[jjav]

> Where to draw the line? It's definitely murky.

It shouldn't be murky at all. For all of the history of humanity, privacy has been the default state. I could talk to people face to face (what used to be the only way) and it was by default private. I could keep written notes and records and they were by default private.

There were special-case mechanisms to violate that privacy (e.g. search warrants, targeted spying) but by their nature they target specific people and, at least most of the time, go through a process with some checks and balances. I don't have any objection to this type of spying. If someone is suspected of a serious crime, it's reasonable for society to have a way to approve planting some surveillance bugs on them and them only.

It's only now that nearly all communication is over third party systems that government suddenly feel it's ok to spy on everyone and all the time. It's clearly not ok, nothing murky about that.

[xp84]

> special-case mechanisms to violate that privacy (e.g. search warrants, targeted spying)… go through a process with some checks and balances. I don't have any objection to this type of spying

I think this is why it’s such a hot issue though. E2E Encryption is a “get out of all surveillance free card.” Even a mildly trained criminal or terrorist can easily guarantee that his communications will never be intercepted. This has never existed before.

I share with people in the pro-Encryption camp the acknowledgments that you can’t un-invent encryption, so you’ll only be catching the most dim-witted criminals by nerfing the mainstream messengers. Anybody can use the ‘OpenSSL” cli to make unbreakable encryption no matter what laws say.

But I also acknowledge how frustrating it is that a truly bad person can simply bypass all the “just” exceptions to privacy, like a search warrant, if they’re even a little savvy.

TL;DR nerfing iMessage (etc) ain’t it, but I can see how non-evil people in law enforcement wish something could be done about the root problem, which is somewhat new.

[jjav]

> E2E Encryption is a “get out of all surveillance free card.”

That's the misdirection the pro-surveillance agencies use but it's not true at all.

People still ultimately exist in meatspace (as it used to be called). If you get a warrant based on legitimate suspicion to follow someone, you can assign detectives to follow them, plant bugs in their home, wire up collaborators and all the endless techniques that were used before the internet was around. People are still people and they walk around in the real world, they can be spied upon.

Sure, it's not as easy as sitting back in the DA office and spying on everyone all day long with zero effort, but it should not be. When the power is given to remove fundamental rights to privacy from someone, it needs to be based on a legitimate process and it must take effort. If it is zero-effort it will be relentlessly abused.

[xp84]

> all the endless techniques that were used before the internet was around

Ok that’s another fallacy though. Before, authorities could get a warrant to wiretap phones and to check the outsides of your envelopes (a “mail cover.”) Only an idiot criminal would ever make a phone call or mail a letter today for anything even remotely related to crime because e2e encrypted calls and chat apps are a thing now, removing lots of risk (nobody can do anything short of getting in the room with one party and peeking over his shoulder, which is not just hard for “lazy” cops, it would be hard for elite international spies). That’s a whole new thing, and a big deal if your job is say, stopping and apprehending human trafficking rings or organized crime.

Again though I’m not saying “and that’s why we should have a back door for cops.” I’m not and we shouldn’t. Just that people who say things have changed in a very impactful way are not being hyperbolic or dishonest.

[jjav]

> Before, authorities could get a warrant to wiretap phones

So basically, before the invention of phones, no criminal was ever caught?

Clearly that's not true. It is entirely possible to follow and spy on people in person and that's how it was always done before the 20th century.

Just because new technologies exist does not justify using them to inifinitely augment surveillance powers of the state.

> a big deal if your job is say, stopping and apprehending human trafficking rings or organized crime

You don't succeed at human trafficking or organized crime if you never leave the house and spend all your day just chatting on signal. You have to actually go out into the real world and do the crimes. As soon as you step out of the house you can be followed and monitored and caught in the act.

[raxxorraxor]

These checks and balances are an illusion. They do not work. Courts are overwhelmed with work and suddenly will sign anything. Minimal impact and minimal risk aside for the victim.

An experienced and higher public official will get permission for everything. There is neither a check, nor any balance at all. This is true for every country that pretends surveillance would happen with care.

> get out of all surveillance free card.

Because it is the only encryption that works.