"Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator" ??!

[TaoPhoenix]

After some thought, this one ended up in the Living Room. A couple of notes why at the top:

- I'm not mis-firing inflammatory language. A judge did that!
- This creates a legal-advice quandary for any tech users in Spain!

------------

Slashdot's summary:
Spanish Judge Cites Use of Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator

Is it possible that using secure email services can be construed as an indicator of being a terrorist? Although it's a ridiculous notion that using secure email implies criminal activities, a judge cited that reason to partially justify arrests in Spain. In December, as part of "an anti-terrorist initiative" Operation Pandora, over 400 cops raided 14 houses and social centers in Spain. They seized computers, books, and leaflets and arrested 11 people. Four were released under surveillance, but seven were "accused of undefined terrorism" and held in a Madrid prison. This led to "tens of thousands" participating in protests. As terrorism is alleged "without specifying concrete criminal acts," the attorney for those seven "anarchists" denounced the lack of transparency.

http://yro.slashdot....-terrorist-indicator
http://www.networkwo...orist-indicator.html

-----------------------------------------------
Something that jumped at me:

"over 400 cops raided 14 houses and social centers in Spain".

That's in the range of 30 cops per house! I can't even recall the last time I saw thirty cops in one place!

Meanwhile, for the entire premise of "Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator", well my ??! comes from modified chess annotation punctuation, and approximately means "platypus-$hit crazy, but usually you can laugh that kind of thing off in the Basement if it bothers you, but this time it's in a legal ruling from a judge, and judges are more difficult to laugh off!!"

[40hz]

When you see the world as your little circle vs everybody else - anything other than your little circle is either the The Enemy - or has the potential to become one with a certainty approaching 99.999%.

That's because these paranoids are right. Everybody IS out to get them.

(Who, in their right mind, would ever want to be their friend?)

[rjbull]

See New Scientist leader Free speech has to be for everyone, or not at all and comment Mass surveillance not effective for finding terrorists.

[Renegade]

One thing that I've found amusing (slash infuriating) is how the politicians/pundits/pope come out all lovey-dovey for free speech, and then condemn it.

"Free speech is a basic human right, but..."

Once they say "but", they don't believe in free speech at all.

It's pretty simple. Either you support the right of others to disagree with you, or you don't.

There really is no inbetween, gray area, compromise -- you either (want to) censor people that you don't agree with, or you don't. This means that every now and then you may need to ignore some pretty crazy/nasty/vile people/opinions/ideas, e.g. the people at the Westboro Baptist Church or Charlie Hebdo or Stormfront or Anita Sarkeesian or Chanty Binx or Marc Potok or the Flat Earth Society or whoever.

I know people hate black/white answers a lot of the time, but... if it fits...

Encryption is merely a way to have a private conversation. Which is really nice because then we don't need to listen to some things that we might not like, and we automagically get to ignore it! It's a win-win situation!  

That this came out of Spain only makes it funnier when I remember that they tax the sun there.

[TaoPhoenix]

I know people hate black/white answers a lot of the time, but...

-Renegade (January 17, 2015, 08:15 PM)

I'm all for Black and White Answers, but ...

[CWuestefeld]

@Renegade - I'm not disagreeing with you, but at first this may sound like it does:

What about kiddie pr0n?

This seems to be the ultimate sacred cow in America, where virtually everyone agrees that free speech stops before it gets to this, and that virtually any amount of encroachment is justified in preventing this.

So, two questions:

1) How confident are you that this type of speech is fundamentally different? Or are we just like every other society on the planet, just setting the line a bit differently?

2) Can you see any way to avoid the abuse of children in this manner, while not explicitly attacking the speech that communicates it?

[4wd]

What about kiddie pr0n?

-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?

[CWuestefeld]

What about kiddie pr0n?

-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?

-4wd (January 19, 2015, 05:07 PM)

Yes, as long as people are prosecuted for just being in possession of a photo, absent any evidence of being involved in any actual abuse. Heck, you'll get prosecuted for photos of adults made to look sufficiently like children, or photos that are pure CGI.

And I think that you asking the question proves my point. It seems that *everyone* draws the line somewhere, and to that person (or to people from that culture), that line is obvious. "Well, sure we want free speech, but *that* is just so far beyond the pale...").

Every culture has their sacred cows. And from their own perspective, they don't look like cows at all.

And since we can see that we ourselves fall victim to this, we need to be careful when criticizing other groups who just choose different cows.

[Renegade]

@Renegade - I'm not disagreeing with you, but at first this may sound like it does:

What about kiddie pr0n?

This seems to be the ultimate sacred cow in America, where virtually everyone agrees that free speech stops before it gets to this, and that virtually any amount of encroachment is justified in preventing this.

So, two questions:

1) How confident are you that this type of speech is fundamentally different? Or are we just like every other society on the planet, just setting the line a bit differently?

2) Can you see any way to avoid the abuse of children in this manner, while not explicitly attacking the speech that communicates it?

-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)

Good question.

It isn't speech. It's a spectator event. The audience is spread over time and space by the recording. The audience are participants in the event in the same way that spectators at a football or soccer game are participants.

The same can be applied to other events. However, there is still a very large difference between seeing a journalist having his head hacked off and kiddie porn. The first is a news worthy event, and generally the decapitation is left out. The second, while being a new worthy event, is so horrific that no part of it can be watched by anyone with even a smidgen of empathy in their selves without scarring the person.

If there were gladiatorial fights to the death fought with slaves, those (and recordings) would be similarly illegal for the same reasons - they are events with participants spread over time and space. They're not "speech". Now, if the gladiators are all participating freely, and all adults capable of making their own decisions, then that's a different story. Children on the other hand are not capable of making informed decisions with an understanding of the consequences.

Gore porn differs in that the images are taken by reporters, investigators, etc., and not staged/managed.

The possession of recordings (photos/video/whatever) of children being raped is in itself participation in the event, although removed by time/space, and those in possession are guilty of being accomplices/complicit.

[SeraphimLabs]

What about kiddie pr0n?

-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?

-4wd (January 19, 2015, 05:07 PM)

Free speech + freedom of expression.

In fact the only thing really wrong about it is the fact that it is produced by the victimization of another person who either is not old enough to give consent, or simply has chosen not to. That fact alone is the one solid handle you can get on it to make it illegal in the way it is. Its illegal because it violates somebody else's rights.

That's just how it works. When you start assigning guaranteed rights to people, people almost always find usage cases that the majority will not ever agree is acceptable and will seek to do something about even if it means that the expected rights are no longer inalienable.

[tomos]

^good points. FWIW I'm not a fan of the whole rights approach to the world.

When you start assigning guaranteed rights to people, people almost always find usage cases that the majority will not ever agree is acceptable and will seek to do something about even if it means that the expected rights are no longer inalienable.

-SeraphimLabs (January 29, 2015, 08:47 PM)

with ^that^ in mind, I shortened this bit:

Its illegal because it violates somebody else [...]

-SeraphimLabs (January 29, 2015, 08:47 PM)

[Renegade]

^good points. FWIW I'm not a fan of the whole rights approach to the world.

-tomos (January 30, 2015, 03:51 AM)

I found "right" repugnant for a very long time until I learned more about the topic.

What might help clear up some (as it did for me) is the difference between negative and positive rights.

e.g. I have a negative right not to be punched in the face by you, and vice versa.

I do not have a positive right to take your property for my own purposes (e.g. taxation).

I do not have a positive right to force you to not say nasty things, and vice versa.

I do have a negative right to not have you (or anyone else) silence me. (free speech)

etc. etc.

Today, people claim all sorts of insane rights. e.g. Free water. Well (pun intended), who is going to clean the water and deliver it? Is their time worth nothing? Should they just be slaves for "my free rightful water"? Obviously nobody has an innate right to free water. Those that claim otherwise are at best being intellectually dishonest.

The same goes for any time someone claims a right to something that they want for free. Healthcare, birth control, water, paved roads, etc. etc.

People often mistake "rights" for "entitlements". e.g. While you have no right to free water, if you have paid for water services (through any method, including taxation), you are entitled to what you have paid for. Sub in "health care" there or whatever.

That's muddy, but at least in the 'right' direction.