It won't help them but will still do a lot of damage. And they wonder why people don't trust a single word they say. Poor representatives...
Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators.
some projects trying to do this now are Status, Session, Sylo
Just make the network work based on open protocols, where anyone can run a server that interoperates with others. (Matrix.)
For the non-developer end-user, they can use one of the existing servers, who in theory could charge their users.
Yes, it would be hard to maintain branding cohesion, and the product/service would lose to a centralized service. However, transitioning to heterogenous social/messaging landscape (from current oligopolies) could make smaller services like that competitive.
IMO it’s not clear we should treat a legal/political issue with technical workarounds, it doesn’t seem sustainable.
In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.
Some people do pay for their e-Mail providers today...
I’ve never been offered drugs by anyone in my life and I couldn’t tell you if someone standing on a street-corner is someone simply wanting to cross the street when the lights change or an undercover cop… or an actual prostitute. What am I supposed to be looking for?
(Yes, I’m on-the-spectrum and don’t get invited to parties, so I’m not representative of everyone else’s experience, but I am being sincere in my anecdote)
Going downtown around 1am on a Sunday morning should get you the full package, at least in most European cities. City parks, albeit edgy and dangerous, are an almost sure bet.
Dealers usually ask you if all is fine and you need help with anything, prostitutes clues are usually attitude and attire, plus they often work in groups. A good undercover cop will be unrecognisable, for obvious reasons (they have to copy criminal behaviour to be successful).
Providers have a harder time than their customers (longer jail time and higher fines) hence the secrecy which makes it diffocult to spott them.
When in doubt assume it's not a professional, if they are they will make it obvious.
In reality most people aren’t going to (or rather, shouldn’t try to) seek out drug dealers and prostitutes on the street. For the former it’s more likely someone will “know a guy who knows a guy”, or maybe use the dark web. For the latter there are websites and classifieds, you just need to know the right terminology, etc (from what I’ve gathered, I have no personal experience...)
So yeah, it’s underground, but not that underground.
(Analogously, this is why law enforcement professionals and the like have been moving to the term "child sexual abuse material" instead of "child pornography": the problem with it is not that it's pornography, it's that it's sexual abuse.)
It is not only entirely possible to fight the crime of trafficking people and forcing them to do certain acts without criminalizing those acts, it is in fact significantly more effective. Imagine, for instance, if Abraham Lincoln had tried to eliminate slavery by declaring that picking cotton was illegal. Not only would it not have addressed the problem, it would have made the problem worse - slaves are in no position to refuse to do an act because it's illegal, and a fugitive slave would be liable for the crimes they committed as a slave.
Prostitution does not have victims. Forcing someone into prostitution has a victim - the unwilling prostitute. This is a crime committed by the trafficker against the prostitute, not a crime committed by the prostitute against the client (or even vice versa).
Again, take the example I gave of slavery. The analogous argument to yours is to claim that cotton picking is not victimless. Obviously there were victims in the antebellum south. But to say that cotton picking is the crime is to miss the point entirely and to hurt the victims of the actual crime. Cotton picking is victimless, unless you think cotton feels pain. Forcing someone to pick cotton is a crime.
STDs are not a crime*. They are a potential downside of sexual activity of all kinds. We are comfortable with all sorts of activities having potential injurious downsides which are not criminal. You can get a concussion playing football, but that doesn't mean giving someone a concussion in the course of playing football (as opposed to because you specifically set out to attack them, of course) is a crime, and it certainly doesn't mean that playing football itself ought to be criminalized. If someone claimed that the only way to stop football concussions was to criminalize the game, we would find that position laughable or at least dangerously authoritarian.
Robberies and killings are a crime, and they can be prosecuted in their own sake. Robberies and killings also happen in, say, banks; we don't say that this is a reason to make banking illegal.
In fact, it is because banking is legal that police and regulated armed guards can be at banks and stand by as legitimate, victimless banking transactions happen, and that a bank under attack can call for the police and know that they will not get shut down. Going back to the example of the fugitive slave - a slave who knows he's been forced into illegal actions is unlikely to seek his freedom and is quite likely to seek the effective protection of his master, preventing him from accessing the liberty due to him in a just society. Similarly, people participating in the victimless crimes of the sex or drug industry generally have little recourse to the justice system. Robberies and killings (and mistreatment of prostitutes) happens because criminals know that their victims do not have the same ability to pursue justice as the general public does. Fully legalizing these industries is the only plausible first step to solving this problem.
* I should probably say that they should not be a crime. Some jurisdictions have such laws, and they are widely recognized to be both unjust and ineffective, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV_i...
Concentration of money will cause unscrupulous people to gather.
Realistically, legalization doesn’t end these issues.
Trafficking underage girls is obviously a crime against another human being, it's not a victimless crime like drugs and should be punished.
If you're killing yourself with unhealthy eating in private, it's on you. Despicable choice for sure, and it sucks if a bad environment drove you down this road - but that's on you: don't make me pay for your healthcare.
We just need someone to step up and collect the data.
> For the onion router to work properly, the Navy needed to step back from running it. A cloaking system is not useful if all the cloaks say “Navy” on them. “If you have a system that’s only a Navy system, anything popping out of it is obviously from the Navy,” Syverson says. “You need to have a network that carries traffic for other people as well.” Tor Project was incorporated as a nonprofit in 2006 to manage operations. [0]
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-23/tor-anony...
...it's kinda like how we were all told that the 1950s-1970s space-launches with monkeys and other animals in them were for bio-scientific experiments when they were really just cover stories for launching spy-sats and military satellites.
To be clear, they encourage democratic ideals where/if it's in their own interests to. There are plenty of places where they encourage non-democratic ideals as well (or directly fund their own coups to put usually military leaders they like in power).
I wouldn't trust Tor to solely protect my identity since there might be ways to attack it. But it can be an useful asset in a "pipeline" designed to protect one's identity.
Well, that would explain why the nodes don't get shut-down when the local police come knocking...
Still, that must require some very awkward conversations when ethics committees or even departmental budgets are approved - not to mention inviting consternation from the general-public who really don't approve of their tax-money being used to knowingly facilitate dark-net activities, especially horrific child abuse, ugh. (I'm a utilitarian myself, but personally I'd pull the plug on it: surely there are better ways for embedded agents to exchange information? What about digital-steganography, and concealable satellite comms hardware?)
Not to mention that you don’t actually own your accounts unless you run the server yourself.
In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.
Isn't registering an account necessary to avoid impersonating? how does Status ensure a stable user ID?
Everyone gets a random super long number for an ID. Your friends can assign your name when they add you as a contact (just like phone numbers). And then you can also get a globally recognizable name like ENS domains if you want to pay a little. It’s like a vanity plate on a car.
Silos are the reason that platforms get centralized in the first place: people generally enjoy using the same X as their peers, so they can communicate in a single platform.
We need DNS for everyone, not just the rich...er those bothering to register a name.
Make it GUID based, and let people contact each other by GUID instead of phone number.
Preferably add privacy enhancing encryption too so that only those with your public key could decrypt your GUID DNS entry to then find your IPv6 address.
Or something smarter than that probably.
I'd say the big problem at the moment is that people are not used to paying for service. Lots of stuff related to naming is very cheap. But if you require it to be free, then you will get bad incentives like trying to build a silo and fill that silo with ads.
That way, users ARE paying for it. And honestly, it is a fundamental internet service, just not in the way most people think of.
OpenLDAP's a bugger to configure, and it's much more than you need for a simple directory. But ActiveDirectory is nearly omnipresent.
DNS already exists as a point of centralised control. Service Providers already have to log IP vs user accounts.
don't see how extending DNS for the masses could make things any worse.
As a sibling comment points out though, who pays to run it?
I very much suspect that who is elected has nearly zero effect on spying programs.
And blackmail is only one tool in the toolbelt. Bribery comes long before that. Anybody with too much integrity is quickly removed from office or worse.
Ive tried to explain to some progressives why AOC and the squad have turned their backs on them with this, but for many their schoolhouse rock propagandized brains refuse to admit its as bad as it is.
It only gets worse the more we aquiesce to increases in censorship and surveillance (which I like to remind people is in the hands of the executive branch, further eroding the checks and balances system).
- Senator Chuck Schumer
Here the problem is when you go down the ballot and reach the judges, schoolboard, and other offices where most people have no idea who the candidates are and many just vote randomly.
In Arizona there was a campaign that unseated an incumbent schoolboard member by a rival candidate whose last name, if some letters were transposed, was a famous local figure. The funny last name guy won.
So go ahead and vote, but please leave blank or skip over any of the candidates that you haven't researched. Don't vote randomly - some people are trying to have a real election.
It leads to abominations of platform planks, but in our race to the bottom as least you get close to what you think you want.
And the reason for the huge backlack, is that this stop gap will actually make it easier for them to request more afterwards, because the infrastructure, the proof of concept, will already be there and running. And it will cross to other providers: "see Apple does it, so clearly it's Signal that's being protective of criminals, we should impose them to do the same thing Apple did with no issue".
I simply disagree with the notion that I should be controlled and monitored by a third party just because someone else might do something evil.
We should always remember that power corrupts and definitions of evil change almost on a whim.
I could be missing something, but I did a quick search and all I see is news about them scrapping their once-encrypted backups at the request of the FBI.
The arguments about slippery slopes and potential surveillance weren't as interesting to me as the opposing argument: that a very high level of privacy (not even an absolute level) carries consequences for a specific segment of society by the intrinsic nature of what is kept private, and in the name of protecting that segment of society, the tradeoff is not worth it.
There is also the idea that data on a hard drive can be as damaging to human livelihood as physical contraband, to the point that the vast majority of the world's legal systems, not just those of the U.S., have decided that the data should not exist under any circumstances. CSAM is one of the few classes of digital data that compels the creation of scanning systems for such data on a scale that isn't driven by political ideology, propaganda or similar. It's difficult to imagine how Apple would be obliged and driven enough to implement such a system out in the open and in the name of the public good if the publicly announced reasoning was to scan any other class of data (assuming that Apple can be trusted, at least).
I don't know why we accept the same things when we're talking about digital privacy.
If that happens, hopefully usage of p2p messaging apps like Briar or Status will gain more traction and usage.
Complying with such a request is going out of business.
> The only information Signal maintains that is encompassed by thesubpoena for any particular user account, identified through a phone number, is the time of account creation and the date of the account’s last connection to Signal servers. That is all. [2]
> [2] see e.g. https://signal.org/bigbrother
And those people who help you draft patents for your computer-related inventions? Also lawyers.
I think this should be implemented regardless. But the danger is they can easily say "sure; your turn". Some in law enforcement may even genuinely want to do that for its own sake.
I think that's a totally orthogonal thing to violating citizens' privacy and shouldn't be considered as leverage or a counterargument.
"Could you not put an officer out to surveille them?",
Your argument kind of falls on itself there --> We can surveil them in person, but not digitally?
Why?
I think the tech crowd has this wrong.
The issue - as you have indicated - is not 'By What Means To Surveil'.
The issues are: Legitimacy, Proportionality, Oversight.
Messages, tech, sign language, in person, phones or messaging pigeons, the issue remains the same:
Is there a legitimate reason for access?
Is the intervention proportional to the probability of cause, the ostensible crime, the risk to other citizens and the public good?
Is there authoritative Judicial oversight of the surveillance, and, is there sufficient Congressional oversight of the legality of the program?
Those are the questions.
Should police be able to tap Signal (or anything else) for data on anyone they want, for whatever they want, willy nilly without a Warrant or oversight?
Definitely not.
Should Apple be scanning content for crimes?
Probably not, but that's slightly more complicated.
Should the police be able to access the Signal messages of someone they apprehended at a murder scene wherein other suspects fled the scene, and are therefore likely the suspects accomplices?
Likely yes. Or at lest, most people would agree with it both in the pragmatic sense, and also the Constitutional sense.
Should the FBI be able to, with special permission of a Federal Judge, watch all cell tower transactions in 5x5 mile grid grid, while there's a literal manhunt on for literal terrorists during a literal state of emergency?
Probably yes again, it's hard because the proportionality and tactics are rare and unique.
The technology is a secondary issue.
Because, before the internet, when surveillance was a lot of work, this prevented the abuse that is mass surveillance.
Only now do we see how much democracy relied on this natural limitation of state power for civil rights. It was never just the need for warrants that maintained civil rights. Remember the Verizon FISA court order authorized surveillance of millions, and that was just one order of hundreds.
Power corrupts. State power should be sufficient, but minimal. Being allowed to do physical surveillance only is sufficient to reduce crime rates to the point where most people can safely neglect that crime exists at all, and it is less power because it does not scale.
You mention proportionality yourself. Proportionality means that something is not done if the same objective (finding a given murderer) can be achieved in a less rights-infringing way. Proportionality at the policy level, means that a surveillance power may not exist, if its objective (such as safety from murder, i.e. low rates of murder, high chance of finding murderers etc.) can be achieved without the power or with a power that is less likely to be abused or that infringes rights of suspects less. (I admit this is somewhat of an editorialization; the technical meaning of proportionality is in [1]. To be clear the existing legal proportionality principle does not try to directly minimize power; but it does usually present an obstacle whenever new powers are created by law)
Limiting power is simpler and less error-prone than allowing power and adding control structures like warrant requirements for the power. It is thus better, if the outcome is the same.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European...
> Likely yes. Or at le[a]st, most people would agree with it both in the pragmatic sense, and also the Constitutional sense.
Sure, but that is not the question. The question is: should Signal be forced to implement its software in a way that allows the police to access its messages?
Likewise, everyone also agrees that in person surveillance is in general legitimate, but that doesn't mean that we all agree that the government should be able dictate burdensome measures on third parties to make it easier to perform this surveillance: say require that the friends of the suspect keep notes on his whereabouts. Changing its architecture would cost Signal a lot of money and good will, and the suspect would probably not be very happy that his friends ratted him out as well.
They are not willing or able to do that for whatever reason, but the ability exists.
I agree the technology used is a secondary issue, but Law Enforcement got lazy when they were able to wire-tap phones willy nilly whenever they wanted. They need to get un-lazy again. They can do all they want to do without needing un-encrypted traffic, un-encrypted traffic just makes them not have to work as hard.
I'm fine with them having to work harder instead of them getting to see all the communications they could ever dream of.
I believe under those circumstances, the police should be able to apply to a judge for a warrant, and if probable cause is found and a warrant is issued, attempt to access the Signal messages of such a person. A requirement that they succeed has technological implications; Signal, the device, or both would have to contain a backdoor, or use security measures that are not very effective.
I am an absolutist on this question; I don't think governments should have the authority to mandate backdoors in products or services even if doing so would result in the prosecution of many criminals who otherwise go unpunished. For those who want to balance the government's interest in prosecuting criminals against secure and private communications, the question I would ask is: how often do investigations or prosecutions fail because it was impossible to access encrypted data with a court order? A precise answer might be difficult since the content of the encrypted data is unknowable, but an upper bound could be established by assuming such encrypted data is always incriminating.
Are they though? First it's "only" to catch the super-terrorists. Then it's only to catch the murderers. Then it's for VIP missing person cases. Then it's petty crime. Then it's for political opponents. Then nobody dares ask anymore about "legitimacy, proportionality, oversight."
When those in power grant themselves more power, the onus is on them to prove they can't abuse that power. Of course, the way power works is they have that choice and we don't.
Are you confusing S44 with S60 Stop and Search?
In addition, I’d wager lots of politicians use it now for obvious reason’s.
Ergo that won’t happen. That being said, can’t blame DoJ for trying though.
Why are the previous subpoenas Signal Messenger LLC has refused not sufficient for this purpose?
And that's for hyper-partisan issues! I'm not sure there's any truly influential political group that would strongly oppose this. Thinking it's just the politicians who are unaware and/or disagree with the tech-minded is a mistake. The populace is less on our side re: surveillance than we'd hope.
The Congressional response should be, "Do you have no other way of investigating these criminals?" "Could you not put an officer out to surveille them?", "Have you not seen the misuse that law enforcement has engaged in, with such capabilities? From petty revenge to stalking lovers who rejected them. Will you consent to mandatory surveillance of all law enforcement officers that is recorded and stored in a civil controlled repository so that officer conduct may be reviewed at any time?"
They won't say that of course. But they should.