We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Not sure how much more privacy people expect. If you explain to people how much privacy they give up just clicking a random facebook questionnaire - they nod and then still do. Privacy and integrity is important but it will never match e.g. "terrorism" or "safety" on the list of important issues I think.
> We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to.
Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not.
Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication".
> Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not.
I don't want to suggest everyone is happy with the status quo, but it's at least not one of the top items on everyone's agenda for change.
> Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication".
I agree with you - but I also doubt it will happen. Not because of some government conspiracy but because I don't for a second believe that people would choose "government can't tap a criminal's phone call or text messages even with a court order" as an acceptable drawback for the benefit "my own conversations are always secure". I really don't. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. So I simply don't think there is any democratic pressure for it.
One of many angles is "perhaps you trust your government (or perhaps not), but do you trust every government with a backdoor? Do you trust everyone who has gotten hold of it? Do you trust that it can't be broken or stolen or abused?"
We need to very clearly and universally make the message clear: there's unbreakable encryption, and there's broken encryption, nothing in between. Anything that purports to be in between is either broken or soon will be.
I trust my current government, I don't trust most foreign ones and I don't even trust my own next government. I think we now have the two key pillars of the dilemma: we can never have back doors (broken encryption which is as bad as no encryption), and neither the public (I'm guessing) nor authorities will allow a situation where even a court order doesn't allow eavesdropping. And between these two there is no middle ground.
Where do the existing "readily available, off-the-shelf encryption solutions" mentioned in the link fall in this dichotomy? Are they unbreakable because no network administrator can read my WhatsApp messages? Or are they broken, because Apple can push out an OS update and steal messages without the user knowing?
If anyone calls me on a regular phone call, I'm always aware of this.. It's that nasty feeling of being spied on that's really the main reason I hate this so much. The government shouldn't have any reason to spy on me but spying on everyone is simply becoming the norm because they can.
