←back to thread

170 points flanked-evergl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.335s | source
Show context
amiga386 ◴[] No.43619870[source]
Users want their secrets to be secret.

Apple wants its users' secrets to be secret.

The UK wants the fact it wants Apple to reveal anyone's secrets to be secret.

replies(1): >>43619903 #
HPsquared ◴[] No.43619903[source]
There must be a healthy middle ground between mass untouchable criminal communication networks on the one hand, and full panopticon 24x7 for every civilian on the other. Or I don't know, maybe there isn't. But at least the debate should be public.
replies(16): >>43619926 #>>43619938 #>>43619961 #>>43619967 #>>43619979 #>>43619999 #>>43620044 #>>43620059 #>>43620067 #>>43620078 #>>43620143 #>>43620238 #>>43620371 #>>43620780 #>>43620940 #>>43623532 #
1. guiriduro ◴[] No.43620044[source]
The only healthy "middle-ground" with secure communication is fully secure, non-negotiable. The fact that some criminal enterprises can use it and aren't trivially exposed to random searches/fishing trips isn't worth abandoning that principle. Normal effective human policing, collecting physical and digital forensic evidence (once through the secure pipe), whistleblowers etc are all sufficient by themselves, but are expensive and require officers not to be lazy. And politicians hoping to trawl for 'thought crimes' and politically expedient criminalisation of free speech becomes much harder and more expensive if secrets are secure, again: just as it should be.