TeaApr 18, 2025

Encryption Is Not a Crime

https://programming.dev/post/28846283

programming.dev - A collection of programming communities

I’ve been day dreaming about a social media platform built entirely on a peer-to-peer (P2P) model, leveraging the existing BitTorrent protocol. The idea is to decentralize content creation, distribution, and moderation, eliminating the need for centralized servers and control. Here’s the high-level vision: - Posts as Torrents: Every original post creates and seeds a torrent file on behalf of the OP. - Upvotes as Seeds: Upvoting a post downloads and seeds the post, reinforcing its availability. - Comments as Torrents: Each comment generates and seeds a torrent file somehow linked to the original post. - Comment Upvotes as Seeds: Upvoting a comment downloads and seeds the comment, amplifying engagement. - Text Only: to avoid exposing users to potentially graphic content (due to lack of centralized moderation) this platform would initially be limited to text content only. This would also drastically reduce the compute and bandwidth requirements of the seeder. - Custom BitTorrent Clients: Open-source Social Media BitTorrent clients would display the most popular social media content by day, week, month, or year. These clients would allow users to seed only the content they find valuable thus organically moderating the network of ideas. Relevant content continues to be seeded and shared, while outdated or unpopular content fades due to a lack of seeds. This setup seems like it could address key issues in traditional social media—privacy, censorship, and centralized control—while naturally prioritizing high-value content. Why hasn’t a system like this been widely adopted? Is it a matter of technical limitations, lack of a viable economic model, or something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Show threadannette_runner

I think it’s contextual. It is definitely relevant to bring into a criminal case that criminals made attempts to obstruct gathering of evidence in commission of the crime. It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files. Evidence of criminals taking steps to hide the criminal activity is how you prove that a transgression is willful rather than negligent. That matters in cases like murder.

Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.

It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.

Apr 18, 2025 at 9:20pmWeb
Show threadRevvApr 18, 2025

With respect, this is a short-sighted take. There’s literally no legitimate crime that is made worse because a person tried to avoid it being detected. Plot a murder over tor? Not a good look. But in what universe is someone less morally culpable because they just posted on craigslist?

On the other hand, allowing the use of encryption or other privacy methods to affect the criminality or punishment assigned to an action just creates a backdoor to criminalizing privacy itself. Allowing that serves no real purpose in deterring folks from hurting others, but it sure does further the interests of an oppressive or authoritarian regime.

Show threadannette_runnerApr 19, 2025
How does covering up a crime not make it worse when it allows you to get away and commit more crime?
Show threadjmfApr 19, 2025
Doing crime in the privacy of my own home allows me to get away with it and commit more crime, doesn’t mean we should have transparent walls that everyone can watch what you do through.
Show threadannette_runnerApr 19, 2025
I don’t disagree with that but the article is talking about what arguments are permissible in a court room which is a little different. Same as using tools to commit a crime. It’s not illegal to own or use tools but when used in commission of a crime, this can be a factor in proving elements of a crime that require proof of intention or malice.
Show threadjmfApr 20, 2025
Not sure I understand how you are reading the article. That’s like saying having a steak knife in your home is a factor in proving elements of a crime. Tools are completely neutral parties that are unrelated to prosecution, and encryption should be no different.
Show threadrottingleafApr 19, 2025

It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files.

Both are normal if you work with information you wouldn’t like to leak. Or something very personal.

They are that thing you said only if they are unusual for the circumstance. When that gives information that a person did something not normal.

Because that’s a sign of something, kinda similar to shaking hands and missing shovel and sudden lack of time for guests.

Encrypting everything on Internet-connected machines is not unusual. It’s perfectly normal. It’s f* obligatory.

Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.

Because that’s almost jamming, if everyone could broadcast all they can, nobody could use those frequencies. And since you have to make space there, private transmissions probably belong somewhere else. Doesn’t matter when using wire. This is irrelevant to encryption.

It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.

No it doesn’t. Even if someone suddenly started encrypting everything, no. Maybe they learned how the world works and decided to learn to do it just in case.