[igk]

> The second school of thought is individual responsibility. Users should take steps to protect their own privacy on a case-by-case basis, in the same way they look after their own home security or personal safety.

I think this is a bullshit argument. Nobody looks after their home security or personal security the way we expect users to be careful of their privacy, nor do we accept the amount of intrusions into our house or personal space as we are told is reasonable in information.

Imagine you could get a free pizza every week, you just need to let the driver go through your house and correspondence. Imagine if you had to sign over the risk that your house might be burgled if you signed up for a bank account...And the police didn't act on it.

These examples seem ludicrous, but that is not because I'm making them like this, it's because the premise that we all do "personal responsibility" is a myth.

We have police, laws, community rules, all of these things to protect our houses and personal security. If you leave the door unlocked, robbing it is still a crime. Likewise, if you walk around on an unsafe neighbourhood and get robbed, it would be ludicrous to hear "well, the city warned you that part is unsafe, so the police isn't going to investigate"

[arca_vorago]

> We have police, laws, community rules, all of these things to protect our houses and personal security. If you leave the door unlocked, robbing it is still a crime. Likewise, if you walk around on an unsafe neighbourhood and get robbed, it would be ludicrous to hear "well, the city warned you that part is unsafe, so the police isn't going to investigate"

The irony of this statement is that this actually happens quite often in certain east of the track neighborhoods, especially when the victim is a minority. It goes to show that this attitude, while I don't agree with it, isn't so far from the reality as you might think.

Coming from out west, this is one of the cultural reasons I am pro-gun. The police are just there to draw the chalk line around your body, it is your responsibility to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home.

Always remember that the constitution was created to protect, not establish rights, rights that you have independent of the constitution itself, and of these rights, the right to self defense is one. The second amendment is simply about defense against tyranny. Even if you got rid of the second amendment I still have the right to bear arms.

Which makes me wonder, how well could the right to self defense argument be applied to encryption?

It's almost like everyone forgot about the 90's crypto wars, but it makes me think of something Eben Moglen said about the 90's crypto wars being just a temporary setback to TPTB;

https://youtu.be/sKOk4Y4inVY?t=580

[igk]

This might be very cultural thing(I'm from Europe). But unless you want to live in a society dominated by warlords and gangs, laws and society is the better way imo. Again my opinion, but for me the gun defense is a myth perpetuated in the US for ideological reasons. Keep your guns,but they won't keep you safe against a gang which will just shiv you at night, or simply outgun you. The reason all civilisations of a certain density have centralised law enforcement is it's simply inefficient for everyone to defend themselves (think narco states: sure, you can hire a guard, but your neighbour also has to hire one. If you try to start a neighbourhood guard cooperation then you are one step towards government and police)

And coming from Europe, we create new rights all the time

[kupiakos]

This is actually the topic of an old xkcd: https://xkcd.com/504/

[Pharylon]

Agreed. Parent's analogy only works in a world where breaking and entering was legal, and it was everyone's personal responsibility to defend their home.

[zeveb]

We live in a world where breaking and entering is possible, and the police may only come after the fact, and might not come at all — it is everyone's personal responsibility to defend his home. Likewise, we live in a world where violating one's privacy is possible, which means it is probable, and thus it is everyone's personal responsibility to defend his privacy.

[matt4077]

What do you think would have more of an impact on the security of your home: repealing the laws against breaking & entering, or removing the lock from your door?

It's naive to think of oneself as strong enough to self-protecting. I know there's a certain appeal in the lone wolf myth that speaks to the (mostly male) psyche. But never in the history of mankind has it been the winning strategy to be strong and independent.

Since we were apes in trees, our security has relied entirely on a strong net of social bonds. Cooperation is the strongest force multiplier, and no matter how many guns you have, you wouldn't have chance against even against a small group. Laws are nothing but a formal manifestation of group behaviour.

Then, there's the attacker-defender asymmetry: defending yourself means defending yourself 100% of the time. There is no middle-class home in the US that I couldn't get into if I really wanted, nor are there any non-famous people that I couldn't kill with a bit of dedication.

It wouldn't be possible to protect against such threads without the rule of law. And even if it were, it would amount to a giant collective waste of resources. Personally, I also don't want to think of any stranger as a thread, but that's what it would require.

[zeveb]

> What do you think would have more of an impact on the security of your home: repealing the laws against breaking & entering, or removing the lock from your door?

Honestly, the latter. I don't believe laws prevent thieves from breaking in, nor do they keep honest people honest. I don't really buy the deterrent theory of law in general, anyway: law exists to punish in a civil and orderly fashion, not to deter.

[dboreham]

This is ridiculous nonsense (although living in the West of the US myself, I know a few people who have this mentality). We just don't live in a world where the fact that nobody is robbing you blind is entirely due to fear that you'll shoot them. That's pure fantasy. They're not robbing you blind due to things like : they have jobs and are gainfully employed doing something more profitable than robbing people; they'd (eventually) be caught and sent to jail; and so on..

[FussyZeus]

> We have police, laws, community rules, all of these things to protect our houses and personal security. If you leave the door unlocked, robbing it is still a crime. Likewise, if you walk around on an unsafe neighbourhood and get robbed, it would be ludicrous to hear "well, the city warned you that part is unsafe, so the police isn't going to investigate"

Agreed, and it still amazes me how these advertisers and startups can simply hand-wave away any responsibility for any compromising data about you ending up in the wrong hands with a simple shrug.