←back to thread

Wired's Attack on Privacy

(simplex.chat)
115 points snvzz | 3 comments | 22 Oct 24 00:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.627s | source
Show context
VariousPrograms ◴[22 Oct 24 01:52 UTC] No.41910406[source]▶
It's silly how privacy detractors try to associate so-and-so terrible group with any software that simply lets people talk without corporate or government surveillance, as if the concept of a private conversation is a strange and suspicious thing now.
replies(3): >>41910699 #>>41911421 #>>41915192 #
emodendroket ◴[22 Oct 24 05:20 UTC] No.41911421[source]▶
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.
replies(8): >>41911707 #>>41911803 #>>41911945 #>>41912666 #>>41914188 #>>41914204 #>>41915512 #>>41918201 #
1. em-bee ◴[22 Oct 24 09:37 UTC] No.41912666[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>41921564 #
2. emodendroket ◴[23 Oct 24 03:40 UTC] No.41921564[source]▶
> 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

replies(1): >>41934875 #
3. em-bee ◴[24 Oct 24 12:35 UTC] No.41934875[source]▶
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.