What aspects of computing tech should we further criminalise?

[Kyriakos]

Not sure if this belongs in here..after just several minutes on my "Smart TV" i feel like either i can just watch as on a normal TV, or i want that darn thing to be off again.
There's so much advertising that you suddenly see without top adblockers (on PC), all paths lead to usual suspects like Google, Amazon, App store etc.
I somewhat learned ways around them..but teens etc prolly know no better and i would go as far as saying they want us all to be digitally brainwashed.
I know those things are rampant on phones as well.

No idea if it can be stopped..anyways i consider this criminal by now.
There are really serious topics on Samson's list, so as mentioned at start i dunno if my thoughts fit in here.

Some "free" web apps go that route too, with advertisements that can't easily be blocked. It is very annoying, particularly when they pop up on your screen.

 

[uppi]

I would put money on less than 50% of parents of teenages being able to do that.

I think you are being way to generous here. Probably less than 5%, in my opinion. Although, I do wonder how tech-savvy today's teenagers really are. Sure, they know better than me where to swipe on an Iphone, but do they know what a TCP packet is?

I'm not arguing for more laws in general, I'm arguing that the ability to intercept communications without the suspects knowledge is important in investigating and preventing crime.

The question is, how much freedom of lawful citizens are you willing to sacrifice for that? The only thing you need these days to use strong encryption is knowledge how to use it (the software is installed on every single device, anyway). So making secure encryption illegal is awfully close to the concept of thoughtcrime.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not arguing for more laws in general, I'm arguing that the ability to intercept communications without the suspects knowledge is important in investigating and preventing crime.

explain how this is a "reasonable search", in a manner that would not imply that placing an undetectable electronic device on your person to listen into your conversations would not also be a "reasonable search".

don't worry, they would only look at your 24/7 conversations if they suspected you! if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear! what could go wrong!

I think you are being way to generous here. Probably less than 5%, in my opinion. Although, I do wonder how tech-savvy today's teenagers really are. Sure, they know better than me where to swipe on an Iphone, but do they know what a TCP packet is?

i think the imbalance between parents and children now isn't as pronounced as say 15-20 years ago, and would be very surprised if it were anything near a 20:1 ratio. kids kind of suck at computers too, on average. a lot of parents with children young enough for their choice of internet usage to still be a concern grew up using the internet themselves for a substantial % of their lives, including their own childhood. not all of them will be tech savvy, but as you say that's also true of their children. you will get gaps in ability between the two sometimes where the kid is better, but i don't expect this to be on the order of a 20:1 ratio. it's not that hard to look at what sites/times see heavy usage on the router or something. and as a parent, maybe those gigs passing through at 2am will earn the kid a lecture regardless of what sites (or games) are using that bandwidth at 2am. but i don't think figuring it out is particularly more likely among kids than adults under the age of 45 now.

regardless, encryption or lack thereof won't do parenting for anybody.

 

[danjuno]

I consider algorithms to be equally as heinous as Murder Robots and data Harvesting.

 

[AmazonQueen]

explain how this is a "reasonable search", in a manner that would not imply that placing an undetectable electronic device on your person to listen into your conversations would not also be a "reasonable search".

don't worry, they would only look at your 24/7 conversations if they suspected you! if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear! what could go wrong!

It should only be allowed when the police or other body have been before a judge and convinced them it is justified.

 

[Hygro]

I consider algorithms to be equally as heinous as Murder Robots and data Harvesting.

Especially inverting a binary tree. Think of the child nodes!

 

[Lexicus]

I don't agree. There is a big difference between banning something and limiting something.

Kind of, but limiting something really means banning it under certain circumstances so I see Samson's point as well.

 

[Hygro]

explain how this is a "reasonable search", in a manner that would not imply that placing an undetectable electronic device on your person to listen into your conversations would not also be a "reasonable search".

don't worry, they would only look at your 24/7 conversations if they suspected you! if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear! what could go wrong!


i think the imbalance between parents and children now isn't as pronounced as say 15-20 years ago, and would be very surprised if it were anything near a 20:1 ratio. kids kind of suck at computers too, on average. a lot of parents with children young enough for their choice of internet usage to still be a concern grew up using the internet themselves for a substantial % of their lives, including their own childhood. not all of them will be tech savvy, but as you say that's also true of their children. you will get gaps in ability between the two sometimes where the kid is better, but i don't expect this to be on the order of a 20:1 ratio. it's not that hard to look at what sites/times see heavy usage on the router or something. and as a parent, maybe those gigs passing through at 2am will earn the kid a lecture regardless of what sites (or games) are using that bandwidth at 2am. but i don't think figuring it out is particularly more likely among kids than adults under the age of 45 now.

regardless, encryption or lack thereof won't do parenting for anybody.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It should only be allowed when the police or other body have been before a judge and convinced them it is justified.

you mean getting a search warrant? it doesn't work the same way though. the conversations have to be recorded in advance. all of them. even innocent ones, in context where there is literally no justification. then you must trust the same organizations that repeatedly lie to us, right now, with an argument like "we will only look at this when we meet the standards for a warrant, with no functional oversight to keep our word".

the odds of them keeping their word in that context are the same as yours in an unarmed 1v1 fight with a polar bear.

 

[AmazonQueen]

you mean getting a search warrant? it doesn't work the same way though. the conversations have to be recorded in advance. all of them. even innocent ones, in context where there is literally no justification. then you must trust the same organizations that repeatedly lie to us, right now, with an argument like "we will only look at this when we meet the standards for a warrant, with no functional oversight to keep our word".

the odds of them keeping their word in that context are the same as yours in an unarmed 1v1 fight with a polar bear.

Actually to get a phone tap here it does work the same way. You apply to a judge, for the police at least. Intelligence agencies get (and misuse) their authority from the home secretary.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually to get a phone tap here it does work the same way. You apply to a judge, for the police at least. Intelligence agencies get (and misuse) their authority from the home secretary.

phone tap is fundamentally different from "recording everything you say at all times in advance w/o even suspicion that can be articulated, let alone a warrant".

classical phone tap is something you can plan to do in advance when you already have known evidence/suspicion against a particular person. i don't think it's nearly as simple to constrain a "communications over the internet tap" to only people on which law enforcement has a warrant in practice.

 

[AmazonQueen]

phone tap is fundamentally different from "recording everything you say at all times in advance w/o even suspicion that can be articulated, let alone a warrant".

classical phone tap is something you can plan to do in advance when you already have known evidence/suspicion against a particular person. i don't think it's nearly as simple to constrain a "communications over the internet tap" to only people on which law enforcement has a warrant in practice.

I never suggested that law enforcement should be able to access all communications, merely that they must have a means of accessing encrypted communications when they need to.

 

[Samson]

I never suggested that law enforcement should be able to access all communications, merely that they must have a means of accessing encrypted communications when they need to.

As long as you define "when they need to" to include "without getting the key from the suspect" then you cannot have secure encryption.

 

[AmazonQueen]

As long as you define "when they need to" to include "without getting the key from the suspect" then you cannot have secure encryption.

Is secure encryption worth it when you have to give it to organised crime and terrorists too?
I would suggest that the police would have to get a court order to get the key from the communications corporation.

 

[Samson]

Is secure encryption worth it when you have to give it to organised crime and terrorists too?

I have no doubt. If organised crime and terrorist activity means we do not get most of the benefits of the internet they have already won. I see no way that the societal or individual cost of organised crime and terrorism could come close to the value of secure communication. And that is assuming that banning encryption would wipe out organised crime and terrorism, which it would not.

I would suggest that the police would have to get a court order to get the key from the communications corporation.

Why would organised crime and terrorists give communications corporation the key?

 

[AmazonQueen]

I have no doubt. If organised crime and terrorist activity means we do not get most of the benefits of the internet they have already won. I see no way that the societal or individual cost of organised crime and terrorism could come close to the value of secure communication. And that is assuming that banning encryption would wipe out organised crime and terrorism, which it would not.

Why would organised crime and terrorists give communications corporation the key?

I'm suggesting that the corporation retain a key as well as the customer.

 

[Samson]

I'm suggesting that the corporation retain a key as well as the customer.

But organised criminals and terrorists will not use a key generated by someone else. You understand that most computers are capable of hard encryption out of the box, and all can do it with FOSS software? Unless your idea also includes somehow making that no longer the case for organised criminals and terrorists then corporations will not have the key.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But organised criminals and terrorists will not use a key generated by someone else. You understand that most computers are capable of hard encryption out of the box, and all can do it with FOSS software? Unless your idea also includes somehow making that no longer the case for organised criminals and terrorists then corporations will not have the key.

We could at least limit commercial encryption services. From my experience working for C&E most organised criminals did not have the knowledge to write their own encryption programs.

 

[Samson]

We could at least limit commercial encryption services. From my experience working for C&E most organised criminals did not have the knowledge to write their own encryption programs.

It is not a question of writing the software. Literally with a linux desktop it comes with the software to do it built in. I bet a mac is the same, I would be surprised if windows does not have the algorithm in it somewhere if not exposed to the user.

Sure, you may get some stupid criminals who even after all the publicity of whatsapp and co. leaving the uk still talk about crimes over the government sponsored application. That is not going to be the organised crime and terrorists that you were using to justify the law.

Remember, to get these stupid criminals you are backdooring everyone's communications. So these same organised criminals and terrorists when they get hold of the comms companies data they now have access to all our communications to date. As someone whose job makes them a target for terrorists I can tell you I feel much more at risk from that than any gain I may get from stupid criminals.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It is not a question of writing the software. Literally with a linux desktop it comes with the software to do it built in. I bet a mac is the same, I would be surprised if windows does not have the algorithm in it somewhere if not exposed to the user.

Sure, you may get some stupid criminals who even after all the publicity of whatsapp and co. leaving the uk still talk about crimes over the government sponsored application. That is not going to be the organised crime and terrorists that you were using to justify the law.

Remember, to get these stupid criminals you are backdooring everyone's communications. So these same organised criminals and terrorists when they get hold of the comms companies data they now have access to all our communications to date. As someone whose job makes them a target for terrorists I can tell you I feel much more at risk from that than any gain I may get from stupid criminals.

Well if you're right the worlds a lot more dangerous than it was 20 years ago.
Still, can't uninvent stuff however dubious the benefits.