Is this really a “right/wrong” thing? It doesn’t seem like a factual question. It seems like this whole thing is just a dispute about how much a government should have the ability to regulate the lives of its citizens, and how much freedom the individual should have.
Because those encryption schemes also happen to prevent the neighbour from getting a crash course in your sexual preferences by eavesdropping on your barely secure WiFi.
Also your bank information, email passwords, sexy photos of your wife in the Good Memories folder, the current status of your precious bodily fluids etc…
What do you know, that opaque wall simile wasn’t pulled completely at random and I was actually making a point with it ! Tech people want good crypto for the same reason non-tech people want walls and curtains (or reinforced doors & locks) : basic safety & privacy.
Even if that inconveniences the police, who’d really just rather you sit alone in a plastic cubicle with your hands flat on the table at all times.
We already have encryption that protects you from your neighbors. These people want to protect themselves from the government.
An encryption scheme with a backdoor is, by definition, not secure. Even assuming the government can keep knowledge of it a secret (and if nothing else, Snowden showed us how good they are at that), a lot of these systems are under what is essentially a constant siege of hackers, trying to gain entrance. Purposefully install a flaw in your defenses, and one of them is going to find it sooner or later.
Then we plug the holes and we hunt down the bad guys (which is a lot easier to do when you have all their com traffic on file and ready to search)
You read a lot of Tom Clancy during your formative years, didn’t you?
No we don’t, precisely because of the bad government policies you advocate. The network could have been secured from the ground up with end-to-end encryption, etc, when it grew into general use during the 1990s, but government obstructionism (e.g. export controls on cryptography) prevented that. As a result, we are beset with cybercriminals exploiting the resulting security weak points.
Protection from the government is a virtue in a free society. In any case, there is no real distinction between “protection from your neighbors” and “protection from the government” in the context Kobal2 raised (“sexy photos of your wife in the Good Memories folder, the current status of your precious bodily fluids”); the government is not staffed by eunuchs and government bureaucrats are as capable of creepy sexual stalking as anybody else.
The plethora of NSA scandals have had the salutary effect of encouraging the tech community to do just that, by installing end-to-end encryption into the communications infrastructures. Glad to see you approve.
In a free society, one does not need protection from the government.
The only reason one would need to be protected from the government is if one were a criminal.
So, we plug all the holes that the bad guys are using, but leave open the holes that the good guys are using.
THEY’RE THE SAME HOLES.
That is an idiotic statement even by your standards, which is saying something. Got any more gems of similar wisdom, such as:
“In a peaceful society, one does not need an army.”
“In a healthy society, one does not need doctors.”
“In a clean society, one does not need soap.”
A moot point, given the plethora of laws that insures that everybody is, at least technically, a criminal.
And, all too often, the same guys.
My, but we have a guilty conscience, don’t we?
There must always be new holes to be dug.
You might want to have a doctor do something about that tapeworm. Or have a psychologist explain that you aren’t really a king. Whichever.
Afterwards, you might want to consult a clergyman or a counselor or somebody about your sense of irrational guilt about driving 59 in a 55 zone or ripping a DVD to MP4 so you can play it on a tablet or spraying pesticide on a species of bug not listed on the label or whatever other technically-illegal-but-near-universal acts have been bothering you.
I don’t do such things because I love my country and I respect the law of the land.
Why do you believe your personal creature comforts trump the public interest?
Hint: When drivers pass you as you toodle along at 55, that finger does not mean “You’re Number One”.
Neither the greed of the state (revenue-enhancement-based speed limits) nor the rent-seeking abuses of private interests (arbitrary limitations on use of purchased recordings) constitute “the public interest”. The highest “public interest” is freedom, and trumps the desire of government apparatchiks to wield power to serve their own ambition and to avoid doing the legwork required to serve the public properly.
Ah, yes, the “BUT EVERYBODY DOES IT!” argument.
Everybody can get speeding tickets if that’s what they choose to do. I prefer to enjoy my clean driving record and low insurance rate.
- If the people were willing to approve an appropriate tax rate, then it would not be necessary to use speed enforcement as a revenue raising device.
- If the people were willing to respect the intellectual property rights of artists, it would not be necessary to “seek rents” against thieves.
And freedom cannot be achieved without order. The absence of law and obedience is anarchy, not freedom. No one is free when everyone’s liberties are subject to the whims of another individual and there is no higher authority sufficient to keep them in thrall.
You would in all likelihood not be alive today without the “self-serving government apparatchiks” you spit on.
Wow, you’re determined to keep digging, aren’t you?
It is already not necessary. It is simply not convenient for the government to refrain from spending more than it takes in (just as it is not convenient for the Feds to do some shoe-leather investigatory work when they can be pushing buttons in an air-conditioned office, and not convenient for them to put effort into identifying actual suspicious characters when they can simply spy on everyone).
I’m sorry, should I have put “purchased” in bold italic? Or is that insufficient? Should I have put it in lime green too? I can’t find a “blink tag” option; do we need to add that as well?
Well, yes, that is precisely the problem. Fortunately, the techies have a de facto higher authority, which they are using to patch the communications networks to close the snooping loopholes.
Actually, there are a fair number of people (a few in Boston, for instance) who would be alive if the self-serving apparatchiks had not been permitted to become fat, lazy, and dependent on technological snooping to the point where they blew off a specific warning. This is a particularly pointed example of the need to wean the Feds off their toys – because of their dependence, an issue that actual human investigation would have easily caught (variable transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin) slipped through the overly-electronicized net.
I’ve read this thread with interest. Your notions are reminiscent of Mao’s Red Book in many respects, and I’m wondering if you’ve patterned your thinking after it.
Jesus Fuck. It’s like arguing with a goldfish.
It’s almost like he’s posting with the deliberate intent of provoking his readers into an emotional response.