FBI drafted Interpol resolution calling for ban on end-to-end encryption | Hacker News Reader

FBI drafted Interpol resolution calling for ban on end-to-end encryption

arstechnica.com

66 pointsdoctorshady5 comments

I'll say what I always say: Reject the "going dark" framing. We are under vastly more surveillance than ever before, yet they want to strip us of even these last, tiny scraps of privacy we have left. Don't let them frame total surveillance as 'normal', and some small corner where they can't look as some unprecedented new development.

> I'll say what I always say: Reject the "going dark" framing.

Also, the ability to "go dark" from the authorities needs to be understood to be a good thing, because sometimes the good guys are the authorities' enemy. That doesn't happen every day, but when it happens, it's critical for a resilient democracy that the people have the tools they need to resist.

Somewhat reduced law enforcement efficiency is worth trading for that societal resilience.

The protests in Hong Kong are a good example of this: they use E2E encryption apps to organize to support democracy and civil rights. They'd have been crushed long ago if they'd been forced to used surveillance-friendly communications tools like text messaging or WeChat.

> That doesn't happen every day

Doesn't it? There are many non-democratic countries in the world, and many shady things happen in the democratic ones as well (by whatever definition of 'democratic').

Imagine that the political leanings of everyone in China/Russia/whichever countries in Central and South America are currently in a state of revolution, were exposed to their authorities.

Imagine if the police spied on trade unionists, and helped private corporations to blacklist them. Or don't imagine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728

Exactly. I think the estimate is that 30% of the world lives under a totalitarian regime. So the good-guys having a need for encryption probably outnumber the badguys 1,000 to 1

> Doesn't it? There are many non-democratic countries in the world, and many shady things happen in the democratic ones as well (by whatever definition of 'democratic').

I agree. My comment was framed for the context of a domestic debate in a country where there is current little political oppression, so the law enforcement argument may have more sway. The fact that political oppression doesn't happen every day here leads people to forget that it could happen here tomorrow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com