#noplacetohide — Public Fediverse posts

@smaurizi
«We spoke online that day for two hours. His first concern was what was happening with some of the NSA documents that, with his consent, Poitras had talked about to a Washington Post reporter, Barton Gellman.
...
Rather than report the story quickly and aggressively, the Washington Post had assembled a large team of lawyers who were making all kinds of demands
and issuing all sorts of dire warnings.»
#glenngreenwald #noplacetohide #snowden

NoPlaceToHide - Vergangenheit. Progressive thrash death metal? It's complicated. At one point, there's a saxophone solo. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, this is a great and kind of forgotten (or is it just me?) metal release from Tønsberg, Norway, anno 1995.

#NoPlaceToHide #metal #nowPlaying

TFW: You #WorkfromHome to focus on finishing contributions to 3 papers and 2reports and all of a sudden it's 4pm and you've barely touched any of the stuff you planned...

Ambushed by meetings again!
#NoPlaceToHide

MPs will debate the Government's #OnlineSafetyBill on 19 April.
Write to your MP to explain that #e2ee protects *individuals* against those who would harm them: abusers, criminals, or governments.
Would you allow Police CCTV in your home?
#noplacetohide ?
https://www.writetothem.com/

RT @[email protected]

I'd like to take a moment to observe that @[email protected] appear to have stopped tweeting/campaigning against "end-to-end encryption" and "disappearing messages" at the start of February — almost as if there was looming counter-narrative to #NoPlaceToHide:
https://twitter.com/search?q=(encrypt%20OR%20encryption%20OR%20end-to-end%20OR%20disappear%20OR%20disappearing)%20(from%3A5rightsfound)&src=typed_query&f=live

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1500838074657427461

It's maddening that a government that's demonstrated its willingness to let poor children go hungry is suddenly so interested in end-to-end encryption for the safety of "the children".

Eat shit you duplicitous Tories. #noplacetohide

RT from Al Ghaff (@GhaffAl)

Priti Patel’s £500K lie on #InternetSafety!

The Govt has spent £500K of taxpayers money on anti-encryption propaganda at a time when the public faces #CostOfLivingCrisis & soaring #energybills.

#SaferInternetDay2022 #Encryption #OnlineSafetyBill #NoPlaceToHide #SaferInternetDay

https://twitter.com/OpenRightsGroup/status/1490976737110511616

[Video embedded in original tweet]

Today is #SaferInternetDay😱

@pritipatel has spent £500K+ of taxpayers money to mislead the public on #InternetSafety.

If Govt weakens #encryption, it'll only help predators, criminals, blackmailers & scammers.

#Noplacetohide #Onlinesafetybill

👉 WATCH & SHARE OUR video now.

Today is #SaferInternetDay
@pritipatel has spent £500K+ of taxpayers money to mislead the public on #InternetSafety.

If Govt weakens #encryption, it'll only help predators, criminals, blackmailers & scammers.

#Noplacetohide #Onlinesafetybill

👉 WATCH & SHARE OUR video now.

[Video embedded in original tweet]

The open letter can be viewed here ⬇️

#encryption #SaferInternetDay #Noplacetohide #onlinesafetybill #OnlineSafety
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/experts-challenge-govts-anti-encryption-campaign/

#NoPlaceToHide…for Stupid Ideas Like Backdooring End-To-End Encryption and Undermining #Privacy - https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/noplacetohide-for-stupid-ideas-like-backdooring-end-to-end-encryption-and-undermining-privacy/ they never learn, do they?

The Fallacy of “Privacy vs: [Children’s] Safety”: why Privacy always wins over any singular concern, and why deployment of #EndToEndEncryption is essentially a binary choice, explained for #NoPlaceToHide

The #NoPlaceToHide campaign has, as-ever, flushed out a lot of argument like this:

https://twitter.com/MCFcharityUK/status/1484191619595210754

This is pretty easily explained and dismissed; but first, a quick digression.

Metcalfe’s Law (and its nitpicks)

There’s a famous law of communications that the ‘value’ (whatever that means) of a ‘network’ increases as the square of the number of participants; this is Metcalfe’s Law, and it’s a rough and ready (if arguable and nitpicked) metric to express something intuitive about networking.

Most typically: if you have a social network with only 10 people on it, then the ‘value’ is 10-squared, or 100, as that’s the maximum number of direct communications relationships that the network can provide; however a network of 250 people can have 250-squared relationships, or 62,500, which is A LOT BIGGER than 100.

And a network of 1 million people has a value of one trillion, which is immensely bigger; and lo! — a social network containing 1 million people overall tends to be a lot more valuable to its participants — with more purpose and information — than a network containing only 10 people.

Okay, but what does this have to do with Children’s Safety and Privacy?

Basically, if we accept that there’s any meaning at all to Metcalfe’s Law, it means that we are content to measure the value of networks two-dimensionally — the square — which yields the number of relationships that it can hold.

However, there’s a third dimension which I have already mentioned — purpose — and that makes matters even more interesting for comparing relative values.

With Metcalfe’s law we assume and ignore that we are measuring the value of a general purpose network, but actually if we factor purpose into our maths — if we stop treating “purpose” as a continuum — then we get:

network value = square(participants) x (number of purposes to which the network can be put by users)

For a trivial example: when we consider “children’s safety” we are considering this revised Metcalfe’s Law by a large amount; for a network with 100 participants, of whom 33 are kids, and if we consider the kids safety to be 1 purpose, then the value is measured:

100 (overall participants) x 33 (kids) x 1 (safety) = 3,300

…but the network value as a whole is probably better measured as something like:

100 (participants) x 100 (participants) x 100 (purposes) = 1,000,000

…because there are hundreds, if not thousands of purposes to which a network can be put: sharing with friends, selling cars, charity collections, gig reviews, party invitations, etc; and as such we can see that (like it or not) the value of the network as a whole vastly outranks the restricted case of online safety for the subset of kids.

And the figure of 33% kids is not accidental — child safety advocates tend to quote numbers of one-fifth to one-third of internet users as being children:

Summary

So there you have it — to rephrase the challenge: “there is no such singular thing as ‘privacy’ to compare to ‘child safety’“ — because what you are weighing the relatively small set of one-or-a-few “child safety” requirements against is a never-ending list of purposes to which a network can be put:

• securely sending bank details
• organising a surprise birthday party
• sharing a cancer diagnosis
• looking for love
• exploring your sexuality and gender
• escaping an abusive partner
• booking travel tickets
• having an extra-marital affair
• organising an anti-government protest
• seeking abortion advice
• doubting your faith
• and many, many, more, including some which are terrible…

“Privacy” is a feature or quality that is innate to each and all of these purposes — rather than a thing in and of itself — and this is why the hydra-headed use-case that is “privacy” will always be more important than any singular, or small tranche, of circumscribed use-cases of any kind whatsoever, irrespective of how we feel about the matter.

Because the value of the purpose-space of a network is N-cubed, and any constraint on one-or-more dimension of that will massively diminish the value of the network.

And why is it effectively a binary issue? Because if the scores are 1,000,000 vs: 3,300 — or whatever — then the bigger number wins. And the number for ‘privacy’ will always be bigger, massively.

⊞

https://alecmuffett.com/article/15940

#endToEndEncryption #metcalfeSLaw #noplacetohide #onlineAbuse #onlineSafety

RT from Al Ghaff (@GhaffAl)

This cynical, shameful & wholly misleading £500K tax-payer funded #Astroturf campaign that’s gone done like a cup of cold sick shows how this Govt is desperately trying to mislead public opinion on #Encryption.

#NoPlaceToHide #E2EE #RedMeat #OnlineSafety
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/government-encryption-whatsapp-phone-security-b1994758.html

RT from Jim Killock (@jimkillock)

The UK government proposes stripping encryption in its #NoPlaceToHide campaign.

@Telegraph reports how that works in China:

Chinese Communist Party can access athletes' personal data through compulsory Winter Olympics app
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/18/chinese-communist-party-can-access-athletes-personal-data-compulsory/