On 3/28/15 12:22 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Let me see if I understand this statement correctly: this group is working toward a world
in which we encrypt our communications, and when someone discusses what that world might
look like, you claim it's "counterfactual"? That's not a reasonable argument.
Ted claims that the author argues that there is no need for a right to privacy.
I didn't read that in the article at all, but rather that the Constitution
must be taken as a whole: the same document that protects our rights also
provides various balancing tests to protect the rights of others.
The author's point is that the state, with proper warrants, should be able to
conduct searches for evidence of crimes. While this is a reasonable argument,
it does not follow that people should not have the right to protect their
communications. For example, there is no mandate anywhere that people should
keep a copy of their private letters in some kind of archive, so that they
could later be found when the police asks for it. And there is definitely no
expectation that all our private communications should be copied and archived
by the state. And I am pretty sure that there was no such expectation among the
authors of the US constitution and Bill of Rights.
I also generally agree with this.
The problem is that many non-technical proposals around this take it to
mean that all communications should be blocked from being encrypted in a
way that prevents presumed good actors from deciphering them. They fail
to recognize that this will also allow bad actors to decipher them.
Perhaps this can be addressed by focusing on the right of individuals to
protect their communications from access by bad actors. (Even if this
makes it more difficult for the "good" actors with warrants.)
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
