Hacker News Reader

Comment by Razengan | Hacker News Reader

I have a suspicion you might be a criminal. Tell us the passwords to all your accounts to prove your innocence.

That is a very lame straw man argument.

Are you sure you appreciate how many criminals got convicted because their phones have been tapped?

Does your stance against lawful surveillance also mean that law enforcement must never try to look into a suspect's seized phone or computer?

You speak of strawman, yet respond with more strawmen.

Interesting tactic.

But, ultimately, the security and safety of the American public is served best by actually using software and services that are safe and secure. When the Federal government works against that they are undermining the security of the American public.

It's not very complicated. The interests of the government do not align with the interests of the American public.

It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you?

And if you really don't think surveillance should be completely outlawed, as it was in Japan for a time, then you don't have any basis for disagreeing with me.

>It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you?

Well, Jakuza could find 50000 ways to bypass the "police listening".

Tapping telephones had not really helped thwart Latin/Central American drug dealers (which got 10x as big and dangerous from when wiretapping was far more difficult).

Heck, in Italy, where the state could quite easily wiretap anybody, has a much bigger "Yakuza" style problem...

Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody...

> Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody...

Wait, but this sub-thread started with "all wiretapping was illegal" - so it was not only warrantles wiretapping that was illegal, if I understood it correctly.

Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there?

Fun Fact: Central American cartels have indeed switched to communication channels that are harder to intercept. And boiling down such a complicated issue as cartel violence to a simple issue as phone surveillance is at best dishonest.

>Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there?

Well, if one can't use basic common sense, and instead believe that just because wiretapping was illegal, criminals the Yakuza casually talked in normal phones and didn't already use burner phones, code words, walkie talkies, etc, I don't know what is left to argue...

You just don't want to listen, do you? It's a basic fact that criminals use basic communications like phone and text messaging all the time. It's a fact they get caught because of that, all the time (sometimes even the most sophisticated and organized ones). It's a fact that using less susceptible means of communications, like walkie talkies and encrypted messaging, is more difficult.

Which of these basic facts are you disputing?

You are being very defensive. This makes you even more suspect.

Why won't you hand over your passwords if you have nothing to hide?

Why won't you reply with a logical argument if you disagree with something? Maybe because you can't defend your position with logic?

Why won't you just hand over your passwords and put this whole matter — for both sides of the argument — to rest?

His is a very logical argument.

> Does your stance against lawful surveillance also mean that law enforcement must never try to look into a suspect's seized phone or computer?

By all means, try. A warrant authorizes the attempt; it does not guarantee the outcome.

A warrant can also authorize surveillance, at least in most countries. In Japan even that was impossible until 1999. That's why I said the Jakuza and other criminals in Japan probably liked that policy...

And both surveillance and the seizure of evidence are routinely the key to convicting criminals. Outlawing court-approved surveillance or even seizure of evidence makes basic laws, like against homicide, much less enforceable.

>That's why I said the Jakuza and other criminals in Japan probably liked that policy...

Well, they also liked that other policy, that suspected Yakuza members can't just be shot on sight -- but had to be arrested, go through trial, etc.

So?

Bad guys liking a policy and the policy being generally bad is not the same thing...

Again with the straw man. Please read more carefully.

I did not imply anything with that statement but the pure and simple fact that the Jakuza has at least one big extra problem to deal with since police are actually allowed to tap their phones.

And you could also be more honest by saying that total privacy is more important to you than a significant portion of criminal convictions. I don't think that's a good tradeoff.

>I did not imply anything with that statement but the pure and simple fact that the Jakuza has at least one big extra problem to deal with since police are actually allowed to tap their phones.

I seriously doubt it is a problem for them, much less "a big one". What kind of amateurs speak openly on their regular phones about covert action, whether it's legal or not to wiretap them? Besides the fact that the police could be listening in (illegally, but still routine in most of the world) to get useful tips (and use them, just without expecting to use the recordings in a trial), rival gangs could also listen in on their plans, and so on...

>And you could also be more honest by saying that total privacy is more important to you than a significant portion of criminal convictions

Considering that Japan is perhaps the safest countries in the world (and was for decades while wiretapping was not allowed), and the US and UK with dead easy access to wiretapping warrants and mass surveillance are of the worst western countries in regards of crime, I don't think there's that much to teach the Japanese with regards to getting more "criminal convictions"...

What kind of amateurs use basic phones for criminal activity? Well, apparently a whole lot of them, looking at criminal convictions based on such surveillance. Are you disputing that basic and obvious fact?

Sorry, but this is not a fact based argument any more. You are somehow trying to convince me that, despite all evidence and data, wiretaps are useless in prosecution of criminals. I'm not having that, anymore.

How has the conviction rate changed since 1999?

The conviction rate in Japan is bonkers and has been for a long time.

http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.j...

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion because such a rate would depend on a huge number of more significant factors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com