One Line
While privacy is important, it is not possible to address the downside of eavesdropping without damaging privacy for good people.
Key Points
- Law enforcement can muddle along without strong privacy, and criminal activities often have real-world effects.
- Signal offers an upside and a downside: privacy is protected from snoopers, but authorities cannot eavesdrop on bad guys.
- It's impossible to ensure that only "good" law enforcement organizations have access to data.
- The cracking of EncroChat is an example of law enforcement not needing the ability to eavesdrop on encrypted communications.
- Mutual authentication encryption and pervasive biometric authentication can provide a high degree of certainty that the other party is who they say they are.
- Privacy is important, but it's not possible to address the downside of eavesdropping without damaging privacy for good people.
Summary
252 word summary
I'm on Mastodon, sharing my professional interests and opinions. The cracking of EncroChat is an example of law enforcement not needing the ability to eavesdrop on encrypted communications. Mark suggests applying the Wall Street Journal test to written communication. Fnordpiglet explains the importance of mutually authenticated encryption and pervasive biometric authentication, which can provide a high degree of certainty that the other party is who they say they are. Privacy is a good thing, and Signal is a great way to communicate with extreme privacy. Law enforcement can muddle along without strong privacy, and criminal activities often have real-world effects. Reid Blackman's article, "The Signal App and the Danger of Privacy at All Costs" (NYTimes) is wrong and dangerously misleading. While privacy is important, it's not possible to address the downside of eavesdropping (e.g. stopping bad people from planning nefarious activities) without damaging privacy for good people.
In the course of investigating the January 6th insurrection, police were able to access traitors' Signal conversations. Blackman states that if anyone has access to data, many unauthorized people probably will have access too. However, Signal and its employees are smart and can fight against the world-wide army of attackers.
Moreover, it's impossible to ensure that only "good" law enforcement organizations have access to data. Signal offers an upside and a downside: privacy is protected from snoopers, but authorities cannot eavesdrop on bad guys.
In conclusion, while privacy is important, it's not possible to address the downside of eavesdropping without damaging privacy for good people.