Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications 562
According to an article at The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has sided with British Prime Minister David Cameron in saying that police and government agencies should not be blocked by encryption from viewing the content of cellphone or online communications, making the pro-spying arguments everyone has come to expect:
“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” ... The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves. The Clinton administration fought and lost a similar battle during the 1990s when it pushed for a “clipper chip” that would allow only the government to decrypt scrambled messages.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the court approves, they can just go and obtain the computers. That is already solved.
If the hard disk is encrypted (very rare I suspect), the expectation of legal costs or indefinite holding at Gitmo without any trial are already there as motivation to comply.
No, better spying is not what we need. It destroys our freedom of speech and quality of life. We need due process. We need protection of all those not proven guilty yet, because it could be any one of us.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, the kids behave as long as the cameras are rolling, only to get back to their old behavior as soon as Mrs. Proper is gone. Not unlike the US government, which also returns to its actual self the moment the peoples' attention (who were just protesting a bill that would have eliminated yet another few rights) is on something else and the bill can be passed quietly.
Re: (Score:3)
And for some of us, taking power away from powerful people means either:
a) the only powerful people will be those in government, or
b) taking away power from the government, since they're far more powerful than the non-governmental powerful people.
Note that the more powerful any particular government is, the more worthwhile it is to bribe/buy
Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that but if this ever became policy, it would create an interesting line that will have to be drawn: What constitutes a hidden message that needs to have its keys or its otherwise actual meaning revealed to the government in plain English?
For example, the US government itself hid its communications from the enemy in the WWII Pacific Theater by simply translating it to another language that the enemy couldn't understand, and then using code within that language.
Although that was actually so weak it was rather pathetic (side note: even more pathetic that the Japanese never broke it, but then again it was never used in long range communication so they rarely had ever heard it in action during a time that they could meaningfully use it) there are a lot of ways you can encode information that aren't necessarily for cryptography, yet even more advanced datamining techniques will easily miss it.
And what's the punishment for sending a message to somebody in a manner that the government cant decrypt without providing them with key escrow, even if your actions were completely benign and you had no intention of hiding anything to begin with?
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pathetic? Let's see how well you can deal when you lack some extremely obscure knowledge, and live in a world with no Internet. Security through obscurity used to work damn well in the past, which is why so many people still think they can rely on it.
Re: No. (Score:3)
Well, firstly, Navajo Code Talkers were only used for tactical communications, where the information had a half-life of minutes: directing fire, company-level movements, stuff like that.
The Japanese did actually kidnap a Navajo speaker at one point, and they tortured the shit out of him and forced him to listen to the radio to translate. He wasn't trained as a Code Talker, though, so all of the strange idioms and jargon didn't make any sense. So the Japanese tortured him some more and simply gave up trying
Re: (Score:3)
Depends what the hypothetical law is. Most likely it would allow them to go after any company to allow spying when they want to. The problem for them is what happens about code and programs that don't go through some central server and therefore there is nobody to chase and take to court when people use it to send encrypted messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And "cyber".
A weakness is a weakness is a weakness (Score:5, Insightful)
A backdoor/vulnerability/weakness that the government can exploit is one that a bad actor can exploit. Digital data of many sorts *requires* integrity and confidentiality. To allow an opening for surveillance is to allow an opening for hackers. It is simply not tenable to the economic functioning of the planet to allow communications and storage that are other than secure.
Hope and change (Score:4, Funny)
I hope that we can soon change to another administration before anything like this comes to pass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Funny)
The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.
Oh yeah? Explain George Bush.
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Interesting)
Fake as all the others.
The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake as all the others.
The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.
Yes, Heaven forbid the man occupying the highest office of the land and charged with making important decisions be known as an intellectual. I mean, this IS America...
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I just love your style of minimalist humour.
Wait...you were joking right.....?
UK news sites are saying exactly the opposite (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not here to defend obama (I'm not american), but british news sites are saying that actually he and UK prime minister cameron showed disagreement on encryption in friday's joint press conference. The WSJ reported an ambiguous statement, but the tone of the press conference sounded quite different to those who were there. Here some paragraphs from a Daily Mail's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk] ...But behind the smiles there remains sharp differences over Mr Cameron's call for US web firms to do
Obama quoting Clinton (Score:3)
TFS points out that Clinton tried essentially the same thing, but weaker. I see Obama is using the same argument as Clinton. I'm pretty sure Obama was quoting Clinton when he said "despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we canâ(TM)t penetrate that, thatâ(TM)s a problem".
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
The government should defend the Constitution instead of tear it apart.
The people should be secure. The people should have the right to assemble, and exclude a government representative from the meeting.
A meeting my phone should have the same protection.
It is illegal for citizens to wiretap a cell phone signal. This should apply to everyone.
It became clear this was not true. Other tools were made to enforce what should have been standard.
Now the government is a little upset that encryption exists.
Re: Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
You still have your copy. Information should be free. Don't buy imaginary property
I'm getting sick and tired of people chanting that false mantra. Information doesn't "want" anything, so stop anthropomorphising. Should your genome be available to anyone on request because, after all, you'll still have the original, and "information wants to be free?"
Be careful what you wish for - you may get it, and it will get you in the end.
Re: Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Take out the anthropomorphising and you can see the intended meaning: "It is a unavoidable property of information that it can be and will be replicated and dispersed."
Re: Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Just be glad (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of government laws and tactics, hiding your communications is incredibly easy for anyone who isn't an idiot.
What this means is that most terrorists must be incredibly stupid... or the government wants to spy on normal people more easily.
Re:Just be glad (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell (Score:5, Insightful)
...there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.
Simply impossible with the inherent corruption in the system. He's making the same speech as the Supreme Chancellor in front of the senate, and he will get his thunderous applause.
There is nothing left to do but try to keep up and protect our selves as best we can.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't be done, for the same reason you can't make an anti-child-porn filter that cannot be easily reconfigured to block other things. The technology is the same in either the use or abuse cases - all that changes is the order given by the human element, and the entire history of politics can be summed up as trying and failing to address human fallibility, selfishness and corruptibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Alan Turing, John von Neumann et al. went to an awful lot of trouble to develop the "general purpose computer," that can compute any algorithm you can describe in logical, concrete steps.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, world-spanning minds. Second I'd say only to Newton.
Now, serious hats off to the motherfucker who can develop a computer that can run any program except the ones the government doesn't want you to. That kind of math would make Turing and pals look like children.
Nothing New And Not a Problem (Score:3)
It is much better that this attitude is established by the government in public, rather than our government lying and doing it anyway.
If you want secure communication, don't use a 3rd party.
Totally a Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
By definition, no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure.
But with strong crypto it's secure enough that the 3rd party can see (or alter) your communications. Obama and Cameron and (undoubtedly) all other future leaders want to strip away this protection using the force of law to change how crypto products are designed. You will live your life under the state microscope and, as always, the proper prerogatives of government will be twisted to cover up incompetence and serve the powerful few instead of protecting the dignity of the individual.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps. From their point-of-view at least.
If my life is defined my communications. And maybe it is.
If I wanted total privacy I imagine I could move to Alaska or the middle of Montana.
But my communications would not really be of interest to others. I am sure I may feel differently if I lived a life of politics or life of intrigue or sold bags of weed or raised money for Palestine or something
Re:Totally a Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
"You will live your life under the state microscope".
So it'll be like having my own "The Truman Show [imdb.com]"
Do I get paid union scale? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will lead to some nice overtime :-)
I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.
Re: (Score:3)
I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.
This is more generally known as refusing to be a coward.
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:4, Interesting)
Or to say it another way...
âoeIt is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.â - John Adams
Re: (Score:2)
" would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated."
Methinks you need a bit of perspective here. Besides, there's already tons of stuff that isn't private because of individual's actions. Like married people getting caught posting dating profiles on web sites claiming they're single, using illegal drugs, posting selfies that show off the stuff they've stolen, those "private" pics and videos that make it all over the net after a break-up ...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes! For fucks sake yes! Let's turn your argument around then? Where would you stop to not make what you say happen? What if it took cameras on each and every person's forehead that are constantly streaming to the NSA? That's fine with you? If that's what it takes to stop killing mothers I mean... If so, where do YOU draw the line? If I can't have private communication with people, I don't feel like I'm human anymore. Then nothing is worth anything to me. Get it?
Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am really trying to say is "we should not use terrorism as an excuse to make the world less secure or less free" (this includes bans or restrictions on encryption, internet censorship, unconstitutional or illegal acts by governments and their agencies, deliberate backdoors in off-the-shelf software and hardware to make it easier to break and wholesale collection and retention of data or metadata without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity)
As one of the founding fathers of the United States said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, precisely.I am more afraid of the government that the terrorists. The government killed more people.
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.
The question is whether you believe there are more terrorists in the USofA or more bad cops/contractors/other-people-with-access-to-track-your-daughter.
Once you sign away her privacy she probably won't be getting it back.
And she will still be in more danger from her boyfriend/husband (and ex-boyfriends/husbands) than she is from any terrorist in the USofA.
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you live in the USA, you are in more danger of being killed by your TV or furniture falling on you [theatlantic.com] than by a terrorist. (24 fatalities per year vs 17 per year).
When we were at war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, I could see temporarily giving up some of our freedoms for security. But to give them up in perpetuity for something as trivial as terrorism?
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.
Unless you've missed the whole thing about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA molesting people at airports, the government doing loads of unconstitutional spying, and tons of other privacy-violating issues, you should know that that is simply false. You don't have privacy if government thugs are spying on you, or using automated tools to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you can do a little research (Google) on cops accused of rape.
Or just look at cops sentenced to life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Eppolito_and_Stephen_Caracappa [wikipedia.org]
No, you do not.
Not being interesting to the authorities is not the same as having your privacy intact.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing your Daughter does what she is told by authority, it should make life MUCH easier for the following type of cops:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/raped-cop-police-chief-advice-break-law/
Of course, you are good with that, right?
After all, they represent AUTHORITY.
Personally, I would rather teach children what is right than to be good little sheep.
Oh, and about that privacy you still have... you DO realise they catch everyone in their nets right, not just 'the bad people'?
Lets hope someone in a pos
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that means you daughter grows up in a fascist dictatorship? There are things worse than death...
Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score:5, Insightful)
In risk management you learn early that there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. Actually, you DO accept risks quite a lot. Yes, even in everyday life. When you get into your car and drive to work, there's always the risk that you get into a fatal car accident. All it takes is some drunk driver hitting you head on and a hint of bad luck, and you're a goner. Happens every year, a few thousands of times. When you pit that risk of losing your very life against the quite mundane gain of getting to work, are you nuts to dive head first into that risk, are you a bad parent because you put the rather minor goal of getting to work ahead of your chance to watch your daughter grow up? Of course not. Yes, the risk exists and yes, people die. But the chance of it happening is sufficiently small that you accept the risk in favor of being able to get to and from work, keep the job and keep earning money.
The same is true with terrorism. Is there a chance that some terrorists will kill you? Yes. They could well be plotting right now that they plan to blow up the building your office is in on Monday with you getting killed in the process. Should we now throw away any and all liberties we have to avoid this? No. First and foremost, if the whole shit that went down in Paris proved anything then that no matter what freedoms you relinquish, you don't buy security with it. France has about the broadest surveillance laws in the EU and the most ridiculous limitations on encryption, and it meant jack shit. Personally I consider it amazing that something that proved without a doubt that total surveillance serves no purpose in terms of terrorism prevention can be used as an argument for MORE privacy erosion.
But second, even IF it did serve any meaningful terrorism prevention, which we now know it does not: Does such a small chance of being a terror target warrant the total elimination of privacy? One might easily say "Of course, I don't want to die!"
But then I'd rather not drive to work anymore. If the chance to die is all that matters, going to work is WAY, WAY more dangerous than not throwing away your freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
You are more likely to be accidently or intentionally shot in the US than be a victim of a terrorist. over 10,000 people are shot each year in the US. you are hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident. you are more likely to win the lotto. Yet you would happily trade your freedom to prevent that 1 in a couple of hundred million chance of dying? the gun lobby and cars are infinitely more dangerous to your young daughter
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not afraid of terrorists. I am not afraid of religious extremists. I am not afraid of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drug addicts, carjackers, burglars, home invaders, "active shooters," or copyright violators. No, the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government, and that makes me sad.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
"the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government"
Yes and no.
Obama was elected twice; the people have put him - and the rest of the statist tyrants in these positions of power. And yes, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it is the state vs the people.
It is your neighbor voiting to steal your money to get "free healthcare", the man in line at the grocery store next to you voted for Obama to get "paid days off", the woman in the car next to you voted for Boehner, to get "tax the rich" and to enact "common sense gun control".
We are living in a post-constitutional period, the state violates this compact whenever it pleases them. Our individual rights and liberties are for all practical purposes already gone. Your money isn't yours, you are only allowed what they decide you can keep. You cannot choose what kind of toilet you want without the state entering the transaction to "protect" you.
The problem isn't the politicians. A scrorpion only does what a scorpion does after all.
It's you fellow citizen you cannot be made to spend 5 minutes to think anything through when assessing claims such as "this will reduce your health insurance by $2,500 dollars! All men have a right to healthcare!" while they blindly vote for more and more government intrusion in their lives.
The problem is you. Wakt the fuck up America. It is far past time for a 5th amendment convention of the states.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
While you do point out some serious problems, you are placing your blame too firmly on one side. For every citizen who can't spend the time to think through the 'reduce your health insurance by $2,500' claim, there is another of equally simplistic thinking who sees only 'big gubment be coming to take my money.' The problem is neither too much more too little government - the problem is people who are so caught up in supporting their overarching political ideals in all cases, they fail to properly consider each issue presented as an independent decision. They do not ask 'What is the right policy?' They ask 'What is the Conservative policy?' or 'What is the Liberal policy?'
Re: (Score:3)
What a coincidence, the biggest threat to my freedom also comes from your government.
That is what you lost... (Score:5, Insightful)
... When you abused the trust people put in the Government and the NSA.
Previously... before all this arrogant bullshit... you would have gotten that cooperation either publicly or covertly. But you gave everyone the finger and told them you could do what you want.
You told everyone that Due Process was for suckers and you could just do whatever whenever however. And that has a price.
You're paying it now. The whole country will be paying it.
I don't want to put this all on Obama. It is also on the people that run these agencies and it is of course on the previous administration as well.
None of them have any regard for the constitution. It is a social contract to be obeyed by the letter and the spirit. Not either or neither. Both. You do what it says and if you've come up with a clever way to get around it without breaking the letter of the law... you don't do it.
It isn't just a law. It is a relationship. It is a code. It is what other societies have for a holy writ. You don't break it or the nation cracks.
And that is what has happened. The nation has cracked... and cracked again... and it is starting to break.
Patriotism he says? This would be the patriotism that so many on the political left laugh at and spit upon? Well... why would patriotism shuffle over to the likes of Obama covered in phlegm and do his bidding?
All this anti America garbage has a price as well. How could it not. If you devalue patriotism then patriotism has been devalued. When you call upon it... the check bounces.
Take me... My patriotism is just about used up. It hasn't been honored. It hasn't been replenished. It has been condemned and devalued.
Then Obama presumes to call upon it in the name of what? More unconstitutional spying? He wants to use my love of country which he laughs at to destroy my country?
The man is delusional.
The country needs to be run people that at the very least understand what they're doing. I don't even need someone that is honest. I need someone that knows their job. Obama and the people he's got running the government do not. They don't understand what binds the country together or keeps it running.
I'll take anyone of any political bent so long as they know their jobs and honor their oaths. Beyond that they can do anything at this point. I won't be picky.
Re: (Score:2)
dear karmashock,
thank you - genuinely - for making your feelings known so clearly. it is not often that these kinds of words get through on slashdot: so often they are treated as "troll" or "flaimbait", but your words are genuine and from the heart, and everyone can see that plainly.
i've said this often enough, but it is worth repeating: i am not a U.S. citizen but i know that where the U.S. leads, everyone else follows. so it matters *a lot* that the U.S. remain a stable country and a shining example for
ALL politicians in power sound the same (Score:2)
Does anybody ever consider the NSA and government system spies on upcoming politicians and most likely officials who hold office as well?
Does anybody notice how people who are strong critics end up in office only paying lip service to positions they legitimately held before they had any power? If not entirely flipping their previous positions?
We've caught the military using PsyOps to win over Senators. You think that is all that has ever happened??
The UK is so in bed with our industrial military spy complex
Re:ALL politicians in power sound the same (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak to the UK, but the US doesn't have that problem at the legislative level. At the executive level, so much of the government is a black box. We don't really know what they're doing and they have been caught lying to congress. So... the conspiracy theories are going to run wild. Why try to stop them.
Price of lying to congress which is a thing the NSA was caught red handed doing.
Of course, the IRS also recently lied to congress.
And the head of the new ACA or Obama care system just resigned mostly for lying to congress as well.
So... it is a thing. The executive is lying a lot. Congress really needs to get a spine and gut the executive.
The legislature is our most democratic body. The executive should fear them. But they don't. They see the legislature as a joke they can control. Largely at this point because it is full of so many useful idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to put this all on Obama
Correct. This is, basically, continuing policies set up by Bush on the excuse "911 happened, OMG". Obama ran on the platform that he wasn't Bush. Pity, I rather liked that platform, too bad he didn't carry forward with it.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness our alternatives at the time were McCain, Hillary, and Obama.
Of the three we thought... "why not... he couldn't be any worse those those idiots"... and it seems he was if only because he didn't realize what his job was in the first place.
The one thing I've always found the most fascinating about Obama is that he doesn't know what the role of the president is in the first place. He thinks he is in charge when really his job is to EXECUTE. He is not a judge... that is for the judiciary. He is not
I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the big (Score:4, Insightful)
corporations that control the government. They are the ones paying real money to prevent and remedy security breaches. It seems it would be in their best interests to have strong encryption to prevent a lot of expensive problems, yet they seem unusually quiet on the subject.
The terrorists will always find a way to communicate in secret. Eliminating secure encryption will simply raise the cost of secure communication for them. Meanwhile the rest of us will be left with our asses showing.
Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b (Score:5, Insightful)
It is all down to matters of principle. So lets extend out the argument that encryption obstructs police activity and should be banned. Clothing allows people to hide dangerous items that could threaten the life of police, so let's ban it and require people to be naked at all times so they can not hide dangerous items on their person. People can run from the police and get away, so lets require that everyone must wear leg irons so that they can not run away. It's a great meme, let's add to it.
It is not the job of the citizen to surrender their liberty and privacy to make it easier for the people they employ to assist those citizens in the upholding of the law. I will not be naked and in chains because it makes it easier for law enforcement to control and abuse me, neither would I accept a leash around my neck or that I require permission from law enforcement before I do anything at all.
So fuck the autocrats, we 'EMPLOY' them to make out lives better not so they can fucking control them, be that politicians or police officers. Seriously 'What The Fuck' is going on?
Re: (Score:2)
Its an undisputed fact that all terrorists drink water. Therefore, we should ban water.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the big corporations that control the government.
You're surprised because you misunderstand the situation, because you've dramatically oversimplified it. Big corporations have influence but they do not "control" the government. They do attempt to influence its actions, particularly whenever government interferes with their business operations and sometimes when they think they can get government to interfere with the operations of their competitors, and they meet with some degree of success.
However, politicians still understand that corporations can't v
IRS Targeting Scandal (Score:2)
The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen. There's no basis for anyone to trust any government agency in the US. A few people will still trust blindly, or temporarily while their team is in charge, but it won't be many. Not for a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen.
I do point out that the IRS is supposed to deny tax-free status for political organizations. That's their job. Political advocacy groups aren't tax exempt. And shouldn't be.
The IRS failed if they did not investigate some political groups that were "favored" ideologies. (I don't know whether they did or didn't, actually.)
Re:IRS Targeting Scandal (Score:4, Insightful)
The IRS targeting 'scandal' is still lacking in evidence that might confirm intent or systematic bias. Without this, there is little substantial to the accusations. It may simply be that one end of the political spectrum is more prone to pushing the limits of non-profit status.
Oh God, he said "Patriots"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here we go again, 911 all over again. ...the ones who get out in the streets right fucking now and REJECT this bullshit spying with every ounce of their soul.
Let me tell you who the REAL PATRIOTS are....
America is a free country of brave independant self sufficient self defending souls, we dont need your fucking nanny state.
So go ahead Obama and congress and lawmen gone bad politics and all you other state terrorists and control freaks and plain old ragheaded terrists... you just try to take away americans freedom and slave us to your game.
Go ahead, wind that clock closer to 1770's again...
We'll show you who the REAL PATRIOTS are.
No right to privacy of self, is no rights at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
The next step is thought police.
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't is working on this now.
Is Obama stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does he intentionally want to bankrupt Silicon Valley?
No-one in their right mind wants anything to do with US software products any more, because we've no idea how many backdoors they've built in, and can't trust them an inch.
Re: (Score:3)
Communication has never been secure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is: I want some people to hear what I say and some people to read what I wrote. That is why I talk to some people out of earshot of others and send letters in sealed envelopes (or the equivalent for modern communications).
Re: (Score:3)
Snail mail and land line phones were never secure, all it took was a search warrant/court order (really easy to get) and the police had it. Email is no different.
Sure they are, you just need to add your own security on top of it. People have always been able to break out their favorite secret book and OTP their message or speak in code.
All the ranting about the NSA and government intrusion just diverts from the fact that; 1) if you don't want anyone to hear what you say, don't say it.
Unacceptable.
) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down.
See above.
The USA founding fathers lived with the knowledge that they would be held accountable for what they said and wrote, and today it's no different.
Really so while negotiating and working to build consensus it was all out there for anyone to know their bargaining positions? There was no need for secrecy?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard about a little thing called "scalability"? Apparently not.
Prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology required is the "warrant" - issued by a judge on probable cause. I believe the technology has been around for several hundred years.
I mean, Obama couldn't possibly have been referring to intercepting communications without a lawful warrant, and certainly not without cause, right?
Email Back Doors = Steganography Boom (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's get real.
Backdoors for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, so we'll have an American Backdoor for the Americans, but they don't just anyone accessing their data so they won't share it with everyone, which means we'll also need a German Backdoor for the Germans and a French Backdoor for the French and obviously multiple law-enforcement agencies in each of those countries will need access and frankly even assuming that by some miracle none of the agencies in any of the countries have anyone on staff who is either corrupt or incompetent there's somewhere around a 100% chance that other people with (more) malicious intents will gain access to said backdoors.
Meanwhile these supposed terrorists that these backdoors are designed to stop are either a) already too stupid to properly secure their communications or b) smart enough to "manually" encrypt the message itself and not simply the envelope, which means all this is for naught anyway.
Unpatriotic treasonous bastards use encryption ... (Score:2)
... and avoid providing metadata to big business.
Long Game + Lazy Prosecution (Score:2)
Also, if encrypted information is required to convict someone? The prosecutor is either REALLY bad (and then the person should go free anyway), or the law under which that person is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. Encryption takes speech and makes it secret. We have very few exceptions to free speech, and all of them i
I guess its not primary against TLS ... (Score:2)
I think its to have something against apple/google to encrypt phones by default. They cannot block you from providing secure TLS on your website, but they can force companies to implement a backdoor in their hardware encryption.
Ixnay on the oopid-stay (Score:2)
Will Pig Latin be a misdemeanor or felony? :-)
Dear Obama.... (Score:3)
WAHHHHHH!
All government and police can stuff it in their pie holes. It is because of your over reach and out of control officers why I made sure everything is encrypted.
How about you start putting NSA,FBI and LEO assholes in JAIL that violate the constitution as a good will gesture to the Citizens before you start whining about encryption.
They are patriots! (Score:2)
And locks too! (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one am tired of the government from being slowed by locks whenever they need to find a terrorist suspect, I think the government needs a master key that can open any lock, and everyone combination lock needs to have a master unlock code to unlock it.
Since the master keys would only be available to a few thousand (ok, maybe a few hundred thousand) law enforcement personnel, I fail to see how the "bad guys" would ever get access to them. The government has our best interests at heart, and they carefully screen employees to ensure that none of them are the "bad guys".
Trust (Score:3)
ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves
The US Government is willing to break their own constitution so they can secretly spy and kill people.
They need to demonstrate that there is effectual oversight to their abuse of power, and that the courts are capable of operating independently before they can be trusted.
Hey ... Obama ... FUCK YOU. (Score:2)
Does anything else really need to be said?
You've established that you think you don't need actual court approval just like Bush.
Now go fuck yourself and take everyone who thinks like you along to n the sit and spin.
Typo in summary (Score:2)
last line should read '...a “clipper chip” that would supposedly allow only the government to decrypt...'
The Constitution is not toilet paper. (Score:3)
4th Amendment
5th Amendment
Obama can f**k off. This is simply intolerable. Civil disobedience must prevail should his drivel actually succeed in becoming law. Not a world I want my kids growing up in. I was born free. So were they. This is unjust and sickening. We used to deride Nazi Germany for the Stasi and Gestapo. What the hell are they doing?
This is not sane. This is not a slippery slope. This is a cliff. Nothing good will come of this.
Could you hire an IT security person? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before making such idiotic statements? Pretty please? It needn't be me (actually, it sure as FUCK wouldn't be me!) but hire someone who has at least half a clue before making yourself look like a total Cameron to someone who knows even a little bit about security.
A "government backdoor" is NEVER EVER a "government ONLY backdoor". There is no such thing as "government only" when it comes to something where it is impossible to detect if it is being used. If you create a "VIPs only" door to a club and you cannot put a watchman there to guard it and you can't even monitor the entrance to see who goes in or out, how long do you think it will take for people to know that this entrance exists (no matter how well you camouflage it and write "Jehova's Witness recruitment center" over the entrance), notice that it's the easy way into a club and simply USE it, knowing that there won't be anyone who will find out?
And no, requiring some superspecialawesome Goverment-only key doesn't do diddly jack. Because since some government goon with half a day of training has to be able to use it, anyone who knows his way around doors will be able to forge it. And no matter what you say, I simply cannot imagine this being the one awesome exception to the rule of government accepting any half assed job as "a-ok" because they themselves have no idea how to gauge the quality of the work and will accept anything because nobody gives a shit.
No. Sorry. Government-only backdoors do not exist. They're by definition public. At the very least, they are public enough that every OTHER government will have the keys to it, too. One way or another.
And now let's ponder for a moment whether we want the Iran to have backdoors to computers at, say, Lockheed Martin.
Re:Precedence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?
They try again and again to implement the same bad ideas, knowing that defeats don't matter, understanding that they only need to score a single victory and their maladaptive proposals will be forever enshrined in law, never to be repealed. These are people who play chess and as such they learned to take a long view of things, realizing that most Americans have incredibly short memories and are only considering the here and now.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, I'm fairly sure lots of Americans can remember all the contestants from the first season of American Idol.
Don't diss yourselves bro.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take up your challenge when you you learn how to spell "idealogy".
10€ says you pronounce it that way, too.
Re: (Score:3)
I will debate any statist on any argument whatsoever, and I will destroy them (the argument that is!), and what is more, I will do so not only with real actual logic but as and when warranted with facts and references. And what is more I will be polite and will not resort to name calling or personal attacks at all, but will of course expect that same consideration in return. And I will win the argument, always, and completely. There is no argument for big government statism that can defeat me - because I am right and you are wrong.
Statists generally prefer one-to-many broadcast methods like the evening news to spread their (largely emotional, fear-based) propaganda. This way they know there will be no equal airtime given to someone who logically questions their proposals and looks at them with a critical view. They are too welcome in too many other, much more convenient forums to actually take up your challenge on anything like a level playing field.
Although, a favorite trick of some flavors of statist is to invite dissenters to ca
Re: (Score:3)
Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17, 2015 @05:09PM (#48840971)
Re: (Score:2)
This really isn't fair. You need to fess up and tell us what meds you're on.
Re:Nosey fuckers (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes no difference - I don't understand the process by which these things happen but I'm assuming that the feedback loop involving the public has a zero weighting.
Re: (Score:2)
There is, 1 time pad, not even the BEST in the US government can crack it.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not help. The law is not applied to protect citizens these days, it is applied when it can be used to screw citizens and ignored when it would hinder or prevent that. Come on, what do you expect from a barbaric state that tortures its prisoners?