Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Rob Braxman Tech" channel.

That would be illegal for them to do, and they would lose any case they attempted to bring as a result.
3
Ok, but then it is the role of the legal system to sort that out. There will be false positives in any sort of system, that's expected, but it's better than not havign any such data at all, right?
2
@xCheddarB0b42x That is exactly how liberty works, I think you're thinking of anarchy, in which case, you would be right, that is not how anarchy works.
2
I don't understand though, if there is end to end encryption allowed, then how DO you catch child predators and terrorists? Couldn't they just use those functions to act outside of law enforcement's ability to stop them? What is the solution that would allow law abiding citizens to keep their discussions private, without also allowing criminals that same opportunity?
1
@harbingerofwarx995 I think that what you suggest would make it MUCH harder to catch them, since it would eliminate a lot of the ways that they are currently caught in the act. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but it's insufficient to dealing with a society of more than a few hundred people. When there are so many possible attack vectors, it is impossible for "personal responsibility" to solve anything, you need a community response to such problems. It would be like if an invading army shows up, and the mayor goes "everyone just take "personal responsibility" for dealing with the army. That's a recipe for getting pillaged, and is EXACTLY the defensive strategy favored by the predators.
1
@harbingerofwarx995 Exactly, and government is that community responsibility. If the neighborhood watch can monitor everyone's lives to the degree that is sufficient to catch predators, then obviously so to can the police.
1
@harbingerofwarx995 I would prefer privacy invasion over home invasions, so long as it's reasonable in nature. I think there does need to be oversight in how data is collected and used, but I don't see a problem with scanning content distributed over the Internet for clearly objectionable material. If you don't want that material scanned, don't send it over the Internet to others. And again, communities cannot self police. Most people are not capable of acting in a police capacity, more than communities can "self doctor" or "self engineer." This is why we have professionals to fill these roles. "Self policing" is both ineffective and prone to higher injustice than anything professional police forces have been accused of.
1
@clray123 This IS how we caught criminals for the entire history of humanity, but until recently, people could not securely communicate over long distances like they can today. As technology gives people new tools to commit crimes, the laws need to keep up to catch them in equally novel ways.
1
@clray123 Yes, that's what we're discussing here, following the evidence to the crimes. If the evidence exists primarily in encrypted Internet communications, then how do you suggest one "follow" it? Or would you rather that they just not follow the evidence back to you, or whoever? And again, your comparisons to "totalitarian regimes" are spurious,.Nobody had a problem with totalitarian regimes because they put away too many child predators. The problem with totalitarian regimes is that they would use their surveillance to punish politician opposition and other innocent people. The data collection was NEVER the problem, it's entirely what you DO with that data. When there is evidence of that, then we have an issue.
1
The Stasi surveillance was not bad because it was surveillance, it was bad because they USED that information to persecute people. Collecting information is neither good nor bad, it's all about what you DO with information.
1
E2E encryption didn't even exist until a few decades ago, how is it suddenly a "human right?"
1
@anteeko In a sense, but so too has been the ability to decrypt those messages. It's never been an absolute protection.
1
@chlorobyte_projects Well, that's your right, but personally, I don't believe in removing people's free speech rights just because I disagree with what they have to say. People are entitled to privacy, but not in public spaces, like the Internet.
1
@chlorobyte_projects I certainly don't use the Internet to do crimes, so what would I have to worry about?
1
@xCheddarB0b42x If you weren't setting off red flags in the first place, then you wouldn't likely end up in court at all. Again, though, it's better to catch the criminals and have a few innocent people that need to explain themselves, than to allow the crimes to continue without opposition. You can never have a perfect system, but this is better than the alternatives.
1
@clray123 Who is arguing in favor of "guilty until proven innocent?" I was just arguing in "investigate before proving guilt," which has always been the criminal law standard in pretty much every civilization.
1
@clray123 So a police officer should not drive around keeping his eyes out for potential crimes in progress? They should just stay in the station until a crime has already occurred and been reported to them?
1
@clray123 The Internet is the public. We aren't talking about anything that's happening on your property or in your bedroom. That said, if there is evidence they are seeking on your property, they can get a warrant for that. If they get a warrant to access P2P encrypted data, how would they go about accessing it?
1
@clray123 Nobody's talking about private conversations in your device, this is about conversations BETWEEN devices over the INTERNET. And again, if they get a warrant to search your house, then they are able to enter and search their house. If they get a warrant to read your encrypted messages, then how do you believe they would be able to do that, without some access to do so?
1