they will start killing people near landfills[0][1]. More wastefull in term of minerals too, but veolia might have something to say bout this (Best company working with renewable imo). Maybe in 50 years.
You can't smelt rare earth without a lot of energy, whereas you can reduce iron and CaCO3 with hydrogen and make steel and cement almost carbon-free. And as Fe and CaCO3 are present almost everywhere, you also don't have to globablize the production.
Ow, and if you evalutate the CO2 ton to be around 100$ (i think its at least 4 time this price), solar energy is twice as expensive to build and install as nuclear per kWh(and if we start reducing iron and cement with hydrogen, the difference will only grow). Thats only installed power, not produced power, also not counting energy storage.
I really like wind though and geotermic energy though, i think thermo solar is a good idea (not as good as passive) and maybe next gen solar won't use as much rare earth. Also if you're really interested, you should check how a power grid works.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...
One thing that is nice about solar is that it flips the entire idea of "power" on its head. Solar theoretically allows you to power your own life without needing to be a part of any power grid. That's pretty neat, and I think will be very useful in the coming decades.
But I think the argument here is a little convoluted. In my opinion, nuclear power is still the best "bang for your buck", and that's probably not going to change considering the same rules apply in the rest of the universe. Absorbing the energy of photons that were created by a nuclear reaction is going to net far less energy than simply using the full energy from the original nuclear reaction to power a turbine, no matter which way you slice it. On a large scale, nuclear makes sense. And even though there have been a number of high-profile incidents in the past 50 years, nuclear doesn't even come close to the amount of deaths and sickness people have suffered over the past couple hundred years by working in coal mines. I'd much rather take my chances with a bit of radiation than go into one of those mines, knowing that my lungs are going to be pitch black by the time I'm 45...and if it catches fire, I'm done.
But I think the argument here is a little convoluted. In my opinion, nuclear power is still the best "bang for your buck", and that's probably not going to change considering the same rules apply in the rest of the universe. Absorbing the energy of photons that were created by a nuclear reaction is going to net far less energy than simply using the full energy from the original nuclear reaction to power a turbine, no matter which way you slice it. On a large scale, nuclear makes sense. And even though there have been a number of high-profile incidents in the past 50 years, nuclear doesn't even come close to the amount of deaths and sickness people have suffered over the past couple hundred years by working in coal mines. I'd much rather take my chances with a bit of radiation than go into one of those mines, knowing that my lungs are going to be pitch black by the time I'm 45...and if it catches fire, I'm done.
This reply is spot on top to bottom.
"Who knows what sort of damage it will cause in the Five Eyes countries next time a moral hysteria sweeps through the public..."
That moral hysteria is NOW and every day since mid-march.
"Who knows what sort of damage it will cause in the Five Eyes countries next time a moral hysteria sweeps through the public..."
That moral hysteria is NOW and every day since mid-march.
> it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it
Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citizens, surveillance being part of it. Saying it's about "tools for terrorists and child traffickers" is the traditional rethorical ploy no-one can argue against. You wouldn't want to protect child traffickers would you?
Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citizens, surveillance being part of it. Saying it's about "tools for terrorists and child traffickers" is the traditional rethorical ploy no-one can argue against. You wouldn't want to protect child traffickers would you?
Beware, government is not those who command it. If there was some real democracy out there where citizens all should be actively implicated in the government (as opposed to supposedly delegate it), then what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen?
> what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen?
The breakdown of the rule of law. It’s what happened in Athens and is why pure direct democracy doesn’t work: the tyranny of the majority [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The breakdown of the rule of law. It’s what happened in Athens and is why pure direct democracy doesn’t work: the tyranny of the majority [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Somehow, this argument only gets deployed theoretically to justify per se minority rule, never to critique actually harmful policies enacted by a majority. It’s not like a minority in power is any less capable of tyranny.
> actually harmful policies enacted by a majority
To be fair, when's the last time you encountered any policies enacted by a majority? All Five Eyes countries are republics, not democracies.
To be fair, when's the last time you encountered any policies enacted by a majority? All Five Eyes countries are republics, not democracies.
I think “tyranny of the majority” refers generally to policies made with majority support, not necessarily by referendum.
To your specific question, though: often! In the US, state constitutional amendments and local ordinances are often decided by popular vote. For example, voters in New Jersey are currently choosing whether to legalize marijuana.
To your specific question, though: often! In the US, state constitutional amendments and local ordinances are often decided by popular vote. For example, voters in New Jersey are currently choosing whether to legalize marijuana.
You are aware that, while "Athenian democracy" was for sure a step toward more distributed political power, it was still a city where only a selected few males could pretend to be "citizen".
By the way, "what happened to Athens" doesn’t mean much: it’s still a living city, although the age of city-state has long gone.
So, as Churchill would quote it: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." see: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
By the way, "what happened to Athens" doesn’t mean much: it’s still a living city, although the age of city-state has long gone.
So, as Churchill would quote it: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." see: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
Very philosophical, but that’s not how it works in practice.
It can still happen - there have been and still are many self-policing communities historically (at small scales), where any sort of deviation from the norm is seen as problematic, regardless of its actual effects.
When it comes to secret services? Naive.
Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth I, and the foundational mindset of "secret services" in Anglo-sphere ("5 eyes") explains everything.
The modern secret services are based on British Empire's model, itself an outgrowth of Elizabethan intelligence services.
The reason the "5+J eyes" -- btw, Israeli eyes don't count? -- insist on knowing everything about everyone in "the realm" is because Catholics and Protestants were having a very nasty, and very bloody, power struggle in England. The queen of england had reasons to fear her own subjects, and the "intelligence services" that supported her certainly viewed say 1/2 of the English population as potential enemies.
This is their mindset. Nothing will change this state of affairs until the current ruling set is booted, once and for all. They've had a multi-century run. Time to take a bow.
The modern secret services are based on British Empire's model, itself an outgrowth of Elizabethan intelligence services.
The reason the "5+J eyes" -- btw, Israeli eyes don't count? -- insist on knowing everything about everyone in "the realm" is because Catholics and Protestants were having a very nasty, and very bloody, power struggle in England. The queen of england had reasons to fear her own subjects, and the "intelligence services" that supported her certainly viewed say 1/2 of the English population as potential enemies.
This is their mindset. Nothing will change this state of affairs until the current ruling set is booted, once and for all. They've had a multi-century run. Time to take a bow.
Secret services also provide continuity in methods, if not personnel, across hostile administrative changes. For instance, the KGB inherited its methods (continuously) from the Cheka, which had inherited its methods (discontinously) from the Okhrana.
"He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana
Detim to tili du kombat wit inyalowda, to gonya du sheru du owta wit kowmang. (He who continually struggles against Inners will become divisive himself.)
"He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana
Detim to tili du kombat wit inyalowda, to gonya du sheru du owta wit kowmang. (He who continually struggles against Inners will become divisive himself.)
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- Friedrich Nietzsche
> What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available.
At least on phones with gatekeepers like Apple, they can get them to comply on apps.
Thankfully, web is still free for now.
At least on phones with gatekeepers like Apple, they can get them to comply on apps.
Thankfully, web is still free for now.
> Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it
Trivially easy but probably in practice too much of a bother. I imagine most traffic isn't between well trained members of international terrorist or crime organisations planning major heists, but people who are friends, family members and acquaintances.
They're already using WhatsApp to talk with other friends about every day things so start planning and revealing criminal behaviour accidentally without taking the trouble to move to another platform.
Trivially easy but probably in practice too much of a bother. I imagine most traffic isn't between well trained members of international terrorist or crime organisations planning major heists, but people who are friends, family members and acquaintances.
They're already using WhatsApp to talk with other friends about every day things so start planning and revealing criminal behaviour accidentally without taking the trouble to move to another platform.
The thing is, by building backdoors into the widely used platforms, we gain maybe 10 years of arresting idiot criminals until they learn to use Signal, the same way they learned to use burner phones, but at the same time throw everybody's privacy out the window while opening a huge security hole in our infrastructure. It's just not a good trade-off, not even from a pragmatic, non-idealist perspective.
A lot of crime is opportunistic. If people feel they are more likely to get caught then much of it will just go away.
This claim is weird. “A lot” — well wait, how much is a lot? I tried to look, but a couple cursory searches yielded little in the way of attempts to quantify the amount of “opportunistic crime” versus premeditated. And frankly, going by raw quantity might not be good enough. How much damage are they doing relative to premeditated crime? Shoplifting a candy bar versus a murder, you know.
I also wonder if this has much to do with this article. If you are conversing about future criminal activity on Facebook or SMS, can you argue it was not premeditated in some fashion?
And even if this makes sense... how much loss of our personal freedoms is it worth to eliminate xx% of crime? (And, is it possible that there are better ways, like perhaps looking at the causes rather than trying to curb the effects...)
I also wonder if this has much to do with this article. If you are conversing about future criminal activity on Facebook or SMS, can you argue it was not premeditated in some fashion?
And even if this makes sense... how much loss of our personal freedoms is it worth to eliminate xx% of crime? (And, is it possible that there are better ways, like perhaps looking at the causes rather than trying to curb the effects...)
So the goal is to make sure crime is left to true professionals who think big, the kind who will bribe cops honestly, if they aren't already in the tier above with the CIA anyway?
We can really get the visible crime off the streets, or at least get thrown a bone every once in a while to look like we are policing despite the bulk of crime being done by our network of police state associates.. Who is going to explain how this works to Tony?
We can really get the visible crime off the streets, or at least get thrown a bone every once in a while to look like we are policing despite the bulk of crime being done by our network of police state associates.. Who is going to explain how this works to Tony?
> 1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?
Could you explain this question to someone who doesn't have a Facebook account?
As far as I understand, US phone companies are required to provide law enforcement with the ability to tap phone calls going through their exchanges, yet it doesn't seem that is on the same level as a government mandated microphone. Does Facebook have constant access to a facebook user's ("provider's" maybe, given their business model) mic and camera?
Could you explain this question to someone who doesn't have a Facebook account?
As far as I understand, US phone companies are required to provide law enforcement with the ability to tap phone calls going through their exchanges, yet it doesn't seem that is on the same level as a government mandated microphone. Does Facebook have constant access to a facebook user's ("provider's" maybe, given their business model) mic and camera?
I think he gets it totally wrong, the microphones (private assistants) the camera (your smart-tv) and the rest (IoT-Devices) all come from Private Company's and often from a completely different Country...what the Government missed is to protect us from them (private/~state company's) it would be really interesting how many "SmartTVs etc" recorded quite important company-meetings.
Edit: With ~State-Company i mean stuff like Lockhead Huawei Tencent
Edit: With ~State-Company i mean stuff like Lockhead Huawei Tencent
[deleted]
1. Simple ... you are already giving all of this away to Facebook for free. If you are so worried with government, it is as bad to let a corporation have if not much worse.
The right-wing terrorists they just arrested in Michigan posted about their plans in private Facebook groups. This is probably much more common than criminals with any understanding of OPSEC. They’re not smart, but they’re still dangerous.
Not that I’m arguing for these backdoors; just pointing out that “but criminals can still encrypt their messages” is mostly irrelevant.
Not that I’m arguing for these backdoors; just pointing out that “but criminals can still encrypt their messages” is mostly irrelevant.
Not sure "terrorist" is the right term here given the main objective isn't to spread fear or make a point, but to kidnap (and kill?) an elected politician.
If Al-Qaeda had genuinely wanted to harm the US financial system as their main goal, flying into the twin towers wouldn't have been terrorism as it wouldn't be about terror.
Though I'm unsure of a good term that encompasses violent action against the state...
If Al-Qaeda had genuinely wanted to harm the US financial system as their main goal, flying into the twin towers wouldn't have been terrorism as it wouldn't be about terror.
Though I'm unsure of a good term that encompasses violent action against the state...
Placed in your hands the responsibility of protecting/securing lives of innocent citizens you would overlook the privacy of citizens.
Paradoxes of technology-industrial complex.
Nothing out there is better than face-2-face social meetings. Nothing private should have access to the internet let alone "going over secure links".
Paradoxes of technology-industrial complex.
Nothing out there is better than face-2-face social meetings. Nothing private should have access to the internet let alone "going over secure links".
>>"What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it."
There is no endgame, strictly. Like a "war on drugs" or terrorism, crime will never raises a white flag and surrender. So, no endgame. For insight on the point, I think it's useful to compare CCP strategy 1 to CCP strategy 2: soft power.
I mean soft power broadly, rather than the strictly geopolitical play. Early on, China sought absolute goals, like the USSR and others. The literally tried to control knowledge itself. Strict bans on books or encyclopedias with a bad narrative. Overseas travel was considered dangerous, and vetting was required.
These days, instruments like the great firewall don't work that way. People can work around the great firewall, travel and access information (eg foreign papers) if they want to. A short wave radio, a foreign magazine or a vpn are no longer serious contraband. But, most of the stuff that most people access is approved. They can't keep news of something big a secret, but they never really could. What they can do is monitor, manage and influence the conversation. High influence is the goal, not strict control.
Same here. Sure, sophisticated criminals can avoid fb. But, most people do use fb. This "most people, most of the time" includes criminals, friends of criminals, etc. This is enough. Enough to be chilling. Enough to make secure systems feel sketchy. Enough to help with the the job, whether the job is investigating a string of robberies or monitoring separatist rebels.
There is no endgame, strictly. Like a "war on drugs" or terrorism, crime will never raises a white flag and surrender. So, no endgame. For insight on the point, I think it's useful to compare CCP strategy 1 to CCP strategy 2: soft power.
I mean soft power broadly, rather than the strictly geopolitical play. Early on, China sought absolute goals, like the USSR and others. The literally tried to control knowledge itself. Strict bans on books or encyclopedias with a bad narrative. Overseas travel was considered dangerous, and vetting was required.
These days, instruments like the great firewall don't work that way. People can work around the great firewall, travel and access information (eg foreign papers) if they want to. A short wave radio, a foreign magazine or a vpn are no longer serious contraband. But, most of the stuff that most people access is approved. They can't keep news of something big a secret, but they never really could. What they can do is monitor, manage and influence the conversation. High influence is the goal, not strict control.
Same here. Sure, sophisticated criminals can avoid fb. But, most people do use fb. This "most people, most of the time" includes criminals, friends of criminals, etc. This is enough. Enough to be chilling. Enough to make secure systems feel sketchy. Enough to help with the the job, whether the job is investigating a string of robberies or monitoring separatist rebels.
> Enough to be chilling
See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24627363).
See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24627363).
And all the while the most serious avenues for crime get forgotten, if anything they become an even greater risk because we're lulled into a false sense of security
Wage theft. I say we allow these backdoors but it has to come with a Civilian Unit uses it only on high profile targets. Lets have some CEO/politic heads roll for once please. Not Dimebag Dave.
You realize that most white collar crime involves never writing things down or sending something electronically that creates paper trail, right?
It's called e-Discovery, and it's a bitch.
It's called e-Discovery, and it's a bitch.
It's different because you can choose to use facebook, or not. That should have been blindingly obvious.
>>> How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?
This is the cellphone you're already carrying.
This is the cellphone you're already carrying.
It is interesting how some things are treated like an authoritarian imposition whilst others are just ignored. My guess is that the political opposition that does occur is often in response to minor inconvenience rather than the actual morality of the issue. That is why opposition to mask wearing can get so much traction. Or why people get angry about cyclists. The political justification comes after the fact.
So if a plan doesn't inconvenience anyone and doesn't trigger identity politics it will probably be ignored by most people.
So if a plan doesn't inconvenience anyone and doesn't trigger identity politics it will probably be ignored by most people.
You don't have to mandate something that people have done voluntarily. Mobile phones are cameras and microphones in every house, school and workplace. All the mobile standards have "legal intercept" provisions, which basically allow law enforcement to listen to your conversations / read your text-messages. This is just a demand to go back to the status quo ante, where Government had unrestricted access to all your phone conversations and mail if they chose to.
I would also wager that there is a non-zero chance that the baseband processor of all phones has a backdoor, which is why the US can't allow phones to predominantly use Chinese made baseband processors. The baseband has access to your microphone and camera and is mostly out of control of the application processor.
I would also wager that there is a non-zero chance that the baseband processor of all phones has a backdoor, which is why the US can't allow phones to predominantly use Chinese made baseband processors. The baseband has access to your microphone and camera and is mostly out of control of the application processor.
The end game is computers that cannot run software that hasn't been signed by the government. The copyright industry invests a lot of money into creating hardware that obeys them instead of their actual users. They aren't actually that important in the long run. Governments are a far bigger threat to computing freedom.
Governments think computers are too powerful and mere citizens should not be allowed to have free and unrestricted computers. Cryptography used to be a military tool but it has been democratized. Everyone has access to high quality, widely available cryptographic software. This means citizens are able to subvert the government by denying it access to information. Governments think they are always justified in everything they do and it's an affront to their power when they experience resistance.
In order to safeguard our freedom, we need to be able to manufacture hardware just as easily as we can write software. Currently, computer hardware manufacturing costs billions and there are very few companies doing it. They are natural targets for regulation and legislation.
We need to be able to make computer hardware at home.
Governments think computers are too powerful and mere citizens should not be allowed to have free and unrestricted computers. Cryptography used to be a military tool but it has been democratized. Everyone has access to high quality, widely available cryptographic software. This means citizens are able to subvert the government by denying it access to information. Governments think they are always justified in everything they do and it's an affront to their power when they experience resistance.
In order to safeguard our freedom, we need to be able to manufacture hardware just as easily as we can write software. Currently, computer hardware manufacturing costs billions and there are very few companies doing it. They are natural targets for regulation and legislation.
We need to be able to make computer hardware at home.
Crime will be the price that a free society pays.
We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
That sounded sort of vacuous to me at first, but I think it’s a genuinely good point.
I think human nature or whatever you want to call it is always going to mean that some number of people don’t follow The Rules to some degree, and that achieving 100% perfect rule adherence should not necessarily be the one and only goal of society.
I think human nature or whatever you want to call it is always going to mean that some number of people don’t follow The Rules to some degree, and that achieving 100% perfect rule adherence should not necessarily be the one and only goal of society.
What rules? It's not like any government out there rises every single citizen or has into a fully qualified lawyer.
People generally go with the foggy model of what seem the most in accordance with values they lously acquired by observing there own neighborhood.
People generally go with the foggy model of what seem the most in accordance with values they lously acquired by observing there own neighborhood.
What you have to tolerate in non-free societies can be far worse. It's just not called "crime". History is full of examples.
This comment seems to ignore crimes committed by the government in bulk against the people.
Surveillance societies have a lot more crime, it’s just carried out by a single set of uniformed groups.
Surveillance societies have a lot more crime, it’s just carried out by a single set of uniformed groups.
But they're not called "crimes" when they're made into laws and obligations.
"Give me freedom or give me death"
You will have a hard time convincing people of this. Myself I don't agree. But I can see how it is appealing to privileged people who don't have to suffer petty crime themselves.
How do you propose we eradicate petty crime while still maintaining the most amount of liberty?
Large scale, automated and auditable camera surveillance coupled with AI, linked directly to a crime + mugshot database.
Do it right, and no liberty or privacy is lost for honest individuals. While petty thieves will lose liberty, of course.
Do it right, and no liberty or privacy is lost for honest individuals. While petty thieves will lose liberty, of course.
How do you propose this system be hardened against abuse? How do you consider that “no privacy is lost for honest individuals” when they’re on camera everywhere they go?
I think a good place to start would be to ask what bad/detrimental thing are you referring to when you say we'd lose "privacy" if we're on camera everywhere we go?
Then we can address each one. Otherwise I'm just shooting in the dark and playing argument bingo.
Then we can address each one. Otherwise I'm just shooting in the dark and playing argument bingo.
I don't accept that, and I won't accept it for my community.
I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-communities, electric fencing, metal bars around our doors and windows, hiring private security, etc to combat the crime that the wider society is tacitly tolerating. People want security, and we're willing to forego things such as "privacy" in return for that. Not all of us put "privacy" on a gigantic pedestal as some others do.
I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-communities, electric fencing, metal bars around our doors and windows, hiring private security, etc to combat the crime that the wider society is tacitly tolerating. People want security, and we're willing to forego things such as "privacy" in return for that. Not all of us put "privacy" on a gigantic pedestal as some others do.
The kind of crime that fences, walls, gated communities, electric fencing, and metal bars serve to protect against are the kinds of crimes that are deprioritised by corrupt governments who would rather have their law enforcement look into monitoring and suppressing political dissent because that's more of a direct threat to their power.
If a society is willing to give up their privacy then governments can be lazier because they'll be more aware of their direct threats, therefore they need less awareness of actual societal problems, which are indirect threats.
If a society is willing to give up their privacy then governments can be lazier because they'll be more aware of their direct threats, therefore they need less awareness of actual societal problems, which are indirect threats.
So what happens if the security is successful, and the level of crime decreases substantially, and now the government uses its newfound powers of surveillance against the law-abiding populace?
If we think that is a possibility then I'd say we have bigger problems with government power, democracy and voting in general. And instead of using "privacy" as a proxy for those concerns, we should rather address the actual issue and concerns we have with the power we give to individuals without accountability and oversight.
Like why isn't the debate here revolving around the suggestion that we need to have processes, and super-secure, open and cryptographically secure audit of all government actions so that government "privacy" violations are immediately caught and addressed? Instead, we're asking government to solve some arbitrary problem called "privacy" because we think it'll prevent potential government abuse in the future?
Like why isn't the debate here revolving around the suggestion that we need to have processes, and super-secure, open and cryptographically secure audit of all government actions so that government "privacy" violations are immediately caught and addressed? Instead, we're asking government to solve some arbitrary problem called "privacy" because we think it'll prevent potential government abuse in the future?
Is the use of this backdoor targeting "petty crime"?
We already can’t keep governments to account what do they need more control for?
All they have to do is create a "user analytics package" which happens to read client side text. We would never know if it was implemented or not.
Alternatively they can look at existing analytics packages and look at the dependency graph and take over one of those to capture the screen and read info.
Alternatively they can look at existing analytics packages and look at the dependency graph and take over one of those to capture the screen and read info.
We'd know by merely looking at the network tab in the web inspector.
Only if you're the targeted person. Not everyone's text has to be forwarded. Not everyone has to get the same code either, so you'd have to check it every time.
Not to mention that exfiltrated text can be traffic shaped.
This is about its whatsapp product, which is predominantly mobile app based and easier to hide in an update.
If it undermines people's trust in Facebook's privacy, I'm for it. We need general adoption of strong open source secure messaging, and Facebook/WhatsApp stands in the way of this by being "good enough".
If anything, this sort of announcement might just as well be a false flag tactic: look how secure Facebook is, 5-eyes is pleading for them to be less secure.
[/tinfoil hat]
If anything, this sort of announcement might just as well be a false flag tactic: look how secure Facebook is, 5-eyes is pleading for them to be less secure.
[/tinfoil hat]
> If it undermines people's trust in Facebook's privacy, I'm for it.
First they came for Facebook; everybody liked that.
It's to catch the terrorists. You wouldn't say no to that, right?
I have nothing to hide, said the commoner.
First they came for Facebook; everybody liked that.
It's to catch the terrorists. You wouldn't say no to that, right?
I have nothing to hide, said the commoner.
Any law that applies to WhatsApp will apply to Signal too. There will never be mass adoption of secure messaging if it's illegal.
Japan is slowly becoming an authoritarian nightmare.
It already has laws to protect state secrets and prosecute alleged attempted conspiracies, and laws to compel any news outlet to never report any government-aimed criticism without always meticulously counterbalancing it with the same amount of positive praise (!).
Also the recent rejection, by the prime minister, of scientific committee appointees, without willing to give any reason, is baffling.
It already has laws to protect state secrets and prosecute alleged attempted conspiracies, and laws to compel any news outlet to never report any government-aimed criticism without always meticulously counterbalancing it with the same amount of positive praise (!).
Also the recent rejection, by the prime minister, of scientific committee appointees, without willing to give any reason, is baffling.
I never realized that there is soooooo much kiddie porn on Facebook that it warrants creation of "back-door access" :-) no pun intended, for governments to spy on people's private communication so as to SAVE THE CHILDREN.
riiiiight.
riiiiight.
They have one already https://www.facebook.com/records/login/
> Security alliance worries encrypted messaging apps can be used by bad actors
backdoors can be used by bad actors too.
backdoors can be used by bad actors too.
I thought that they already a big pipe going from Facebook to the NSA...
Every single social network is backdoored by multiple governments.
My thoughts exactly. I always suspect that these articles are aimed at convincing the naive that these networks are currently secure and immune from govt level snooping.
Mastodon is not.
It’s in an even worse position being self hosted by people/entities with no power or sway in the face of a state.
Is there a technical provision that applies to people hosting mastodon instances that doesn’t apply to large social media cos and cannot be beaten with a $5 wrench?
Is there a technical provision that applies to people hosting mastodon instances that doesn’t apply to large social media cos and cannot be beaten with a $5 wrench?
As much as I hate it, I think this battle is already lost. Be it a social media company like Facebook or a computing devices company like Apple. They are going to kowtow to the wishes of the state to earn their profits.
Also, I don't think it is just the state. There is no way to know if they are in majority but I am sure many people also buy into this argument. If you argue for encryption and antonymity, I am sure someone will bring up one of the four horses of infocalypse.
Also, I don't think it is just the state. There is no way to know if they are in majority but I am sure many people also buy into this argument. If you argue for encryption and antonymity, I am sure someone will bring up one of the four horses of infocalypse.
Please stop spreading learned helplessness and donate to Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://eff.org.
Yes, but the EFF’s main focus is the US. What could people in the remaining five countries do?
[deleted]
In France for instance you can donate to laquadrature.net. They do a really great job given their small size. You will probably find similar associations in other European countries.
For Europe, there is https://edri.org.
In the UK, the Open Rights Group[0] and Liberty.[1]
[0] https://www.openrightsgroup.org/
[1] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/
[0] https://www.openrightsgroup.org/
[1] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/
It's hard not to feel helpless.
Consider the Iraq war. The largest worldwide protests the world has ever seen, but the US and UK didn't give a shit. Saddam didn't have WMDs, so the US and UK governments made up "evidence". The UN vote failed, so the US strong armed the UK into joining them in a ploy to blackmail UN members for votes. The US and UK went to war anyway, even though the UK's own legal advisor had previously thought it illegal - funnily enough, he had a complete u-turn after a visit to the US. How many killed as a result? How many children maimed? And for what, to score political points and further line the pockets of the rich and powerful.
And what consequences for all of this corruption, for all of the lies to the people of the US and UK? Nothing.
Western governments, and their security apparatus, particularly in the US and UK, are utterly and completely corrupt, broken. They are so good at controlling the narrative that most of the populace doesn't even have a clue what is going on, and would give half a shit even if they did.
We are well and truely fucked.
Consider the Iraq war. The largest worldwide protests the world has ever seen, but the US and UK didn't give a shit. Saddam didn't have WMDs, so the US and UK governments made up "evidence". The UN vote failed, so the US strong armed the UK into joining them in a ploy to blackmail UN members for votes. The US and UK went to war anyway, even though the UK's own legal advisor had previously thought it illegal - funnily enough, he had a complete u-turn after a visit to the US. How many killed as a result? How many children maimed? And for what, to score political points and further line the pockets of the rich and powerful.
And what consequences for all of this corruption, for all of the lies to the people of the US and UK? Nothing.
Western governments, and their security apparatus, particularly in the US and UK, are utterly and completely corrupt, broken. They are so good at controlling the narrative that most of the populace doesn't even have a clue what is going on, and would give half a shit even if they did.
We are well and truely fucked.
I tend to go with the idea that if they're asking for it, they already have it.
[deleted]
Only bad faith actors here are Facebook and the Governments
what could possibly go wrong with that?
With governments consistently landing on the wrong side of good, no wonder people seek comfort in things like qanon.
I don’t think one has anything to do with the other; there have been movements and memes throughout millennia that tell people that they’re on to the righteous truth that nobody else can see but them and their meme-peers.
The rapture will be here any day.
The rapture will be here any day.
Obviously it's been, and we've just been left behind. Either that, or the astonishing popularity of goatees means we're in the Star Trek Mirror Universe.
More seriously, here's some seventeenth century righteous truth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23859546
What, obscenity, adultery, civil commotion, conspiracy, blasphemy, subversion and lunacy? Burn the Quakers!
More seriously, here's some seventeenth century righteous truth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23859546
What, obscenity, adultery, civil commotion, conspiracy, blasphemy, subversion and lunacy? Burn the Quakers!
let’s call it 6 eyes :)
Revelation 4:8, NIV: "Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: ''Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,' who was, and is, and is to come.'"
[deleted]
Guys. Guys. Don't worry. Libra will make the world a better place too.
Frictionless E2EE at scale is cancerous on society and the FYEV/JP alliance know this all too well.
As this subject has been iterated over many times, will keep this comment short.
* FB deploying frictionless, unbreakable encryption at scale makes the job of law enforcement harder, and makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away with conspiracies (a word which, by the way, simply refers to two or more people secretly collaborating on criminal activity).
* As math cannot be stopped, more sophisticated criminals, as well as those with general concerns about privacy from big brother can still use their own open source tools.
Long before the internet, comms via telephony were anything but secure. We’ve tested the waters post-Snowden with E2EE which likely resulted in numerous secret case studies on the effect E2EE has on an orderly society.
* Don’t bring gizmos into your home if you want a modicum of privacy at home
* FB offering a frictionless, global private network out of reach of law enforcement isn’t a constitutional right. We can still gather in a home, use strong encryption when it matters (in more extreme cases, on an offline device, with write-only outgoing media transported via sneaker net to the transmission device).
* I’d rather have hardened devices and lawful access to the deployed encryption by major service providers, rather than flawed by design consumer device architecture. Then I can employ strong encryption software on those devices and have more confidence in preventing big brother from snooping at all.
As this subject has been iterated over many times, will keep this comment short.
* FB deploying frictionless, unbreakable encryption at scale makes the job of law enforcement harder, and makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away with conspiracies (a word which, by the way, simply refers to two or more people secretly collaborating on criminal activity).
* As math cannot be stopped, more sophisticated criminals, as well as those with general concerns about privacy from big brother can still use their own open source tools.
Long before the internet, comms via telephony were anything but secure. We’ve tested the waters post-Snowden with E2EE which likely resulted in numerous secret case studies on the effect E2EE has on an orderly society.
* Don’t bring gizmos into your home if you want a modicum of privacy at home
* FB offering a frictionless, global private network out of reach of law enforcement isn’t a constitutional right. We can still gather in a home, use strong encryption when it matters (in more extreme cases, on an offline device, with write-only outgoing media transported via sneaker net to the transmission device).
* I’d rather have hardened devices and lawful access to the deployed encryption by major service providers, rather than flawed by design consumer device architecture. Then I can employ strong encryption software on those devices and have more confidence in preventing big brother from snooping at all.
Interesting points but I’ve never seen a comment like this anywhere but downvoted to oblivion.
Forgot to add: I don’t trust the consumer devices including a fully patched brand new iPhone. I am far more concerned about the various private interests abusing data access, data brokers, hackers potentially getting into my endpoint directly or to any of my consumer cloud assets, than I am about lawful access to recoverable encryption
This. I'm also more concerned of private parties gettingy info than the gov. Gov is going to get whatever they want one way or another, but private parties getting my info is far worse.
Because it's quite extreme view.
Apps should protect users and police should seek to end crime. Only when these two needs cross we get something fair. If one side gives in we all lose.
Apps should protect users and police should seek to end crime. Only when these two needs cross we get something fair. If one side gives in we all lose.
Offering lawful access to widely deployed encryption is hardly an extreme view. Our IC and their partners, as well as our bureaucrats, are mostly in agreement.
An extreme view might entail banning certain forms of math on the internet entirely, rather than simply regulating the widely deployed frictionless math.
An extreme view might entail banning certain forms of math on the internet entirely, rather than simply regulating the widely deployed frictionless math.
Legally mandating government wiretaps in every major method of online communication, subjecting every citizen to having their private life potentially scrutinized with no trial, is fairly extreme, yes.
If I understand right, in this example FB would hold the keys to recover the cleartext and turn it over to law enforcement only when compelled to do so with a warrant.
This isn’t extreme at all.
This isn’t extreme at all.
Encryption cannot and will not ever be stopped due to it being math.
Oh, and make sure to use steganography when appropriate.
Oh, and make sure to use steganography when appropriate.
Law enforcement can't even prevent a mass shooting when the shooter is repeatedly reported to federal law enforcement (Pulse nightclub shooter). How do you think this level of access will allow them to solve crimes?
Bananas and bowling balls.
Based on your description, the situation you described is a shame and a failure of law enforcement to keep us safe. Not an encryption issue.
Based on your description, the situation you described is a shame and a failure of law enforcement to keep us safe. Not an encryption issue.
Law enforcement isn’t perfect; this is exactly why we would like privacy.
If law enforcement are this inept and incompetent, why should they be given easy-to-abuse access to private communication?
Especially given we know that those with access regularly use it to spy on ex-girlfriends and other innocent civilians.
Especially given we know that those with access regularly use it to spy on ex-girlfriends and other innocent civilians.
One unfortunate example doesn’t make for a case either way.
My understanding is that FB (for example) would hold the keys and turn over only when compelled via warrant. Not mass surveillance.
Also, Snowden’s propaganda has worked like a charm in sowing discord in American society. Without a doubt, even if you support his actions and cause 100%, concurrently the Russian government consider the NSA to be the crown jewel of the IC. And Snowden’s actions and ongoing politics support Russia’s long term “Active Measures” campaign against the United States.
My understanding is that FB (for example) would hold the keys and turn over only when compelled via warrant. Not mass surveillance.
Also, Snowden’s propaganda has worked like a charm in sowing discord in American society. Without a doubt, even if you support his actions and cause 100%, concurrently the Russian government consider the NSA to be the crown jewel of the IC. And Snowden’s actions and ongoing politics support Russia’s long term “Active Measures” campaign against the United States.
I think society ought to address the fundamental issues that create criminality rather than build some panopticon control-grid that assumes everyone is a criminal by default.
I sympathize with law enforcement, most of them just want better tools with the genuine desire to catch as many of the bad guys as they can. The problem isn't that, it's that those tools once established and ubiquitous represent a lever of control so powerful that the temptation for the bad guys to obtain them will be so great as to be unavoidable.
If someone could guarantee to me that such tools would be used for good with practically impenetrable safe-guards against abuse, okay I could probably live with that. But no one can make that guarantee in good faith.
I sympathize with law enforcement, most of them just want better tools with the genuine desire to catch as many of the bad guys as they can. The problem isn't that, it's that those tools once established and ubiquitous represent a lever of control so powerful that the temptation for the bad guys to obtain them will be so great as to be unavoidable.
If someone could guarantee to me that such tools would be used for good with practically impenetrable safe-guards against abuse, okay I could probably live with that. But no one can make that guarantee in good faith.
If by "less sophisticated criminals," you mean "anyone too stupid to google 'encrypted chat app'," then I doubt they were ever much of a threat, especially for any kind of serious criminal conspiracy beyond selling a few baggies of drugs.
We would need statistics to assert one way or another. I suspect it’s the opposite: give people the means to easily maintain their own communication networks completely out of view of the government, and some will abuse it for other kinds of low level crimes beyond petty drugs: stalking, for instance.
I’d also bet that many criminals (those beyond petty drug pushers) aren’t even sophisticated enough to understand what’s at play here, and will use FB messenger regardless of the encryption implementation. In this case, offering a means to recover encrypted comms in exceptional, warrant-backed circumstances would only be of help towards criminal investigations.
I’d also bet that many criminals (those beyond petty drug pushers) aren’t even sophisticated enough to understand what’s at play here, and will use FB messenger regardless of the encryption implementation. In this case, offering a means to recover encrypted comms in exceptional, warrant-backed circumstances would only be of help towards criminal investigations.
> makes the job of law enforcement harder
Do I want to make it harder for the law enforcement of the CCP occupation in Xinjiang to do their jobs? Hell yes. Law enforcement of the DPRK (North Korea)? Law enforcement of the Iranian regime? The law enforcement that lynched George Floyd and many other Black, Indigenous, and PoC Americans? What about the law enforcement that seizes people's cash in the airport without charging them with any crime? The Chicago law enforcement who terrorized public housing residents and profited off the drug trade, and operated a secretive detention site at Holman Yards that allegedly operated as a black site, not registering the names of inmates? The law enforcement of Bull Connor who brutalized civil rights protestors? Absolutely, I want to make their jobs harder.
Point is not to say that all law enforcement everywhere is bad--but rather, that it is quite often right and just to resist or frustrate the efforts of those who enforce a given law. Just like we have the right to bear arms and speak freely to check the power of unjust government, so too we need the right to secure communications in the digital age. It's good for the government to have to work hard to do their job--it will keep the resourced focused on real crimes that threaten our safety, not political, economic, and other crimes that have no victims.
> makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away
Up until 2003 (!) it was a crime in some parts of the US to have intimacy in a same-sex relationship--and it still is today in 70+ countries, with the death penalty in 12.
In Thailand it is a crime to insult the king, and criticism of the state is criminalized de facto or de jure in countless other countries. In Iran, defense lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 38 years and tortured for fairly and effectively defending clients when the regime violated its own constitution to punish them for political and religious crimes. Here in the US, another woman legal trailblazer, Lynne Stewart, was the subject of a surveillance campaign against her attorney-client communications for passing messages from her client, who was banned from all communication with the outside world under a SAM order, resulting in a 10-year prison sentence.
In North Korea, it is against the law for anyone to leave the country without an exit permit, which is not granted to civilians. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot leave the country without their wali's permission via a mobile app. Crossing the border without permission is a crime.
In fact, of all types of criminals, political and "morality" criminals tend to be the least sophisticated in terms of financial, technical, and social capital. The rich and powerful, whether or not they are on the right side of the law, won't be affected by this.
Someone like Epstein is more than capable of getting E2EE/secure communications, even if he doesn't understand a thing and has to pay a million dollars for someone to set it up for him. The Mexican drug cartels have their own network of cell towers (mostly atop existing towers they have illegally attached to) for their communications. Take that, lawful intercept. But everyday people whose only crime is having a prohibited opinion or identity will never be able to do that.
Do I want to make it harder for the law enforcement of the CCP occupation in Xinjiang to do their jobs? Hell yes. Law enforcement of the DPRK (North Korea)? Law enforcement of the Iranian regime? The law enforcement that lynched George Floyd and many other Black, Indigenous, and PoC Americans? What about the law enforcement that seizes people's cash in the airport without charging them with any crime? The Chicago law enforcement who terrorized public housing residents and profited off the drug trade, and operated a secretive detention site at Holman Yards that allegedly operated as a black site, not registering the names of inmates? The law enforcement of Bull Connor who brutalized civil rights protestors? Absolutely, I want to make their jobs harder.
Point is not to say that all law enforcement everywhere is bad--but rather, that it is quite often right and just to resist or frustrate the efforts of those who enforce a given law. Just like we have the right to bear arms and speak freely to check the power of unjust government, so too we need the right to secure communications in the digital age. It's good for the government to have to work hard to do their job--it will keep the resourced focused on real crimes that threaten our safety, not political, economic, and other crimes that have no victims.
> makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away
Up until 2003 (!) it was a crime in some parts of the US to have intimacy in a same-sex relationship--and it still is today in 70+ countries, with the death penalty in 12.
In Thailand it is a crime to insult the king, and criticism of the state is criminalized de facto or de jure in countless other countries. In Iran, defense lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 38 years and tortured for fairly and effectively defending clients when the regime violated its own constitution to punish them for political and religious crimes. Here in the US, another woman legal trailblazer, Lynne Stewart, was the subject of a surveillance campaign against her attorney-client communications for passing messages from her client, who was banned from all communication with the outside world under a SAM order, resulting in a 10-year prison sentence.
In North Korea, it is against the law for anyone to leave the country without an exit permit, which is not granted to civilians. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot leave the country without their wali's permission via a mobile app. Crossing the border without permission is a crime.
In fact, of all types of criminals, political and "morality" criminals tend to be the least sophisticated in terms of financial, technical, and social capital. The rich and powerful, whether or not they are on the right side of the law, won't be affected by this.
Someone like Epstein is more than capable of getting E2EE/secure communications, even if he doesn't understand a thing and has to pay a million dollars for someone to set it up for him. The Mexican drug cartels have their own network of cell towers (mostly atop existing towers they have illegally attached to) for their communications. Take that, lawful intercept. But everyday people whose only crime is having a prohibited opinion or identity will never be able to do that.
Sorry, not following how this counters any of my points. Shenanigans via anachronistic laws or corrupt cops isn’t related to encryption, and we know sophisticated criminals can employ their own privacy tools.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-sta...