[H8crilA]

This is just Gates venting out, dude is sooo frustrated. Imagine doing as much as he did and still getting horseshit accusations about putting chips into people's bodies or whatever new nonsense they will come up in 6 months.

[matwood]

I agree, but Gates has to know that on balance e2e encryption is better than not. I too feel the same frustration to a much lesser degree when talking to family members.

[tptacek]

No, he doesn't have to know that. There is a deep divide on that question; it only seems like there isn't because this particular bubble we're in is essentially unified on it. That's not true of the wider world.

[sxxahsuxh]

I find it impossible to argue against encryption. People should have the tools to do things secretly. If you want to prevent all the bad things Bill talked about, attack those things, not the tools.

[gfxgirl]

Not that I agree with this but here's Nick Bostrom basically arguing for the end of encryption

https://www.businessinsider.com/nick-bostrom-mass-surveillan...

IIRC the argument is basically that as tech progresses it will get easier and easier for any one person to destroy the planet. According to Bostrom the only way to prevent that is no secrets and ubiquitous surveillance.

[sxxahsuxh]

None of what he said is correct and even if it was, it would be easier to destroy every piece of technology on earth than put collars around people to monitor what they do (According to his own idea of destruction, this is doubly true. He thinks destroying humanity can happen very easily so why can't it be easy to destroy devices?). I have trouble trusting this guy, and it's hard to resist calling him names. So I think I'm still going to argue that you cannot argue against encryption.

[thu2111]

Yes, it must really suck.

He doesn't seem to realise however that he's making this far worse.

Literally a core part of the Gates/COVID conspiracy theories goes like this:

"Bill Gates want to track everyone and is using a COVID vaccine as a trojan horse to do it"

Then he goes and says, gee, maybe it shouldn't be possible to say things Bill Gates doesn't like and the way to implement this is to ensure tech firms can monitor and track everything everyone is saying.

He's basically giving his critics an intellectual ammo dump with this interview. Dude doesn't seem self-aware, at all.

[breck]

That was my take too. Him being frustrated at the problem. Sort of like when Obama rolls his eyes when someone makes a birther joke.

I personally think the solution isn't to make it harder to share lies, but easier to share the truth. Sharing the truth is actually extremely labor intensive.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Gates seems to hint that the way to reduce lie-sharing is by eliminating safe encryption (replacing safe encryption with unsafe encryption). This is an inherently dangerous stance (to everyone except repressive authoritarians).

[therealdrag0]

Are you familiar with how much child pornography has ballooned from social media? I hadn’t until I listened to this podcast with NYT investigative journalist. Worth considering how serious the trade offs are https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/

[throwawaythekey]

I normally enjoy Sam but found that episode was voiced more by his inner parent than his usual hyper-rational self. Child porn is a scourge that should be destroyed but there was minimal discussion of the following that I would normally expect from Sam:

  - Relative merits of the alternatives to the banning/reduction of e2e encryption, e.g stronger police resources, education and community programs

  - Is there a strong link between the sharing of material and the creation of material?

To demonstrate the seriousness of the issue they cite a study that around 5% of the population have consumed child pornography. My own experience has been that unsavoury images can be posted in public places and none of the viewers intend to see the material. I suspect (and hope!) this is where the 5% comes from. This is not caused or solved by the masses having access to encryption.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was having this reaction just because of my idealogical support of encryption.

[therealdrag0]

Curious what does “reducing of e2e” refer to? What does reduction without elimination look like?

[WarOnPrivacy]

E2E refers to end to end. I imagine he means encryption in transport as opposed to encryption at rest.

HTTPS is transport encryption. It's what keeps your bank account info from being intercepted in a usable state.

Reduction w/o elimination means weakening encryption. The advantage is that it can be easily broken by those who want to see what's inside.

His proposal would allow me (or countless bad actors) to decrypt data captures containing secure traffic, like your bank login. Strong encryption is the minimal method for preventing that.

[boomboomsubban]

Presumably like historical encryption, available to the government and the super wealthy. That was what they were attpting when they tried to classify PGP as munitions.

[throwawaythekey]

The podcast makes the suggestion that encryption doesn't have to be universal. If most communication were through unencrypted channels then policing would be easier, and the use of an encrypted channel would still be possible for critical communications (although may draw scrutiny).

I use reduced to mean non universal.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>Are you familiar with how much child pornography has ballooned from social media?

What does that have to do with encryption?

Also, sidebar:

Illegal pornography is captured and then hidden in an invisible electronic state, using powerful machines called computers. It's then transported and distributed across vast distances using a network of these powerful machines called "The Internet".

Together they're responsible for a bazillion-fold increase of illegal porn. It's imperative that legislation be passed that sabotages the basic functions of computers and renders them ineffective at performing their primary task.

[therealdrag0]

> what does that have to do with

Well they are currently able to scan media and maintain a fingerprint database of illegal content. If it’s encrypted this is not possible right? That’s a serious trade off.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Well they are currently able to scan media and maintain a fingerprint database of illegal content. If it’s encrypted this is not possible right? That’s a serious trade off.

No more a trade off than the existence of the internet or computers - which are wholly implicated in encouraging a far worse behavior than the transport of illegal porn. They facilitate it's creation. In this, we have an even more serious trade off.

[therealdrag0]

Sidebar: I don’t understand your flippancy. There literally are children to think about. Is your privacy really more important that children being raped? So yes “for the children”.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Usernames and passwords are just one "privacy" related item that are transported over networks. Without encryption they are trivially easy to retrieve from any number of points along the network.

I've retrieved plaintext usernames/passwords out of network traffic, both intentionally and accidentally as part of larger captures. Encryption ends the ability of countless bad actors to do that.

[eanzenberg]

So he has thin skin? Then get out if the public limelight.