Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It feels like everyone would be better served if the tech community admitted the legitimacy of the government's (and many, MANY people's) security concerns and stopped pretending that the right to privacy always trumps the right to security of the person. (All occurrences of the string "secur" in that EFF letter[1], for instance, are in reference to data and computer systems. Not one is in [direct] reference to people.) Or, if we don't go that far, we need to at least realise the need for political communities to have serious discussions about how to reconcile those two rights without jeopardising either of them.

The tech community's solutions WAY too often feel like they're motivated only by libertarian concerns for freedom which, while extremely important, are not exhaustively fundamental or final to -- and certainly do not settle the question for -- non-libertarians.

1. https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feins...




Government serves its people.

Period.

We are not surfs, we are not subjects.

Without the trust of its people, a government is not legitimate, has no "right" to look at its people's behavior, is simply afraid of losing power.

If instead of spying, governments focused on increasing overall goodwill there could be trust, not suspicion, on both sides of this encryption line.


There's a lot of trust of the government here[1] and in general[2] -- though, as that Gallup link shows, it MASSIVELY depends on which arm of the government you're talking about.

Again, not many people live in or around the libertarian bubble. And there are lots of intelligent people who avoid it for very, very good reasons.

-----

1. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/apple-fb...

2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx


Many have noted this isn't about security vs. privacy. It's about security vs. security [1] [2] [3]

Also, I think there's something different about getting access to someone's digital communications that makes digital data different from data previously obtained by warrants. Digital databases increasingly contain the entire history of people's communications. That's never been true before and it warrants additional discussion at the very least.

The other argument against this bill is it is unenforceable. Terrorists won't be using the government-mandated encryption tools. They'll create their own.

This is an opportunity for technologists to step up and take a larger role within government by educating representatives and the public, starting campaigns or non-profits, or perhaps running for office.

[1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s

[2] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s

[3] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s


I don't agree with you but the downvotes for disagreement are very inappropriate, this is a contrarian position to the party line around here but fairly well put and helps to further the discussion beyond some sort of echo chamber.

Remember right now a huge proportion of the US population does NOT agree with us, no matter how many facts you explain to them.

Telling, for example, president Obama that he's an idiot and doesn't understand technology is both a lie and not helpful. He has hundreds of advisors who each know as much as the smartest of us here.


Why do you feel that decreasing your IT security will increase your security?


Two responses to that.

Firstly because, well, that's just the way it is sometimes. Putting a gate in your wall can let in bad guys who can plunder your city, yes. But it can also let in good guys who can fortify it. You just need to design and use your gate well...and, I suppose, think of the government as good guys. (Soz, I've been indulging in some nostalgia with AOE 2: HD recently....)

And two: who says this has to involve decreasing IT security? I haven't seen enough evidence of cooperation between the gov't and the tech industry on this for me to believe that an agreement on this would require decreasing IT security.


>who says this has to involve decreasing IT security?

Which type of system would you feel safer guarding all of your most personal information in? Keep in mind that the system doesn't care if you're a "bad guy" or a "good guy":

1. A system which was designed to be "unbreakable"

2. A system which was designed to be breakable

Without encryption there is no IT security (if there even was such a thing).

Love me some AOE btw.


Which government are you even talking about ? All of them ? The Internet is still global.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: