GNU Jami Taranis Released For Free Software Conferencing, Peer-To-Peer Communication

[coder]

If US government said you are not my citizen so I can violate your human right however I like, I think I will be more tolerable to that,

Well, they don't . They're a signatory to Geneva Conventions and probably other treaties that limit what they can do. Plus, certain US legal protections do apply, but I'm not knowledgeable about that.

But circumventing laws by artificially claiming the airport is a constitution-less zone is ... ugly.

They're not circumventing laws, I'm sure of that much. The question is whether the legal framework they're using violates the Constitution, which I assume has been well-tested. And it's not as if one completely waives all Constitutional rights, either. If there were a blatant and unnecessary violation, I think there would be legal recourse.

[billyswong]

The US Constitution provides protections to US citizens. I'm a little unclear on the exact protections afforded to foreign nationals legally in the US and the basis for doing so, but their lack of US citizenship would've enabled the 9/11 attackers to be surveilled without a warrant, for those previously suspected of having links to terrorism. And that extends back, well prior to their entrance into the USA, hence why the CIA was watching them. And even if they'd needed a warrant, I doubt it would've been an impediment.


Yes, for that attack. And airplane cockpits were secured as a result. However, as it's not the only threat terrorists can pose to air travelers, it's not enough to merely lock the cockpits and then go back to how things were. There have been numerous airplane bomb plots foiled in the meantime, the most famous of which involved the "shoe bomber", who had a truly dangerous explosive and failed to detonate it due to mere incompetence. Another notable one was bombs hidden in printer ink cartridges in checked luggage.

Their intrusive way to search travellers are unhelpful in discovering bombs. One don't find bombs by unlocking people's phones and computers. One find bombs by training dogs and sniff them out.

There are different reasons & standards for security at airports. Two of these apply to international arrivals: immigration and import/export controls. The third is for all travelers, and the reason it circumvents 4th Amendment protections is that it only applies to those who opt to fly on an airplane. I think the argument goes that since it's not a right to use air travel, there can be limitations placed on other rights, so long as they're reasonable and justifiable.

If US government said you are not my citizen so I can violate your human right however I like, I think I will be more tolerable to that, even though I am the not-US-citizen. But circumventing laws by artificially claiming the airport is a constitution-less zone is ... ugly. We all know unlocking phones and computers won't help in discovering the phones or computers are modified to be also capable as being a bomb or not. That part of custom has nothing to do with airport security or airplane security.

Weirdly, it's almost as if you're arguing against your above point. Nobody expects cockpit access control to be a perfect solution, which is why there are things like no-fly lists, air marshals, and why airplane crew + passengers are now more alert to the threat of cockpit intrusions.

More elaborate access control mechanisms probably can't be retrofit into existing planes. Maybe newer planes have something like a man trap, although I'd be suspicious of anything where an electronics failure or hack could be used to deny access to the cockpit, since the risk of the real crew being shut out for a time is itself a threat unlike anything bank vaults have to contend with.

We also shouldn't forget the tragic case where a suicidal pilot crashed a plane filled with several hundred passengers into the Alps, several years ago. However, that only takes us further off-topic from the theme of balancing security vs. privacy rights.

The suicidal incident shows further how the current kidnap preventive measures for airplanes are flawed. It is good to make the cockpit lock better. But that doesn't mean it is good to make the cockpit locked from inside and unable to enter from outside.

But yeah, it is too offtopic already. My take of balancing security vs. privacy is this: Install spy microphones and spy cameras for your suspect. Broad surveillance though backdoors in normal communications pose a higher security threat then what they claim they help.

[coder]

Police and agents can still install spy microphones and spy cameras to anywhere they want to target any suspect of terrorists, WITHOUT backdoor to any electronic communication nor local/cloud file storage. I remember there were investigation reports after 9/11. In those reports, suspicious behaviors of the terrorists were already found and recorded by intelligence agencies.

The US Constitution provides protections to US citizens. I'm a little unclear on the exact protections afforded to foreign nationals legally in the US and the basis for doing so, but their lack of US citizenship would've enabled the 9/11 attackers to be surveilled without a warrant, for those previously suspected of having links to terrorism. And that extends back, well prior to their entrance into the USA, hence why the CIA was watching them. And even if they'd needed a warrant, I doubt it would've been an impediment.

Protecting the cockpit from unauthorized entrance would have been enough.

Yes, for that attack. And airplane cockpits were secured as a result. However, as it's not the only threat terrorists can pose to air travelers, it's not enough to merely lock the cockpits and then go back to how things were. There have been numerous airplane bomb plots foiled in the meantime, the most famous of which involved the "shoe bomber", who had a truly dangerous explosive and failed to detonate it due to mere incompetence. Another notable one was bombs hidden in printer ink cartridges in checked luggage.

The current security measures in airports are already taking terrorism as an excuse to over-expand their power, in the form of looking into people's computer / phone however they like, as if someone may actually plant a timed bomb in a laptop or smartphone, ugh.

There are different reasons & standards for security at airports. Two of these apply to international arrivals: immigration and import/export controls. The third is for all travelers, and the reason it circumvents 4th Amendment protections is that it only applies to those who opt to fly on an airplane. I think the argument goes that since it's not a right to use air travel, there can be limitations placed on other rights, so long as they're reasonable and justifiable.

And oh yeah, most passenger planes today still only have 1 layer of door to cockpit. Punching someone into coma when they are opening door needs no knife / bomb / pistol. This illustrate how much the security drama in airports are just a bunch of joke and excuse for their sinister power grab.

Weirdly, it's almost as if you're arguing against your above point. Nobody expects cockpit access control to be a perfect solution, which is why there are things like no-fly lists, air marshals, and why airplane crew + passengers are now more alert to the threat of cockpit intrusions.

More elaborate access control mechanisms probably can't be retrofit into existing planes. Maybe newer planes have something like a man trap, although I'd be suspicious of anything where an electronics failure or hack could be used to deny access to the cockpit, since the risk of the real crew being shut out for a time is itself a threat unlike anything bank vaults have to contend with.

We also shouldn't forget the tragic case where a suicidal pilot crashed a plane filled with several hundred passengers into the Alps, several years ago. However, that only takes us further off-topic from the theme of balancing security vs. privacy rights.

[billyswong]

Yes, of course.


None of those examples is necessarily a problem, provided there are controls on how the data is used and how long it's retained.

What I see is a broken discourse where abuse of surveillance technology isn't motivating fixes, but rather fueling an arms race that has some potentially very negative side effects.

Right now, there doesn't seem to be a big downside to increasing privacy. However, we should think ahead to when there's another big mass-casualty terrorist attack. History tells us that will cause the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. So, we'd best focus on policies, techniques, and technologies that can be used to preserve the privacy of the innocent, without unduly protecting those criminals and terrorists who do the greatest harm. Otherwise, we risk both great harm and great loss of privacy.

P.S. In the US, it would be nice also to address surveillance by corporate actors. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal showed, this can lead to great societal harms, by itself.

Police and agents can still install spy microphones and spy cameras to anywhere they want to target any suspect of terrorists, WITHOUT backdoor to any electronic communication nor local/cloud file storage. I remember there were investigation reports after 9/11. In those reports, suspicious behaviors of the terrorists were already found and recorded by intelligence agencies. It is only for bureaucratic or maybe also personnel / financial reasons those information weren't act upon.

The true danger of 9/11 is terrorists getting control of an airplane and fly it to specific location to crash into. Protecting the cockpit from unauthorized entrance would have been enough. Banks are highly experienced in that, with 2 layers of doors and distinct password lock for each layer. It is highly effective. The current security measures in airports are already taking terrorism as an excuse to over-expand their power, in the form of looking into people's computer / phone however they like, as if someone may actually plant a timed bomb in a laptop or smartphone, ugh.

And oh yeah, most passenger planes today still only have 1 layer of door to cockpit. Punching someone into coma when they are opening door needs no knife / bomb / pistol. This illustrate how much the security drama in airports are just a bunch of joke and excuse for their sinister power grab.

[aht0]

Yeah. Just dont order anything from there nor go as a tourist. Mengele and Nazi leadership have been outdone by them.

Nazis never got to farming human beings for organs and Orwell's ideas were amateurish compared to what's done in PRC.

[coder]

They'll suddenly make sure you can't sell or buy anything from/to China

That's in a category all its own. I can't defend what they're doing, nor would I even like to try.

[Almindor]

Truth is, that unless you do something to catch the eye of the authorities, your privacy isn't in danger from authorities.

All you have to do these days to get on the list of pretty much any government is to say something like Xi Jinping is a fat Pooh the Bear.

They'll suddenly make sure you can't sell or buy anything from/to China and anyone doing anything with China, just like they did to Lithuania. And the Germans said "yes sir pooh the bear!"

[coder]

However, this does not entail that we accept any anti-privacy policy by the government because they known best, and they need to fight crime. This is ridiculous, as grownups we must have a basic understanding of what our rights are, and we must know when things go too far.

Yes, of course.

The problem is that governments around the world are going too far. It's everything from installing cameras in public spaces, powered by facial recognition, to hacking people's devices, to surveilling exactly where people's money go, to forcing ISPs to save logs, and on and on it goes.

None of those examples is necessarily a problem, provided there are controls on how the data is used and how long it's retained.

What I see is a broken discourse where abuse of surveillance technology isn't motivating fixes, but rather fueling an arms race that has some potentially very negative side effects.

Right now, there doesn't seem to be a big downside to increasing privacy. However, we should think ahead to when there's another big mass-casualty terrorist attack. History tells us that will cause the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. So, we'd best focus on policies, techniques, and technologies that can be used to preserve the privacy of the innocent, without unduly protecting those criminals and terrorists who do the greatest harm. Otherwise, we risk both great harm and great loss of privacy.

P.S. In the US, it would be nice also to address surveillance by corporate actors. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal showed, this can lead to great societal harms, by itself.

[board]

Which politicians, specifically? I'm skeptical, because that's not a very popular line to take, lately.

I don't remember the names exactly, but these were Scandinavian politicians proposing such a law in the name of fighting crime. Obviously, they didn't say we get to spy on you for any reason. It's always accompanied with some kind of seemingly valid justification, but the effect is basically the same.

I'm not smart enough to have all the answers, but I can at least see the solution that maximizes freedom across society is not the one that provides uncompromising privacy to the individual. There are tradeoffs to be made, and we do ourselves a disservice not to acknowledge that.


Yes, the potential for abuse cannot be ignored. That's why it needs auditability that can't be circumvented, which will preserve transparency and accountability. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I don't think anyone would argue against there being a balance, unless you're an anarchist of course. However, this does not entail that we accept any anti-privacy policy by the government because they known best, and they need to fight crime. This is ridiculous, as grownups we must have a basic understanding of what our rights are, and we must know when things go too far.

The problem is that governments around the world are going too far. It's everything from installing cameras in public spaces, powered by facial recognition, to hacking people's devices, to surveilling exactly where people's money go, to forcing ISPs to save logs, and on and on it goes. This is a reality today, in the West, and it's definitely not acceptable.

[coder]

unless you do something to catch the eye of the authorities, your privacy isn't in danger from authorities. Because manning is finite and computers filtering traffic are not really interested of dirty laundry of your broken relationship or your at-distance "pillow talk".

There's firstly the problem of someone wrongly caught up in surveillance. People have been added to no-fly lists, unable to appeal their status, and unable even to see the rationale behind them getting added. This lack of transparency and recourse is a huge problem. Also potentially fixable, but worth noting.

The second problem is when someone tries to use government surveillance systems for political purposes. Don't forget that Watergate was about the sitting President of the USA using the FBI to spy on political opponents. This actually happened.

Third, if/when nothing is forgotten, anything from your past can be cherry-picked and perhaps taken out of context to use against you. Potentially at some time in the future, when existing safeguards have been broken down. This is why it's important to limit the scope and duration that surveillance records are retained, especially for those not suspected of doing anything wrong.

Thinking that some org in governmental structure really cares about your sex emails and keeping those "private"

Oh, but indeed government surveillance has been abused by individuals for non-government purposes. We already know of some instances where this happened, such as by police offers against ex-girlfrieds/ex-wives. There are surely more that we don't know about.

Also, bad things can happen without intent, and people can get lost in a bureaucracy. I'm not arguing against bureaucracy, but national government is big & complex and it's possible for people to get lost in the bowels of the system.

All of that is to argue for transparency and auditability. We need to eliminate the possibility for government surveillance to be used without leaving a track-record that can eventually be linked up to all the details of the case, so there can be accountability in the case of abuses and so that accidents can more easily & efficiently be remedied.

True criminals are a problem. And they need secure way of communication to plan, coordinate and execute their dirty deeds.
An example: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-...-communication

Yup. This proves that plenty of criminals were at least smart enough to use an app they thought was secure.

Here's another link about that "Anom" app, if anyone is interested:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...stralia-crime/