Let me begin with an analogy: Let's suppose I'm a high profile criminal from the old days. My activities are all logged on pen and paper. But as a security minded crook, I write my annotations encoded. Like an one-time pad (for clarification, one-time pads cannot be broken through, even by brute force attacks). My shuffling sequence is a quote or poem which I know by heart and never wrote down. Now, the police caught up with me and I got arrested, with my logbook. But they can't decipher it, because they don't know my key. Only I can do it. Do I receive a judicial order to surrender my key? No, because it's a common constitutional principle in most democracies that one should not be obligated to provide proof of wrongdoing against oneself.
Back to the real world.
Just exchanging the pen and paper technology for the consumer electronics negates this fundamental constitutional right?
I'm not discussing the morality of it, but this is the law of the land in several "liberal democracies". Should it not be upheld by the arms of the executive power—the police agencies.
As a 19 year law enforcement veteran I can certainly sympathize in wanting to have every resource possible to prosecute pedophiles and other serious criminals. I also want every resource available to track terrorists and prevent any more attacks. With that being said, I of all people do not trust the federal government with this power because they have shown over and over again through the years what extent they are willing to abuse their authority against the citizens. I am a citizen and hold our Constitution sacred and would do anything to preserve its integrity in protecting citizen freedoms and rights. There are plenty of ways to make cases against people, arguing the critical and absolute necessity of phone access is a sign of a weak minded officer who lacks creativity or willingness to work, much like the lazy traffic guys who can't work without a radar, nevermind the other several hundred traffic statutes available to enforce.
Nicely said, however this is not the way our world works now. You say you will do anything to hold the constitution sacred. Do you literally mean anything. How about resigning from your job and abandoning your career. Then not being able to pay your mortgage, feed your family, pay for your child's college etc. Are you willing to do that? Are your superiors also willing or will they fire you if you do not follow orders to violate peoples civil liberties. This all has to flow down hill and it will eventually get to you? Does your department have any used military vehicles in use. Who did what or agreed to what to gain access to that equipment. I don't think Americans of today have the guts for another revolution.
Let's suppose I'm a high profile criminal from the old days. My activities are all logged on pen and paper. But as a security minded crook, I write my annotations encoded. Like an one-time pad (for clarification, one-time pads cannot be broken through, even by brute force attacks). My shuffling sequence is a quote or poem which I know by heart and never wrote down.
Now, the police caught up with me and I got arrested, with my logbook. But they can't decipher it, because they don't know my key. Only I can do it.
Do I receive a judicial order to surrender my key? No, because it's a common constitutional principle in most democracies that one should not be obligated to provide proof of wrongdoing against oneself.
Back to the real world.
Just exchanging the pen and paper technology for the consumer electronics negates this fundamental constitutional right?
I'm not discussing the morality of it, but this is the law of the land in several "liberal democracies". Should it not be upheld by the arms of the executive power—the police agencies.
This has nothing to do with the technology or the method of creating information. This is just about what people are willing to do regarding trashing the constitution. The same attitude may result in torture to get the guy in the 1950's to give up the key. You find more covert ways of getting what you want.
I paraphrase... Jon Stewart said it best: ideas deserve s good sniff test. Especially true for gov suggestions cloaked in "patriot", "freedom", "tradition", or "save the ____".
I think of stories like this as "indicator notices." While it might not directly and immediately affect me, it is a sign of other troubling matters. I think back to decisions that needed to be made by certain Germans in ~1932; heck, for that matter crown loyalists in 1770. At some point you have be able to see it coming, and think maybe it is time to go.
Just like with PRISM, they want to cast a net over all Americans, and then store that data for later. Encryption makes that much harder for them. How else can the government later terrorize its people with blackmail when its citizens protest against it?
How about placing some better encryption and security on government systems? Seems like just about anyone (and everyone) can hack into them. Obviously not worried about that. Wag the dog.
In politics, "Do it for the children!" is a time-honored trump card, not dissimilar to the race card and the Hitler card. It means, "Agree with me now, or you're a demon from hell and that's all there is to it!"
Right this is the same Government that had 20 million Americans detailed information stolen who had to applied for security clearances or xx millions stolen from other agencies. The simple fact is they cannot be trusted to protect the information and their campaigns to lower the bar [or eliminate it] on search warrants does not engender trust.
Also, it might be added that if the US is successful in passing such legislation, why would not every country in the world not want the same access for their judicial(?) processes, e.g., China and Russia.
If other countries demand that US cannot access their citizen's information, think Europe without their consent on a case by case basis, how do the Tech companies manage that nightmare.
Finally, as Apple's Cook has pointed out, if a backdoor is provided for US Government how do you prevent criminals and hackers from getting access.
The number of cases where this has been useful is near nil. Just like requiring a Search Warrant is an objection and their efforts to undermine or trivialize the process, Law Enforcement's priorities are its convenience not our rights, protections, etc.
The biggest issue I've got with this kind of gouvernemental backdoor proposal is if one gouvernement has it, any other foreign authority could got it too.
Honestly, everyone who has two neurons has to look behind the smokescreen. This just seems PR at their finest hour to foreign people abroad not stop buying american products, and to people, both at home and abroad be lulled into a false sense of security. Will you tell me Microsoft, Cisco and Apple, true "american" firms, and that built their might and power being in bed with the establishment, and having contracts with the DoD, do not have backdoors??? Not really? You certainly are insulting my intelligence here.
The biggest issue I've got with this kind of gouvernemental backdoor proposal is if one gouvernement has it, any other foreign authority could got it too.
Yep. The government security guy who has the keys lets them slip (or maybe gives them?) to someone who allows the current-enemy-of-the-month to use them to break in and access the data on our devices. Of course the government phones are no longer secure either because ...
Comments
Let's suppose I'm a high profile criminal from the old days. My activities are all logged on pen and paper. But as a security minded crook, I write my annotations encoded. Like an one-time pad (for clarification, one-time pads cannot be broken through, even by brute force attacks). My shuffling sequence is a quote or poem which I know by heart and never wrote down.
Now, the police caught up with me and I got arrested, with my logbook. But they can't decipher it, because they don't know my key. Only I can do it.
Do I receive a judicial order to surrender my key? No, because it's a common constitutional principle in most democracies that one should not be obligated to provide proof of wrongdoing against oneself.
Back to the real world.
Just exchanging the pen and paper technology for the consumer electronics negates this fundamental constitutional right?
I'm not discussing the morality of it, but this is the law of the land in several "liberal democracies". Should it not be upheld by the arms of the executive power—the police agencies.
As a 19 year law enforcement veteran I can certainly sympathize in wanting to have every resource possible to prosecute pedophiles and other serious criminals. I also want every resource available to track terrorists and prevent any more attacks. With that being said, I of all people do not trust the federal government with this power because they have shown over and over again through the years what extent they are willing to abuse their authority against the citizens. I am a citizen and hold our Constitution sacred and would do anything to preserve its integrity in protecting citizen freedoms and rights. There are plenty of ways to make cases against people, arguing the critical and absolute necessity of phone access is a sign of a weak minded officer who lacks creativity or willingness to work, much like the lazy traffic guys who can't work without a radar, nevermind the other several hundred traffic statutes available to enforce.
Nicely said, however this is not the way our world works now. You say you will do anything to hold the constitution sacred. Do you literally mean anything. How about resigning from your job and abandoning your career. Then not being able to pay your mortgage, feed your family, pay for your child's college etc. Are you willing to do that? Are your superiors also willing or will they fire you if you do not follow orders to violate peoples civil liberties. This all has to flow down hill and it will eventually get to you? Does your department have any used military vehicles in use. Who did what or agreed to what to gain access to that equipment. I don't think Americans of today have the guts for another revolution.
Let me begin with an analogy:
Let's suppose I'm a high profile criminal from the old days. My activities are all logged on pen and paper. But as a security minded crook, I write my annotations encoded. Like an one-time pad (for clarification, one-time pads cannot be broken through, even by brute force attacks). My shuffling sequence is a quote or poem which I know by heart and never wrote down.
Now, the police caught up with me and I got arrested, with my logbook. But they can't decipher it, because they don't know my key. Only I can do it.
Do I receive a judicial order to surrender my key? No, because it's a common constitutional principle in most democracies that one should not be obligated to provide proof of wrongdoing against oneself.
Back to the real world.
Just exchanging the pen and paper technology for the consumer electronics negates this fundamental constitutional right?
I'm not discussing the morality of it, but this is the law of the land in several "liberal democracies". Should it not be upheld by the arms of the executive power—the police agencies.
This has nothing to do with the technology or the method of creating information. This is just about what people are willing to do regarding trashing the constitution. The same attitude may result in torture to get the guy in the 1950's to give up the key. You find more covert ways of getting what you want.
Yes. We must always trust our government and only our government because only they know what is best for us and will protect us from harm.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/11/animas-river-spill-epa-anger
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/11/22/those-not-so-lost-emails-up-to-30000-lerner-emails-may-have-been-recovered/
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/12/414029884/breach-of-government-personnel-data-compromised-security-information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/214127-barney-frank-obama-lied-about-health-plans
http://www.rubyridge.net
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/31/us-history-of-eugenics-practice.aspx
If you smell bullshit, then say something
I think of stories like this as "indicator notices." While it might not directly and immediately affect me, it is a sign of other troubling matters. I think back to decisions that needed to be made by certain Germans in ~1932; heck, for that matter crown loyalists in 1770. At some point you have be able to see it coming, and think maybe it is time to go.
Just like with PRISM, they want to cast a net over all Americans, and then store that data for later. Encryption makes that much harder for them. How else can the government later terrorize its people with blackmail when its citizens protest against it?
How about placing some better encryption and security on government systems? Seems like just about anyone (and everyone) can hack into them. Obviously not worried about that. Wag the dog.
In politics, "Do it for the children!" is a time-honored trump card, not dissimilar to the race card and the Hitler card. It means, "Agree with me now, or you're a demon from hell and that's all there is to it!"
Wow. So many fabulous posts.
Yes, yes, think of the children. Unless the child rapist is a Du Pont billionaire, then it's who gives a ****.
Also, it might be added that if the US is successful in passing such legislation, why would not every country in the world not want the same access for their judicial(?) processes, e.g., China and Russia.
If other countries demand that US cannot access their citizen's information, think Europe without their consent on a case by case basis, how do the Tech companies manage that nightmare.
Finally, as Apple's Cook has pointed out, if a backdoor is provided for US Government how do you prevent criminals and hackers from getting access.
The number of cases where this has been useful is near nil. Just like requiring a Search Warrant is an objection and their efforts to undermine or trivialize the process, Law Enforcement's priorities are its convenience not our rights, protections, etc.
The biggest issue I've got with this kind of gouvernemental backdoor proposal is if one gouvernement has it, any other foreign authority could got it too.
Honestly, everyone who has two neurons has to look behind the smokescreen. This just seems PR at their finest hour to foreign people abroad not stop buying american products, and to people, both at home and abroad be lulled into a false sense of security. Will you tell me Microsoft, Cisco and Apple, true "american" firms, and that built their might and power being in bed with the establishment, and having contracts with the DoD, do not have backdoors??? Not really? You certainly are insulting my intelligence here.
If you want the government to know everything you are doing just use a M$ product.
The biggest issue I've got with this kind of gouvernemental backdoor proposal is if one gouvernement has it, any other foreign authority could got it too.
Yep. The government security guy who has the keys lets them slip (or maybe gives them?) to someone who allows the current-enemy-of-the-month to use them to break in and access the data on our devices. Of course the government phones are no longer secure either because ...
"If you're not for us, you're with the terrorists." - W.
A backdoor for the government is a backdoor for hackers. What don't these fools understand?