On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:26:17 -0400
"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>
> Some serious questions --
>
> 1. Are you a privacy absolutist?
Robert, I have a counter-question:
Do you think that privacy is a fundamental human right?
Also, it seems to me a bit that the discussion following up your
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> But so too are the privacy absolutists who believe that law-enforcement
> is doing something morally wrong when they try to break Tor's anonymity
> in the pursuit of awful people.
I think you can say this sentence with the one that try br
On 24-08-2016 16:27, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Ideally, because they present options that may work better than what we
> currently have. Privacy absolutism -- the position that there is *no*
> justification for infringing on individual privacy, even in the case of
> serious crimes -- doesn't offe
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:37:35AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>>
>> P.S. We may be in the Second Crypto Wars, but the genie is out of
>> the bottle, so that sense of "oh noes, the governments is
>> coming for my cryptoes" just isn't there so much.
>
> Yeah, which is why I find bot
On , Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> >> 3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be
> >> circumvented?
> >
> > Do you honestly believe that this is really possible? That government
> > backdoor will stay available only to government and will not be
> > misused?
>
> I never said I believ
On , Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> 3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be
> circumvented?
Do you honestly believe that this is really possible? That government
backdoor will stay available only to government and will not be
misused?
As an example I would raise issue of TSA accep
>> 3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be
>> circumvented?
>
> Do you honestly believe that this is really possible? That government
> backdoor will stay available only to government and will not be
> misused?
I never said I believed backdoors were an appropriate way to circu
On 24/08/16 15:37, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I find the current state of detente to be pretty good, actually. We're
> allowed to design the best systems we can, and governments are allowed
> to discover where we're not as clever as we think we are. If there's a
> flaw in Tor and the FBI uses it t
> P.S. We may be in the Second Crypto Wars, but the genie is out of the
> bottle, so that sense of "oh noes, the governments is coming for
> my cryptoes" just isn't there so much.
Yeah, which is why I find both sides of the privacy absolutist debate to
be ... pretty much comically mis
> Why would we listen to anyone for that matter?
Ideally, because they present options that may work better than what we
currently have. Privacy absolutism -- the position that there is *no*
justification for infringing on individual privacy, even in the case of
serious crimes -- doesn't offer an
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:41:33AM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:37, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
>
> > (German), the German and French government are attacking the right to
> > encrypt communication of their serfs. Also because of their violent
>
> Despite their common decl
> He is of course not advocating torture, he's merely listing possible
> exploits, referencing to xkcd #538.
My question was, "How should we permit privacy tools to be
circumvented?" His answer was, "You can try - someone might have used a
weak password, wrote it down somewhere or made another mi
On 24-08-2016 15:17, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>>> 2. If yes, why should we listen to you?
>>
>> The child porn excuse is used too often...
>
> But this doesn't answer my question.
>
> Why should we listen to a privacy absolutist?
Why would we listen to anyone for that matter?
>> You can tr
> Then let me ask you how "I have supported strong, non-backdoored
> privacy tools" doesn't clash with:
>
>>3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be
>>circumvented?
Simple: I wasn't presenting my own views, I was asking Johan for his.
Where's the contradiction?
__
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:17:19AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > You can try - someone might have used a weak password, wrote it down
> > somewhere or made another mistake. Or can be pressured into telling it
> > (the famous $5 wrench comes to mind here).
>
> Wait, wait, wait.
>
> You're opp
>> 1. Are you a privacy absolutist?
>
> Yes.
Thank you for being clear on that.
>> 2. If yes, why should we listen to you?
>
> The child porn excuse is used too often...
But this doesn't answer my question.
Why should we listen to a privacy absolutist?
> You can try - someone mig
Il 24/08/2016 14:11, Francesco Ariis ha scritto:
> @Johan Wevers: you might or might not be aware, but what you describe
> is the "Four Horseman of the Infocalypse" [1].
Instead of stupid backdoors, couldn't legislators simply say that if
encryption is used to try to hide a crime (that still have
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:42:34AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I'd shrug and point to my many public statements where I've supported
> strong, non-backdoored privacy tools. If someone wants to accuse me of
> being a government absolutist, that's on them.
Then let me ask you how "I have suppo
On 24-08-2016 8:41, Werner Koch wrote:
> Whether the current German rules on when and how constitutional rights
> on privacy can lawfully be suspended are still in compliance with the
> constitution is a different question.
They can try the French method: declare the state of emergency after
some
On 24-08-2016 4:26, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> 1. Are you a privacy absolutist?
Yes.
> 2. If yes, why should we listen to you?
The child porn excuse is used too often. The terrorism card is also
played often (not that it would help much against that as all known
exmples show). And
> ("privacy absolutist" is political framing 101 -- would you
> feel fairly treated if I described your views on the matter as, say,
> "government absolutist"?)
I'd shrug and point to my many public statements where I've supported
strong, non-backdoored privacy tools. If someone wants to accuse m
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:37, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
> (German), the German and French government are attacking the right to
> encrypt communication of their serfs. Also because of their violent
Despite their common declaration to do something against the "evil" of
encryption, the French and
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:26:17PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Some serious questions --
>
> 1. Are you a privacy absolutist?
> 2. If yes, why should we listen to you?
Privacy and its boundaries are a well debated (and well worth to be
debated) topic; keep in mind that any disc
> ... the German and French government are attacking the right to
> encrypt communication of their serfs.
I've got to ask a question.
What would you have us do instead?
For the last eight years I've worked in digital forensics. That's put
me in a position to see the works of psychopaths up clos
In
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Justiz-soll-verschluesselte-Terror-Kommunikation-auswerten-koennen-3302594.html
(German), the German and French government are attacking the right to
encrypt communication of their serfs. Also because of their violent
anti-encryption opinion I was glad to s
25 matches
Mail list logo
