5 ms·

I'm confused reading this. How in the world is GPS-tracking someone's car supposed to show hypocrisy with respect to encryption?

egorfine 3mo ago
Because this someone wants to know location of everyone in the country while his own location should be of course private and protected.
- defrost 3mo ago
  Hmmm, in context he was(?) tracking a public ministers car. I'm Australian and I'm all for peeling back and making transparent all the comings and goings of public officials (within reason) - they deserve a good return, a hefty return even, for dedicated public service .. and they deserve to know that there's a hammer waiting for any betrayal of public trust, shady financial dealings (while in office), etc. As a "known in advance covenant" that's not altogether unreasonable, raises the bar for would be Trumpesque grifters, and allows for privacy for those not seeking access to public offices, trust, and cookie jars.
- dataflow 3mo ago
  I still don't understand what that has to do with encryption. Are these two separate policy proposals, one for GPS tracking and one for encryption, that this person is supporting?
  - prepend 3mo ago
    Encryption is used to remain private in ones comings and goings and communication. It’s not the same as gps, but it’s similar. If you can decrypt someone’s communications, you can more easily determine their location.
  - bondarchuk 3mo ago
    Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time. Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order.
    - gpvos 3mo ago
      It may be of the same order, but it is a different thing. No one, not even techies like here on HN, are going to see his actions as valid.
      - bondarchuk 3mo ago
        He has to use a different method because obviously he does not have a backdoor into the prime minister's phone. The fact that "obviously wrong" invasive methods have to be used (now) to imitate something that the prime minister want to apply to every citizen (except himself and his buddies) in the future can be seen as part of the point.
        gpvos 3mo ago
        Yes, but that also means he both goes too far (for people like me who might sympathize with him) and loses the connection with the original issue, creating his own communication problem. Yes, it is good and necessary to show politicians what they are doing to the citizens they are supposed to represent, but that does not justify all means.
      - wqaatwt 3mo ago
        It’s not fundamentally different than indiscriminately scanning everyone’s private communication (what the Danish government is trying to accomplish on the EU level)
        gpvos 3mo ago
        I think we'll keep disagreeing on what "fundamentally different" means. Agreed that the Danish gov't proposals are reprehensible and deserve counteraction.
    - dataflow 3mo ago
      > Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time. Or, say, because they want a judicial warrant to be sufficient for obtaining someone's information without their consent? > Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order. Huh? This sounds crazy.
- expedition32 3mo ago
  Lol that's bullshit. There is a difference between "accessible to law enforcement in a official criminal investigation overseen by a judge" and "public to everyone". What these weirdo hacktivists don't understand is that the voting public wants to live in a society.
skeaker 3mo ago
"You take my privacy, I take yours" would be the thought process here. Not complicated.

egorfine 3mo ago

Because this someone wants to know location of everyone in the country while his own location should be of course private and protected.

defrost 3mo ago
Hmmm, in context he was(?) tracking a public ministers car. I'm Australian and I'm all for peeling back and making transparent all the comings and goings of public officials (within reason) - they deserve a good return, a hefty return even, for dedicated public service .. and they deserve to know that there's a hammer waiting for any betrayal of public trust, shady financial dealings (while in office), etc. As a "known in advance covenant" that's not altogether unreasonable, raises the bar for would be Trumpesque grifters, and allows for privacy for those not seeking access to public offices, trust, and cookie jars.
dataflow 3mo ago
I still don't understand what that has to do with encryption. Are these two separate policy proposals, one for GPS tracking and one for encryption, that this person is supporting?
- prepend 3mo ago
  Encryption is used to remain private in ones comings and goings and communication. It’s not the same as gps, but it’s similar. If you can decrypt someone’s communications, you can more easily determine their location.
- bondarchuk 3mo ago
  Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time. Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order.
  - gpvos 3mo ago
    It may be of the same order, but it is a different thing. No one, not even techies like here on HN, are going to see his actions as valid.
    - bondarchuk 3mo ago
      He has to use a different method because obviously he does not have a backdoor into the prime minister's phone. The fact that "obviously wrong" invasive methods have to be used (now) to imitate something that the prime minister want to apply to every citizen (except himself and his buddies) in the future can be seen as part of the point.
      - gpvos 3mo ago
        Yes, but that also means he both goes too far (for people like me who might sympathize with him) and loses the connection with the original issue, creating his own communication problem. Yes, it is good and necessary to show politicians what they are doing to the citizens they are supposed to represent, but that does not justify all means.
    - wqaatwt 3mo ago
      It’s not fundamentally different than indiscriminately scanning everyone’s private communication (what the Danish government is trying to accomplish on the EU level)
      - gpvos 3mo ago
        I think we'll keep disagreeing on what "fundamentally different" means. Agreed that the Danish gov't proposals are reprehensible and deserve counteraction.
  - dataflow 3mo ago
    > Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time. Or, say, because they want a judicial warrant to be sufficient for obtaining someone's information without their consent? > Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order. Huh? This sounds crazy.
expedition32 3mo ago
Lol that's bullshit. There is a difference between "accessible to law enforcement in a official criminal investigation overseen by a judge" and "public to everyone". What these weirdo hacktivists don't understand is that the voting public wants to live in a society.

skeaker 3mo ago

"You take my privacy, I take yours" would be the thought process here. Not complicated.