Someone using something unethically does not make the thing being used unethical. Encrypted communication is a great example of this...how many people circumvent local laws with encrypted communication in order to reveal crimes against humanity? There have always been unethical laws somewhere in the world as long as governed societies have existed.
It's not about the application of morally correct decryption of messages by a third-party, but about the immoral decryption (whatever that is); an algorithm or system cannot tell the difference in the intent of the decryptor.
If there exists a technical method by which to decrypt arbitrary messages, it will be abused. Claiming you can keep this method secret whilst the world searches in earnest for that secret is unrealistic. Saying that only certain types of communication should be subject to vulnerable encryption infers that the encryption algorithm can tell the difference between those types of communication: is it OK to encrypt banking transactional communications with unbreakable encryption, but internet chat communications must be encrypted with breakable encryption? How can you tell the difference? How can you ensure that someone isn't sending communications that are evidence of criminal activities over the banking communications channels? The Algorithm doesn't know or care what kind of communication it is, and once encrypted, an outside observer can't tell anyway.
You could say "well, chat program providers are only allowed to use breakable encryption, but bankers are allowed to use the unbreakable kind". So, now you have created a protected class of people, who are allowed privacy, and another who are not. Bankers commit crimes too, but the evidence of their crimes won't be available to be decrypted. So maybe you could make it illegal for people to communicate plans of criminal activity over unbreakable encryption, but that won't stop criminals from doing it. You could ban encryption entirely, but then whole, legitimate industries, such as online banking; international banking; stock exchanges; online commerce; "cloud computing"; and managed service providers would be untenable, and wither and die.
We do not live in the pre-digital era. We do now have the technology to make secure communication possible. The question is whether it should be legal. I think it is overwhelmingly the case that it should be.
I wonder if someday laws will be based on a formal moral foundation instead of making things illegal just because 80% of people don't like those things.
I think hacking is one of those things that are illegal because people don't like them. Ultimately, hacking is just sending messages through a wire. Objectively speaking, it isn't much different from hitting the like button on a Youtube video. Formally speaking, all messages sent over the Internet are numbers, so "anti-hacking laws" are essentially laws that make some arbitrary and undisclosed set of numbers illegal to send.
I'm not sure what you mean about the outdated, you might be writting to another post but:
> Anyway, what happens when messaging with ciphertext becomes illegal?
Those who have nefarious intentions don't really care what the legality is.. Also those who are not nefarious encrypted aren't identified because they're encrypted.. Thats why this argument seems very.. Moronic at best.
I don't think so. Laws change all the time, and a society's fears and priorities change over time too. Technology both gives us the ability to archive and analyze communications forever, and to provably protect (encrypt) them forever. Laws only give us the ability to protect our communication as long as the complex web of human desires and emotions allows it.
I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if an Apple employee leaves an iPhone 6 in a bar, I should legally be able to break it apart. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
It might be ethically wrong for me to do so, but it should be legal for me to do so.
If Monsanto can't keep its products out of a community silo, and Farmer John wants to go fishing for their seeds by spraying them all with a commonly obtained chemical and seeing what survives, I think that should be legal too.
Hopefully this isn't seen as splitting hairs, but I'm going to take your statement from the engineer and divide it up:
> This is technically possible, there are the grounds for believing it is so.
I don't see an ethical conundrum here. Determining whether a system could be built is amoral at worst, or in the public interest at best. If an engineer says "this could be built" and a lawyer says "this could legally be built", that's when you get into a spot where you can have real societal discussions about whether or not it should be built.
If something is legal to build, but impossible to build (given current technology), then it's mostly an idle curiosity. If something's illegal to build, but technically possible, then there's reasonably compelling evidence that you probably shouldn't build it (save for, e.g. civil disobedience).
> I'll build it and maintain it.
That's where the ethics comes into play, and the grey area. If something is both legal and feasible, then it's up to you to decide whether or not it's something you want to be part of. I can look at the folks who built the mass surveillance system and say "I don't believe that was ethical", and others can look at it and say "I'm so proud of these people for defending my country".
An opposing piece of technology would be end-to-end encrypted messaging. In my world view, end-to-end encrypted messaging is perfectly moral. I believe that people should be able to communicate without having their conversations eavesdropped. But I also recognize that this does enable immoral/unethical activity as well; it's just that, to me, the balance leans towards private communication. Others may (and do!) disagree.
Is it misuse? Being able to say what you want (illegal or not) without the government knowing about it is arguably one of the most advertised features of encrypted messaging.
(I agree with your assessment, of course. Just curious what your personal stance is.)
No, I still maintain it can be engineered around. If enough people start random streams between themselves, is the government going to prevent that? Noise actually can be put into anything, it could be images, sound, random.org, whatever.
You can then embed crypto in those streams. When the prosecutors can't even distinguish intent then there's a problem. No third party may ever know someone exchanged encrypted messages.
So again, I'm not saying the law is fundamentally inconsistent or anything, it's just that it's pretty easy to make it unenforceable and undetectable.
I would argue that cryptography wouldn't violate that aspect. The intent isn't to violate human rights or civil liberties, even though it can certainly be used that way. So too can a text editor or a printer driver or scheduling software. I think you're being a bit broad.
To me, it reads fairly clearly as a stand against code whose specific intent is unethical, not it's potential and unrelated uses.
reply