Encryption is a necessity
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
On the other hand, I think they should most certainly not be encouraged to secure products against their users:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
What worries me the most about this seemingly frantic push for more encryption is that it will accelerate the proliferation and acceptance of locked-down, user-hostile devices. Security is important but so is freedom, and I feel like we've already sacrificed too much of the latter for the former...
We're already there. Can you read the Windows 10 telemetry?
I think it is fair to say if you don't like the options we give you then maybe you should fork the project and build it yourself.
Personally I think RMS is a man ahead of his time, and that history will prove he has the correct view regarding user freedom.
We should not reinforce the idea that one must sacrifice freedom for security, sacrifice privacy for security, etc. Those are false choices based on fundamentally flawed definitions of "secure" and "security".
Even if the system purports to be secure, that doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't been tampered with, or that a backdoor hasn't been installed---we've had a number of examples of this lately. A fully free, reproducible system is needed here.
There's an often-used argument to dismiss this concept: that free software can still have security bugs. And then they cite recent issues like "Shellshock" and "Heartbleed". Freedom doesn't guarantee security, but it has stronger assurances than proprietary systems, where you don't even have the chance to look at and study it (to any reasonable degree); and you (collectively) definitely aren't able to modify it to suit your specific needs, study its integration with the larger system, or build it reproducibly.
Any other arguments that can be applied against free software can be applied more strongly to non-free software.
Corollary: Confidence in the security of a proprietary, secret system is always less than a free/libre, transparent one, even if the free system is provably less secure overall.
In a fully free system, it is not possible to lock down users, as the OP was concerned, because someone will just modify the software to remove that anti-feature.
The false premise here is that any argument that can be applied against free software can be applied more strongly to non-free software. Here are two contradictions to that:
1. The resources dedicated to securing non-free software may be far greater than those dedicated to free software because of the business interests in maintaining security. Google has done a lot to improve the security of a variety of open source projects, but only because they form part of a non-free core that would otherwise be compromised. The same holds true for Apple albeit to a lesser extent.
2. A free system can much more easily be compromised by the injection of cloaked vulnerabilities by actors such as the NSA.
You actually haven't shown anything. You have simply stated that transparency trumps everything else. This is false. Transparency simply diffuses the trust model.
More importantly, as I keep saying, nobody has ever produced a transparent system that can be substituted for Apple's system. Until they do, these arguments that a theoretical alternative would be better are imaginary. If it was as simple as you suggest, why hasn't it been done, or at least demonstrated?
I can't see how that is possibly the case. With a non free system the NSA just has to show up with a national security letter and a gag order and the system is compromised.
With the free system the NSA has to push, or get a submitter to push an update that gets missed by anybody that looks at the code.
My argument is about confidence---you cannot trust a system that you do not have confidence in.
Yes, a proprietary system may have had much more development and research. But that doesn't make it "better". With a free system---even if it's more poorly designed---you gain confidence in being able to observe _exactly_ what it does, faults and all. You know what to expect, and what not to; that's far more important than not knowing either of those.
Further, the general recommendation among cryptographers and security experts is to use public algorithms that have been torn apart by cryptanalysts for years---all security should be in the key, for example, _not_ secrets in the implementation.
> Google has done a lot to improve the security of a variety of open source projects, but only because they form part of a non-free core that would otherwise be compromised. The same holds true for Apple albeit to a lesser extent.
This is security through obscurity, and is antithetical to actual security.
> A free system can much more easily be compromised by the injection of cloaked vulnerabilities by actors such as the NSA.
I don't follow. This is one of those situations where you _always_ have more transparency in a free system than a proprietary one---you are able to see _every_ patch that makes it into the system. That doesn't mean that you'll catch everything, but you have the opportunity to do so. And not just you---everyone.
> You actually haven't shown anything. You have simply stated that transparency trumps everything else. This is false. Transparency simply diffuses the trust model.
You cannot have confidence in an opaque system.
> More importantly, as I keep saying, nobody has ever produced a transparent system that can be substituted for Apple's system. Until they do, these arguments that a theoretical alternative would be better are imaginary. If it was as simple as you suggest, why hasn't it been done, or at least demonstrated?
Which system, in particular?
Apple's system should not be used and cannot be trusted---it is proprietary and designed to control the user in countless ways. Apple may take measures to protect their users' privacy and data, but ultimately, users are at Apple's mercy, and Apple has the final say in everything. Apple is historically one of the most opaque, secretive tech companies in existence.
So any free system is an improvement over Apple's.
It's hard to take that seriously.
I challenge you to name a single such system. It should be trivial since the class is so large.
What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically?
From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.
The part that I disagree with is the 'even if the alternative is poor'.
I understand that tolerating non-free software could be seen as moving us further away from a world where free software is the norm, but I also disagree with this.
You are arguing against Apple when the problem you are actually facing is a failure of the free software ecosystem to produce a viable alternative.
From an ideological perspective I would prefer free software too. My argument 'in favor of Apple' isn't really in support of Apple. It is against trying to tear down the current best option in favor of an alternative that doesn't exist.
There is a real fight going on right now, and favoring the government over Apple in this because you prefer free software seems like an extemely counterproductive move.
A free alternative can just as easily be outlawed as the non-free ones can. What matters is the legal and social precedents.
I'm not sure where you got that impression. I apologize if I was unclear.
It's essential that Apple fight this order, and essential that everyone do everything they can to ensure that this precedent is not allowed.
My comments were about the OP's comments about tradeoff between freedom and security.
As I summarized elsewhere:
https://social.mikegerwitz.com/notice/6552
We shouldn't agree with Apple's position on many things.
But it is _essential_ that this precedent---government-mandated backdoors---not be allowed. The stage on which we fight the crypto wars is shared by what would be our enemies in many other respects. So yes, we should choose our own shoes: we can stand with Apple in resisting this order while at the same time standing _against_ them for all of their other evils. This issue does not somehow legitimize all of their other evils.
However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'.
Apple is simply exercising their freedom. I agree that there may be better ways of doing things, but the failure of free software to produce these alternatives is nothing to do with Apple.
If anything, I'd say that standing 'against' Apple, works against the cause of producing a free alternative because it focuses people's attention on misplaced anger towards Apple, rather than on the constructive effort needed to build what is required.
I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
We'll have to agree to disagree here---I don't want it to seem like I'm showing disrespect toward your opinions.
> I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
Apple is exercising a _different_ kind of freedom---a broader set of freedoms, to which they are certainly entitled. Free software represents a small subset of those freedoms---the four freedoms which are designed to protect the users, not the developers.
It's important to educate others on both the free software community's philosophy and on the problems with Apple so that they can have that comparison, and so that they can avoid Apple's products if they decide that those issues matter to them. Apple has an advantage in the number of users---one we'll never have---so we have no choice but to reach out.
Since you've explained this so clearly, I guess I would pinpoint my disagreement at the assumption that the free software movement will never have the number of users that Apple will, and the idea that you have no choice.
Whilst the argument about types of freedom and the goal of free software seems sound, both of these other points seem to be relatively arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with a sense of powerlessness and failure in free software.
I think it's sad because I don't see why either statement should be true, and I think believing them does far more to undermine the goal than to help it.
[0] https://twitter.com/nathanmccauley/status/650450050724708356
A) Not transparent
and
B) No longer supported by mozilla.[0]
[0] - http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-deve...!
Transparent encryption (or, encryption for everyone even my mother) is the best way for it to be effective. So when I say transparent. I mean it should not be obvious to the end user and that user should not have to spend significant time configuring it.
How do we allow people to share their private keys across multiple devices?
I've said before that I think Signal's UX is not great esp compared with other messaging apps.
The following just came to me so I'm going to digress for a bit into stream of consciousness.
* Signal allows for calling now so why not require a first call to verify the other party. I would think people are pretty good at recognizing voices.
* Or send an image and video call to verify?
Still looking for a Signal+Ricochet+Burner type app...
Full disclosure, I have no association whatsoever with signal, it's just good.
Contrast this with the standard Contacts interface. Phone, msg etc. are clearly laid out.
Signal's UX is also confusing with the id being communicated with. For example, if there are multiple numbers, hard to tell which number you are messaging.
These are all little quirks that add up to make it feel much clunkier than other interfaces.
On my case, I've just migrated my domains to use letsencrypt, even if it's just in beta, it's so so much easier compared to 100% manual previous solutions ! Even if it's not domains with a huge trafic, I feel I'm doing my part to help !
I still have a bunch more, if anyone else wants them.
Thanks in any case!
Thanks. I hope you can still see this message.
Thanks again!
You're welcome :)
P.S. Great looking Hakyll site!
I forgot to delete the account, but I did so now, so if you're still willing and would be so kind as to try again, I would greatly appreciate it! If not, no problem!
Thanks for the compliment!
I also emailed you the invitation code they generated, from my personal email.
You could say the same thing about PCs and the internet, especially during their rise to prominence.
This video is a production of the Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society. It is meant to be a starting point for discussions about encryption, privacy, and cybersecurity.
The Internet Exposed: Encryption, Backdoors and Privacy – and the Quest to Maintain Trust
Painfully, it suggests "public vs private" hinges on encryption. The implication is that without encryption, your co-workers will see everything you do!
Public and private are distinct choices. Things can be private and unencrypted. Lack of encryption means lack of security in the event of a breach, it has nothing to do with choosing public vs private posts and web searches.
Works fine in my FF.
And for what it's worth, I think Apple should assist in revealing the contents of the phone if they can. I'm surprised people are defending Apple. My understanding is the request is about making the phone open to brute force attack, so it's not like encryption is under threat. It's poor password choice that's under threat. Apple does not need to compromise any other phone in doing this.
What you're talking about is encryption of data at rest, which is a specific subset of encryption. And even then, what makes you think the breached data won't be available to your coworkers? The stuff on Ashley Madison certainly did.
If you want to sell encryption, please keep it real. A hand written letter to your mother in the post is private unless intentionally and illegally intercepted. By the logic of the video, the letter is passed along and read by your neighbors before reaching its true destination.
Uh, if you're on wifi or a mobile connection, depending on the configuration, it pretty much is exactly like shouting a private message across a room
I could press a glass against the wall and listen to people having a private conversation. Does that make their conversation public "like shouting it across the room"? No. Of course it doesn't.
Get your analogies straight.
I could use my zoom lens to spy over your shoulder as you type your message into your super-encrypted phone. I will now publish the video on youtube, your private message now public. Serves you right for "shouting your message across the room".
We live in a world where eavesdropping on a private conversation is possible because people aren't talking in a cone of silence every time they want privacy. The unlawful intent to listen in needs to be there, and then some sort of action is required to hear the conversation, such as holding a glass to a wall.
Exactly the same with digital messages. Sure, they can be listened to, but not by just anyone accidentally, as the video seems to suggest. Unlawful intent is required, and specific actions with specific software to listen in.
I'm all for encryption, but let's get something straight: unencrypted messages are not dripping down the walls for anyone to read who passes by.