Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

I prefer to point out: if only “interesting” people encrypt their messages, then encrypting your messages becomes a signal that you are interesting. As a boring person who thinks the state shouldn’t be allowed to focus the Eye of Sauron on anybody, I have a responsibility to encrypt my boring brunch plans.

I think “I’m not that important” is basically either the result of someone not thinking very hard, or it is a dishonest anti-encryption position. Embedded in it is the message that only certain types of people ought to be worried about the scrutiny of the state, and that the person holding the position is happy to take advantage of the fact that they aren’t that sort of person. Force them to face that position head-on, I think.

View on HN

What about as a boring person who does think the state should be allowed to focus the Eye of Sauron on people?

And that person doesn't have to be anti-encryption, just anti-bad opsec.

> What about as a boring person who does think the state should be allowed to focus the Eye of Sauron on people?

Sure. Not everyone has to agree with me. I think it is unpopular to be happy about intelligence agencies spying on us. So hopefully I can win over some of the in-between people by causing them to fully face their position. But if someone just fundamentally disagrees with me, I think this tactic won’t work. Coming up with arguments for people who fundamentally disagree with you is pretty difficult.

> And that person doesn't have to be anti-encryption, just anti-bad opsec.

I’m not sure I follow here. But in general, for example I don’t think it is reasonable to expect non-technical people who aren’t, like, spies to have perfect opsec all the time. So, like journalists and activists, they will inevitable slip up sometimes, anything we can do to mitigate that is good.

That's the thing; for someone who thinks "eye of Sauron" is acceptable, they don't think it means "writ large surveillance of everyone", they think it means "targeted surveillance via warrant of a credible threat to American interests domestic and abroad."

So you really have a disagreement on terms, not on merits.

I’ve presented one possible rebuttal to the “I’m not interesting, so I don’t need to encrypt my communications” position. “It is OK to spy on some people sometimes” is a different position, so a different rebuttal would be necessary.

It isn’t really clear to me if you are actually trying to make these arguments in and of themselves, or if you think they add light to the first point. So, I’m not sure how to respond, sorry.

I don't think you're being clear about what "eye of Sauron" means, but I think that's on purpose, as the argument in favor of the concept of using surveillance via warrants undermines your larger "right to privacy" point.

Ok. I guarantee I’m not that clever. I’ll avoid that particular phrase in the future. I was just being informal, but yes, I can see that it is misleading.

I think we should have lots of encrypted communication out there, to make it a normalized day-to-day thing, and to make bulk surveillance more difficult.

You are right that “eye of Sauron” evokes a different idea, which is more like investigating a specific known target. If done correctly that could be OK in some cases.

They should remember to get their booster shot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com