1. 23
  1.  

  2. 7

    Poorly titled?

    1. 0

      /s

      1. 8

        Please, don’t do that to titles.

        1. 6

          Fixed, though I have the sense that I missed a joke. Or maybe it’s just too late at night, so it feels that way. But either way, the title should match the upstream.

          1. 1

            No worries, upstream title works fine

    2. [Comment from banned user removed]

      1. 7

        suddenly saw their methods of ripping off millions of people threatened

        I’m with you in the sense that record companies are scummy and have done scummy things too, but “producing and selling music” does not qual “ripping off millions of people”.

        Now we see the same thing but it’s governments. They’re just as crooked as the record label executives tho.

        The key word here is actually “governments”. The MAFIAA couldn’t have “prevented progress” without the government’s intellectual property enforcement machinery.

        1. 0

          I don’t know. I think its more like “New Children, Rising”, in that all the technological prowess of the 5-eyes wouldn’t really be feasible without the emergence of an utterly totalitarian class of youth who have empowered these agencies to present the capabilities to their governments, and thus allow themselves to be weaponised.

          Its like what we’re dealing with here, with the 5 eyes context, is not so much “old men”, but rather “new generations”, akin to the very sorts we’re used to in the startup world, who have immense brilliance: yet decide to apply it to nefarious goals.

          Somewhere in the midst of all this political upheaval sits a hacker, or maybe a group of them, probably pretty young .. who are very, very pleased with their newfound totalitarian powers.

          This isn’t good for the world. But neither is your proposition: that we are all ruled by Old Men.

          (Truth: we’re ruled by hunger, old and new.)

        2. 6

          No it isn’t, and it is simplistic to think this is the problem being discussed here. Libertarians need to grow up, get off their high horses, and shift their energies into problem solving rather than soap boxing.

          If someone breaks into your home and causes you grief then you have an expectation that, as a member of society, you can walk into a police station and call upon its resources. If someone jumps into a car the wrong side of four glasses of wine, whether or not injury or worse is resulting, then society addresses this.

          Yet, if the vector of grief delivery is purely computer/Internet in source, then different rules apply? Anyone looking for help is in fact an old man with old ideas and needs to die so society can get back to evolving?

          The problem space we are talking about here is that when a crime is in the process of or has been committed, society needs to be able to legally collect evidence.

          I’m going to be blunt now.

          You, like many others, are unable to separate the problem from the solutions being touted. The situation is not helped when only extreme and fringe examples are used to justify arguments resulting in only nonsense prevailing.

          Historically wiretaps have worked well and society is generally is accepting of them. They work as they are handled centrally and are physically secured. For old men, it makes sense to try to transfer these old ideas to new mediums and it is not a dumb idea to try. Of course only an expert though who knows that this is not going to be practical.

          Ironclad communications for all does not help society collect evidence. Should a trader who irresponsibly destroyed the Joe Public’s pension be immune from investigation as they used WhatsApp?

          We need something, but ironclad communications is not it. Maybe a blend of threshold with some kind of accountable wiretap journal is something more realistic.

          Arguing that the bad actors will anyway use ironclad communications is irrelevant in the same way that bad actors illegally obtaining firearms is already addressed. Arguing about government abuse and lack of oversight is another problem but it is not this one and confusing the two just helps no one.

          It is always good to apply the Passport to Pimilco test, a movie I recommend everyone watches, also being that it is a classic great fun movie to watch too.

          1. 12

            Historically wiretaps have worked well and society is generally is accepting of them.

            • The “historically” you’re talking about is only about a hundred years. In my country there are people living today who were born before the Supreme Court declared wiretapping to be constitutional in 1928.
            • I would argue that they have not worked well at all–that in fact they’ve been disastrous. They were instrumental in J. Edgar Hoover’s ability to turn the FBI into his own personal kompromat-collection service for decades. They were used to harass and intimidate many civil rights activists, including Martin Luther King Jr.–among many other targets chosen not because of their crimes but because they were political opponents of those in power. And they’ve been used similarly in many other countries.

            With cryptography we are able to take back a little of the privacy in our personal communications that people took for granted for most of human history.

            1. 5

              I am not a Libertarian. Or a crypto anarcho whooziwatsit. I’m not soapbixing. I’m just giving the inevitable deductions forced by the math behind crypto:

              You cannot give Theresa May what she wants without also giving Vladimir Putin the ability toi shut off our smart grids.

              You cannot give Theresa May what she wants wihtout also risking our entire financial infrastrucutre.

              So, if you want to kick smart grids off the Internet and require that they exist only in airgapped LAN segments (arguably a wise thing), and kick financial transactions off the Internet, then give her what she wants.

              1. -1

                You cannot give Theresa May what she wants without also giving Vladimir Putin the ability toi shut off our smart grids.

                You cannot give Theresa May what she wants wihtout also risking our entire financial infrastrucutre.

                To play the Devil’s advocate.. yes, you can. The same way you can ban guns from civilians while letting the military have their toys. May wants to read your what’s app, but she can still let banks use strong crypto.

                Do US export restrictions on crypto ring a bell?

                1. 2

                  Yeah. I’m not sure these regulations will actually destroy all trust in the internet. Monitoring and logging and what not are already built in to banking platforms dealing with trillions of dollars. People seem to trust the system despite all that. Enough to use it anyway.

                  1. 2

                    The analogy fails. Guns are physical things, and their ammunition is consumable. Encryption is knowledge, and once that knowledge is encoded as software, it is free to copy.

                    Do US export restrictions on crypto ring a bell?

                    You mean the completely ineffective restrictions on encryption? Yes, they do. They don’t work. They have never worked. They didn’t work back in the bad old days when they classified encryption as a “munition”, and they don’t work now.

                    1. 2

                      The analogy fails.

                      The question was whether it is possible to ban something in one context while allowing it in another context. Guns, dangerous chemicals, and crypto all fit the bill.

                      Whether you could make your own gun, your own explosive chemical, or your own crypto app is an orthgonal issue. I don’t think anyone here ever argued about whether “they” could take crypto away from tech-savvy individuals. However, such a ban and enforcement & punishment against tech companies plus targeted prosecution of private individuals’ unapproved use of crypto could quite effectively take it away from most people. All while simultaneously allowing its continued use in banks, mil, etc.

                      1. 2

                        You mean the completely ineffective restrictions on encryption? Yes, they do. They don’t work. They have never worked. They didn’t work back in the bad old days when they classified encryption as a “munition”, and they don’t work now.

                        Perhaps my memory is faulty, but as I recall it was very difficult to find a software release with good crypto in those days (as a non-american).

                        I would classify that as ‘working’ in that it achieved the goal of delaying widespread adoption of crypto, giving the US time to work on cryptanalysis, compromising root CAs, etc.

                      2. 1

                        If they actually couldn’t read WhatsApp’s messages after it adopted Signal’s encryption, they wouldn’t have let it happen.

                        “Hi there. You will place backdoors X Y Z in the code, or we will fuck up your life, mmm’kay? You will not tell anyone about this, or we will fuck up your life.”

                        1. 2

                          Who’s they?

                          1. 0

                            Since you’re surely not asking for “their” exact identities, you don’t actually need an answer to that question.

                            You’re just close to invoking “tinfoil” or something.

                            You have to admit though, that what I suggested is a realistic, and even likely scenario. It essentially is that simple, so why wouldn’t they do it?

                            1. 1

                              Yeah, so I’m guessing NSA and the rest of the five eyed vampire squid. In that case, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. All Theresa May is trying to do is introduce a law to publicly acknowledge the already existing secret backdoors. Isn’t that a good thing? The government should be transparent about these things. If you want to tell a nontechnical user about the backdoors, surely it’s easier to point them at the law that mandates said backdoors than to explain how secretly broken crypto works?

                              1. 1

                                Yeah, so I’m guessing NSA and the rest of the five eyed vampire squid.

                                I was actually thinking more along the lines of “The Powers That Shouldn’t Be”, or “The Establishment”. But I suppose the NSA is a part of that.

                                All Theresa May is trying to do is introduce a law to publicly acknowledge the already existing secret backdoors. Isn’t that a good thing?

                                So something like:

                                1. We’re doing immoral things to the masses in secret. This is bad.
                                2. We wrote a law that says we’ll do immoral things to the masses. Now there is no problem.

                                Is that how you think? Is mass surveillance what the masses asked for, by voting in the politicians that would do it? (Please don’t answer “yes”)

                                If you want to tell a nontechnical user about the backdoors, surely it’s easier to point them at the law that mandates said backdoors than to explain how secretly broken crypto works?

                                What’s the meaningful distinction between:

                                1. The government can read all your messages because they circumvented their encryption. They told you they’d do this!
                                2. The government can read all your messages because they circumvented their encryption. They did this without telling you.

                                Either way, the government reads your messages. The legality of the backdoors isn’t the issue here.

                                1. 1

                                  I have a strong preference that the government tell me what it’s up to.

                                  1. 1

                                    I have a strong preference that the government tell me what it’s up to.

                                    That doesn’t address my point though. The problem is not that the government doesn’t tell you it’s doing bad things to you.

                                    The problem is that the government is doing bad things to you.

                                    1. 1

                                      In a democracy, it’s reasonably important that you know what the government is doing, because you can’t vote on it otherwise.

                                      That might not help much in (eg) the USA where the voting system ensures you only get to choose between two options, neither of which will take action on the issue.

                                      1. 2

                                        It should be patently obvious by now that they really don’t give a fuck about what you want.

                                        They know that no one wants mass surveillance, but they’ll give it to you anyway, because it’s not done to your benefit. It’s not for “the greater good” either - it’s for the greater power and control over the tax-cattle.

                                        No one wants wars, but they’ll make you pay for (or fight in) them anyway, and so on ad infinitum.

                                        Trump was Hope & Change 2.0. You probably remember the first guy that promised to shut down Guantanamo. This one promised to “drain the swamp”, and proceeded to fill it with Goldman Sachs cronies instead.

                                        The word “Democracy” should ring mighty hollow by now.

                                      2. 1

                                        Exactly. And what will defeating Theresa May’s law do to change that? The existing secret backdoors aren’t going to be removed. But if the law passes, then everybody, even the people who don’t believe the powers that be put a backdoor in whatsapp, will know the government is reading their messages.

                                        1. 2

                                          Once the law passes, it does not only set a terrible precedent, it will most likely never be repealed.

                                          1. 1

                                            Yeah, that too.

                                          2. 1

                                            everybody, even the people who don’t believe the powers that be put a backdoor in whatsapp, will know the government is reading their messages

                                            That’s not a good thing though, because it advances the chilling effect, which is of course why they publicize the mass surveillance to begin with.

                        2. 7

                          Libertarians need to grow up, get off their high horses, and shift their energies into problem solving rather than soap boxing.

                          For the record, I’m not a Libertarian as it’s commonly understood. But what exactly are you suggesting they do? What would “problem solving” mean in practice? Are you not “soap boxing”?

                          you have an expectation that, as a member of society, you can walk into a police station and call upon its resources

                          Do you also have a reasonable expectation that the police will give a flying fuck and actually do something to achieve justice?

                          Yet, if the vector of grief delivery is purely computer/Internet in source, then different rules apply?

                          If you’re referring to “intellectual property theft”, we might agree somewhat. But if you’re arguing in favour of governments circumventing/breaking encryption so that they can catch terrorists, you’re way off the mark there.

                          It’s not terrorists they’re after.

                          You, like many others, are unable to separate the problem from the solutions being touted. The situation is not helped when only extreme and fringe examples are used to justify arguments resulting in only nonsense prevailing.

                          I can’t tell what you mean with that.

                          Historically wiretaps have worked well

                          For maintaining a police state? -Why yes, they have.

                          and society is generally is accepting of them

                          You seem to be unable to separate “society” into rulers and subjects. People often talk about how “we” need to this and we need to that, but it’s not actually we that make the decisions. In case you haven’t noticed, whenever we demand something, we’re met with tear gas and batons.

                          Ironclad communications for all does not help society collect evidence.

                          There’s “society” again. Is it “society” that collects evidence? Is it “society” that wiretaps dissidents and “disappears” them?

                          Should a trader who irresponsibly destroyed the Joe Public’s pension be immune from investigation as they used WhatsApp?

                          Are there other ways the crime could be investigated, besides reading his encrypted private communications?

                          1. 1

                            Just for your last question, I think there’s a cost-related dystopian thought in the mix :(

                            Catching criminals, for any value of crime, by reading their admissions online, is a very affordable way of cracking down.

                            It also gives fertile ground for all sorts of new ways to set people up. Nothing read online can be a joke or considered spectral evidence. Gone are the days of stating “Cocaine and hookers last night” on a bank transfer.

                            1. 0

                              There’s “society” again. Is it “society” that collects evidence? Is it “society” that wiretaps dissidents and “disappears” them?

                              Yes.

                              Are there other ways the crime could be investigated, besides reading his encrypted private communications?

                              So we are talking about invasion of privacy being the crux of the matter?

                              All evidence collection by its nature is an invasion of privacy, whether it is looking at someones bank account, interviewing their friends or family or browsing their communications encrypted or not.

                              Everyone should be entitled to their privacy, regardless of the medium but is it is irresponsible saying “over my dead body” knowing that it is no longer exotic for a crime to be purely digital and unaccountable?

                              What tangible reason is a WhatsApp communication any different making a phone call and why it should it receive more legal protection than other mediums?

                              I guess, victims should really be more accepting of an investigation going cold because the suspects used encryption? “If only they had use a PSTN line we could have done something” eh?

                              1. 3
                                There’s “society” again. Is it “society” that collects evidence? Is it “society” that wiretaps dissidents and “disappears” them?
                                

                                Yes.

                                In most literature, that’s called a state. In a few cases, the states interests are sufficiently aligned with the societies interests to conflate the two; that’s far from common.

                                1. 1

                                  Is it “society” that collects evidence? Is it “society” that wiretaps dissidents and “disappears” them?

                                  Yes.

                                  If you’re that dishonest, there’s really no point in discussing this further.

                              2. 4

                                If someone breaks into your home and causes you grief then you have an expectation that, as a member of society, you can walk into a police station and call upon its resources. … Yet, if the vector of grief delivery is purely computer/Internet in source, then different rules apply?

                                To use the model you’re advancing here, it would be as though the government wanted to address home break ins by installing centrally monitored cameras in all homes. Due to the nature of crypto, the exegeses are different, so different things are needed or must be considered. Your equivalence is false.

                                1. 1

                                  We need something, but ironclad communications is not it. Maybe a blend of threshold with some kind of accountable wiretap journal is something more realistic.

                                  What on earth do you think I meant by this then?

                                  Christ on a bike, are you all insane?

                                  1. 0

                                    I am literally the Stasi.

                                    That’s not a popular position around here. Not what you actually said? Oh, well, better safe than sorry, I’m going to pretend you said something I disagree with. Don’t want to get caught agreeing with the wrong side.

                                2. 1

                                  Historically wiretaps have worked well and society is generally is accepting of them. They work as they are handled centrally and are physically secured.

                                  Yup. Historically they worked very very well. . However, events since then tend to have obscured one’s memory of the earlier events.

                                  I often wonder about the ways in which the two events might be related.

                                  I’m sure the average man in the street feels things are working well.

                              3. 1

                                As a member of this regime, in the sense that I am a citizen of at least one of the 5 eyes, and have lived enough of a life in most of them, that I can be considered a stamped- and true- 3.5-eyes’er, I have to say that I am very disappointed in the current “solutions” being preferred by leadership among these nations. Its not working.

                                Instead, we are witnessing a military-industrial takeover of resources at a scale approaching a very new order.

                                Australians have a place in that order. It has to be recognised that Australia is leading the way in totalitarianism.

                                Australian military power is, to me, an absolute conundrum. The nation of thieves and convicts should not have the means by which to profit from remote disorder!