Apple again warns White House against policies fostering weak encryption

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29

    For anyone who still believes that Edward Snowden was the first to reveal surveillance, privacy, or data collection concerns in regards to the NSA and the Patriot Act, check out this link from 2006...

     

    http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html

     

    All Snowden really did is repackage the same issues that had been discussed years and years earlier with a bunch of police state conspiracy theories layered on top.

  • Reply 22 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,727member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Impeachment occurs for high crimes. Any order that's unconstitutional can be reversed by SCOTUS and does not fall within that threshold.

    Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. That was not a "high crime", was it?
  • Reply 23 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,727member
    For anyone who still believes that Edward Snowden was the first to reveal surveillance, privacy, or data collection concerns in regards to the NSA and the Patriot Act, check out this link from 2006...

    http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html

    All Snowden really did is repackage the same issues that had been discussed years and years earlier with a bunch of police state conspiracy theories layered on top.

    I think he did a bit more than that. He sacrificed the possibility of him having a normal life to ensure his daughter wouldn't have to grow up in a country where our constitutionally protected rights are currently ignored and trampled without repercussion.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,647member
    Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. That was not a "high crime", was it?

    He was impeached for lying under oath. It's arguably considered a high crime. I don't think it is.
  • Reply 25 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I think he did a bit more than that. He sacrificed the possibility of him having a normal life to ensure his daughter wouldn't have to grow up in a country where our constitutionally protected rights are currently ignored and trampled without repercussion.

     

    Did you look at the link I posted? NPR was obviously not prevented from posting a detailed examination of the privacy, surveillance, and data collection concerns contained in the Patriot Act. That article contains every major issue that Snowden talked about...but it's in print 7 years earlier. And the truth is that people were questioning the Patriot Act almost as soon as it was passed by Congress and signed into law. The truth is that Snowden chose his route for publicity purposes, not because the U.S. prevented him from advocating against the Patriot Act. That's the reason that he's willing to be so generous to the government now in regards to the recent modifications to the Act. He desperately wants to get back to the States and cash in on his media profile.

  • Reply 26 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,727member
    Did you look at the link I posted? NPR was obviously not prevented from posting a detailed examination of the privacy, surveillance, and data collection concerns contained in the Patriot Act. That article contains every major issue that Snowden talked about...but it's in print 7 years earlier. And the truth is that people were questioning the Patriot Act almost as soon as it was passed by Congress and signed into law. The truth is that Snowden chose his route for publicity purposes, not because the U.S. prevented him from advocating against the Patriot Act. That's the reason that he's willing to be so generous to the government now in regards to the recent modifications to the Act. He desperately wants to get back to the States and cash in on his media profile.

    I looked at your link, however that was just an analysis of the proposed Patriot Act. What was going on at the NSA went way beyond (and may still be doing so) the text of the Patriot Act.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

     

    Uh, that's not what root certificates do.

     

    They allow the creation of child certificates that can then be authenticated by the device (using the root certificate.)

     

    They have nothing to do with backdoors... and you should stop spreading this kind of claim when you don't understand the basics of the technology.


    More specifically, they allow the creation of *fraudulent* child certificates that can trick the device into sending sensitive traffic intended for one party to a completely different party. The public key infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of internet security, requires that users place all their faith in the root CAs, since any certificate signed by a trusted CA will be automatically accepted by your browser. The effectiveness of the system therefore relies entirely on browsers trusting root certificates only from trustworthy CAs.

  • Reply 28 of 29
    Government needs to stay out of our data and encryption.

    Ran Paul President 2016!
    http://randpaul.com/
  • Reply 29 of 29
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,647member
    konqerror wrote: »
    The Chinese Government (CNNIC) issued a backdoor certificate used for SSL MITM. Google and Mozilla delisted the entire CA. Microsoft blacklisted the backdoor certificates... Apple did absolutely nothing. Still trusted today. Wonder if this has anything to do with selling iPhones in China? Nah.

    Tim Cook can go write all the letters he wants, but when it comes down to the technical side, Apple is falling behind.

    It has been fixed. So much for your conspiracy theory.

    http://www.macworld.com/article/2942720/apple-releases-tons-of-security-updates-for-recent-flaws-and-exploits.html
Sign In or Register to comment.