Making this comparison is fraught with the danger of recrimination, so please understand it as saying "we are not alone in failure".
Okay, one more.
A substantial number of folks in high tech seem to enjoy abusing non-techies as well as their fellow techies, be it by "flaming", in elaborate outbreaks of evil like "gamer gate", or through judicious use of "it's simple", "you should know this", and "why are you surprised", to name but a few.
The good news is, we have slowly become better at explaining how digital things work, and some major companies have built privacy and anti-surveillance features into their products.
But to this date, the single best explanation of what surveillance can mean on a personal level is John Oliver's nekid pictures twist in his Moscow Snowden interview.
Since not everybody is comfortable using this imagery to explain surveillance and privacy to their grandma or their children, how about the airbag metaphor. Or simile, since we are using "is like".
Disclaimer: no, the blogster did not search the web to see if it has been made by someone else. If it has: Kudos to you, great to see smarter people out there.
The more complex and abstract something is, the more crucial it is to use images people can relate to. You can then build on these to make the 'something' more comprehensible or to fulfill some legal disclosure requirement, etc.
Hardly anybody would feel they have an understanding of gravity, were it not for Newton's apple.
No, this does not imply the airbag metaphor rises to the level of this iconic image.
But the automotive image reflects some of the the dangers of using the net, its complexity, the dangers we can cause as well as the dangers caused by total strangers, the everyday goofs associated with traffic - such as locking yourself out in freezing weather, being drunk and distracted, or the "shitstorm", the digital equivalence of road rage.
Encryption is your airbag. It protects you in the most destructive and lethal situations, and it should really simply be there.
Nobody should be allowed to mess with it for the sake of catching criminals, even if these criminals can get away with a crime. In fact, airbags make it less dangerous for drivers to run over weaker traffic participants, like cyclists and pedestrians.
No government has yet argued that switching off the airbag and other safety features of your car is the best way to prevent kids from being abducted or bank robbers to get away safely after a heist.
[Yes, this may soon change with a kill switch, so explain encryption as long as the metaphor still makes sense.]
For now, the point is that you can call somebody crazy who says they want to turn of the safety features because your car might be used in a robbery in the future or because some criminals drive the same model you drive.
The logic of the anti-encryption folks could also be used to ban private cars altogether. It's enough to have buses, it takes a bit longer but if you rob a bank and then have to escape by bus, the police have the advantage of speed. Sure, a pickpocket can rob you blind on a bus, but that's just a small price to pay for keeping bank robbers from speeding into the sunset. Even better, if you lack the personal transport capacity of a car, that Hollywood staple of sticking people into trunks would go away.
in the blogster's simple mind, saying nobody should be able to go faster than the police is not all that crazy, especially considering the number of obese cops and their mobility on foot.
Another aspect of using the airbag image for encryption has to do with complexity and adoption. A party balloon blown up at home may kind of work but is not the best approach to the safety problem - see the Mythbusters party ballon pile-up video on YouTube for details.
For the airbag, the aspect of adoption simply means it took time to get it into every single new car. It took studies showing the benefits, it took overcoming laziness and costs, and it took many years before the feature moved from luxury models into the latest Fiat 500 and other "disadvantaged" cars.
So, next time, politicians or law enforcement complain about encryption, ask the airbag question.
Yes, some criminals got away because of the safety systems in their getaway cars.
But society accepted that because safer mobility for everybody outweighs this.
And the blogster does have a lasting supply of party balloons, just in case.
* You do realize that this is a statement you cannot easily verify as being correct?
[Update 10/12] Added: Even better, if you lack the personal transport capacity of a car, that Hollywood staple of sticking people into trunks would go away.
[Update 11/16/2015] If you found the car analogy a bit over the top, read Christopher Soghoian
The Michigan Supreme Court, 1922: Cars are tools for robbery, rape, murder, enabling silent approach + swift escape.
No comments:
Post a Comment