Ray Ozzie's crypto backdoor scheme is technically flawed, ignores systems issues, and is generally misguided. But that doesn't remotely justify some of the personal abuse he's been getting. (Dorothy Denning, who supported key escrow in the 90's, got similarly shameful abuse).
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @mattblaze
I don't know the specifics of what's happening, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle on the issue. Obviously ppl who do stuff like this don't deserve swatting, implicit or explicit threats towards family, etc. but I'm pretty ok with heavy shaming/blacklisting/no-platforming.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichFelker @mattblaze
Abuse is wrong. I do think it's legitimate to identify charlatans peddling false solutions and false "hope" for a solution. Without furthering it or influencing it, I also think it's appropriate to identify individuals who would advance the arts to the ends of denying privacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What I mean is the stigma. Without specifically attaching stigma, identifying those who are actively working on a "solution" seems fair. If they're publishing that work in their own name, it seems fair to identify the ramifications and let the stigma arise or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mdhardeman @mattblaze
Is creating stigma "abuse"? Is unmasking the identity of someone anonymously/pseudonymously proposing anti-privacy policy (and this is all inherently purely policy, not tech) "abuse"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @mattblaze
I'm not into unmasking people - I have to hope that the fact that they're anonymous attaches the appropriate level of skepticism in policy circles already.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think discussions about appropriate "stigma" for people working on "solutions" in this area should be separate from commentary drawing attention to individuals working in this area. The affected public have to make that connection, if any, individually.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mdhardeman @mattblaze
OK, you've made your position clear, but I don't agree with it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @mattblaze
I'm probably close to your position on this than I am to
@mattblaze's, but I just can't see threats, abusive behavior, etc. I do think it's fair to make inferences about the participants' politics. If those are wrong, let the participant correct that perception.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I do consider threats - stalker-like mentioning of personal details, broadcasting dox to potentially violent followers, explicitly threatening violent acts, etc. - abusive and seriously disproportionate responses.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.