undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnothrabannosir7y ago0 comments

This sounds like a first order objection to a second order concern.

In particular:

> What’s not going to sell, and what the tech industry needs to get over is “lulz, it’ll impossible to intercept military or terrorist information because I need absolute privacy for my saucy emails”

Seems to be an ironic mischaracterisation of the parent’s point, which was precisely that one coubtry’s terrorism is another’s gay rights activist or high ranking foreign official.

From the article:

In 2017, for instance, the operatives used Karma to hack an iPhone used by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, as well as the devices of Turkey’s former Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Şimşek, and Oman’s head of foreign affairs, Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah. It isn’t clear what material was taken from their devices.

“Saucy e-mails” is a bit tone deaf :(

0 pointsnothrabannosir7y ago0 comments

This sounds like a first order objection to a second order concern.

In particular:

Seems to be an ironic mischaracterisation of the parent’s point, which was precisely that one coubtry’s terrorism is another’s gay rights activist or high ranking foreign official.

From the article:

“Saucy e-mails” is a bit tone deaf :(

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

FakeComments7y ago· 3 in thread

> Seems to be an ironic mischaracterisation of the parent’s point, which was precisely that one coubtry’s terrorism is another’s gay rights activist or high ranking foreign official.

My point was that issues like this should be mediated by courts and existing legal systems, not the unilateral decision of technologists.

And that society is going to insist that be the case, hence the most effective way to protect those persecuted minorities is via cooperation and steering how that process happens — not fighting a losing battle.

Finally, that the way to increase the effective security is stop fighting ideological battles on the issue, and find a politically workable compromise which still prevents remote exploitation — the main danger of encryption bypasses.

darkpuma7y ago

Which courts? Which legal systems? Legal systems and courts of nations who believe political speech is a crime and that alternative lifestyles are capital offenses?

FakeComments7y ago

The ones who are capable of compelling the phone company to obey over political pressure from other sources.

This is a strict improvement over the current situation, where the answer is “anyone who has money”.

2 more replies

baybal27y ago

> not the unilateral decision of technologists.

It should be, and would the judge disagree, show the honourable justice disagree, make him feel who is the boss in the internets.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse