Wired's Attack on Privacy

I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, so digital tools making that outright impossible do pose a problem most people find a bit uncomfortable, whether or not they feel the benefits outweigh the downsides.

You allow limited circumstances, and then they build MYSTIC to record every phone call in the country illegally.

> I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place,

You're right. You know where the most illegal activities take place ? In the parliament. Can we listen to the private conversations of our representatives ? /s

The tools don’t make it “impossible” though, they just don’t actively assist.

The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.

not at all.

as our social life makes more and more use of digital communication, it must have the same protections as a face to face conversation in my home.

in germany wiretapping is only allowed for serious crimes and home surveillance is even more restricted.

in other words if digital communication gets the same protection as home surveillance then you can just use that home surveillance or try to install a listening tool on the persons phone. if home surveillance is not possible then why should digital surveillance be any easier?

The problem is that there's no effective way to enforce those limits without compromising everyone's privacy. It simply is not possible to have privacy and any amount of eavesdropping.

I think most people would disagree with that premise

i would most certainly not agree, that is an egregious assumption

Unfortunately, most people hold a variety of silly and counterproductive beliefs.

> in germany wiretapping is only allowed for serious crimes and home surveillance is even more restricted.

In other words, in some limited circumstances authorities can listen in

Is it? A narrow majority of Americans polled when it was a topic of current debate expressed support for warrantless wiretapping to combat terrorism so I think it is extremely likely that much greater numbers would support a more limited process subject to more scrutiny.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/new-poll-finds-m...

Ha ha ha. Would you like to say something more substantive?

Traditionally the tools they have in their arsenal include the cooperation of communications providers.

yes, but german law also protects the sanctity of my home, and the measures to allow surveillance need to be in proportion to how they affect the sanctity of the homes of the general population. the legal possibility to home surveillance does not imply that everyone has to keep their doors unlocked (unencrypted communication) nor does it require for the government to have a key to everyones door (backdoor to encrypted communication) and the government has to accept that in some homes surveillance is physically not possible without alerting the subject (nor is it even legal in all cases).

if these principles hold true then the general population must be allowed to use unbreakable encryption for their communication, just as i am able to build my home in such a way that hidden surveillance is not possible.