FBI director says there may be 'solutions' to end-to-end encryption debate

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    From a technical angle, it’s either full protection, or none at all. As soon as you implement a backdoor or introduce a weakness as part of the format, the encryption is essentially useless since everyone can tap into that weakness, or the one authority that has the exception can abuse it as no-one will know they are being exposed, or other entities can get hold of that access.
    It’s as simple as that and anyone that tells people differently are lying. 
    GeorgeBMacStrangeDays
  • Reply 22 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member
    So, let me get this straight:   It's horrific if there is even a remote possibility that China could force one its leading tech companies to enable the country to spy on its customers.  But it's a good thing for the U.S. government to do just exactly that which they say China might maybe do in the future.

    Got it.
    Hypocrisy at its finest.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,822member

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    edited March 6
  • Reply 24 of 43
    78Bandit78Bandit Posts: 232member
    lkrupp said:
    elnbrg said:
    This proves that end-to-end encryption is still a right way to protect our data.
    Protect our data from who and why? Just because? The police have no right to gather evidence in a criminal case other than by traditional methods? Legal precedent has evolved over the past two centuries regarding what information we have the “right” to conceal from police. How about the new technique of matching DNA in genealogical databases to narrow down or discover possible suspects? Should that be banned? Our DNA is about as private as it gets. With a search warrant issued by a judge I see no problem with forcing the decryption of communications. When the telephone was invented legal wiretapping soon followed. The only difference is today that data is encrypted and law enforcement should have the tools to retrieve that data under the supervision of a judge. Damned Facebook knows more about you than the government does.
    Here's the difference.  By Using GedMatch the authorities are comparing validly seized DNA evidence from a person who is already a suspect in a particular crime with voluntarily produced records given by unrelated individuals to a private organization.  In every case so far the person they did a DNA match with was a fairly distant cousin.  That cousin was not compelled to contribute their DNA, they did so willingly.

    Under your theory, the U.S. government should be allowed to collect every last, single, solitary newborn's DNA for the specific purpose of setting up a government managed database of DNA records to identify potential suspects at some vague, unknown point in the future.  That is what a centralized security key does.  The personal liberty aspect hinges entirely on whether the citizen's participation is voluntary or not.

    The police have the right to gather evidence by whatever means they have at their disposal; however, those means should not include forcing all citizens, even those not accused of any criminal activity, to only use government approved methods of communication.
    GeorgeBMacStrangeDays
  • Reply 25 of 43
    "...letting law enforcement bypass security measures without exposing consumers."

    As much as I am for law enforcement this is exactly what exposure means. This statement is flawed in the first place. Investrigation is not set of freebies to achieve goal. That is why we have attorneys to prevent excessive exposure of unrelated facts that might be misused even byl law enforcement. Focus on task at hand - not on mass enforcement of things that may not be subject to current law or investigation.
    edited March 6
  • Reply 26 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member
    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    yoyo2222
  • Reply 27 of 43
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 222member
    lkrupp said:
    elnbrg said:
    This proves that end-to-end encryption is still a right way to protect our data.
    How about the new technique of matching DNA in genealogical databases to narrow down or discover possible suspects? Should that be banned?
    That should absolutely be prohibited. Warrants are supposed to be specific. "Give us the name of anybody whose DNA markers match those of this sample" is not specific.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 222member

    lkrupp said:
    elnbrg said:
    This proves that end-to-end encryption is still a right way to protect our data.
    With a search warrant issued by a judge I see no problem with forcing the decryption of communications. When the telephone was invented legal wiretapping soon followed. The only difference is today that data is encrypted and law enforcement should have the tools to retrieve that data under the supervision of a judge. Damned Facebook knows more about you than the government does.
    Then you misunderstand what a warrant is. It is a grant requested by one branch of government and ostensibly reviewed by a separate branch of government for the first branch to break the law. A warrant can't compel you to produce a key to a locked box. You may not have the key. A warrant can only grant the police the right to open the locked box themselves.

    If you do have the key, it may be wise to provide it, as most other entry methods will destroy the box. Also, if the police can prove the box is yours and only you could have the key and it turns out to contain illicit material, these facts can be used against you in a trial.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 29 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,556member
    lkrupp said:
    elnbrg said:
    This proves that end-to-end encryption is still a right way to protect our data.
    Protect our data from who and why? Just because? The police have no right to gather evidence in a criminal case other than by traditional methods? Legal precedent has evolved over the past two centuries regarding what information we have the “right” to conceal from police. How about the new technique of matching DNA in genealogical databases to narrow down or discover possible suspects? Should that be banned? Our DNA is about as private as it gets. With a search warrant issued by a judge I see no problem with forcing the decryption of communications. When the telephone was invented legal wiretapping soon followed. The only difference is today that data is encrypted and law enforcement should have the tools to retrieve that data under the supervision of a judge. Damned Facebook knows more about you than the government does.
    and that’s a good thing. the government doesn’t have a right to know as much about you as it wants. in fact we have rights that they cannot. 

    geeze, do you have family in law enforcement or something? 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 30 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,556member

    Hmmmm.... I see and, to some degree, agree with Apple's view of privacy. But if a someone shoots up a school, do they still deserve to have their iPhone protected. A judge should be able to rule to see the data on someone's device if they are accused of crimes. On a one-off basis. Much like wire-tapping or search warrants are administered.

    Yes, there may be abuses, but shouldn't we be voting in intelligent people that appoint and oversee intelligent people, Judges, FBI Directors, etc? With proper oversight, of course.
    But it doesn’t work like that. If there are backdoors, they will be exposed, for everyone besides the big bad terrorists.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 31 of 43
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 725member
    Yes, there is a solution.

    More and more people could call out the would-be tyrants that advocate restrictions on (or the compromising of) end-to-end encryption as the bad (though, in some cases perhaps, good-intentioned) actors that they are. They could be subject to more and more societal scorn, and be more and more regarded as pariah and as threats to essential liberties and American ideals. They, and those who put them in positions of power, could become more and more disfavored until almost no one in any position of power (within governments) would dare suggest such things - just as almost no one in any such position of power would suggest, e.g., ritual human sacrifice.

    That would be a pretty good solution to the problem.
    edited March 6
  • Reply 32 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,556member
    So, let me get this straight:   It's horrific if there is even a remote possibility that China could force one its leading tech companies to enable the country to spy on its customers.  But it's a good thing for the U.S. government to do just exactly that which they say China might maybe do in the future.

    Got it.
    Hypocrisy at its finest.
    christ are you employed by china or what? i’ve never seen someone so dedicated to cheerleading an authoritative regime before (well, you and avon). it’s like you’re cool with the single party of china imprisoning and murdering those who dissent from their totalitarian policies and disregard for human rights. if you think that’s the same as a democratic republic of representatives government, please, try china. 
  • Reply 33 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,556member

    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    He’s referring to Jefferson’s ownership of human beings as slaves while waxing about freedom & slavery. if you don’t see the hypocrisy you need your head examined.  
  • Reply 34 of 43
    PvblivsPvblivs Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    "Hmmmm.... I see and, to some degree, agree with Apple's view of privacy. But if a someone shoots up a school, do they still deserve to have their iPhone protected. A judge should be able to rule to see the data on someone's device if they are accused of crimes. On a one-off basis. Much like wire-tapping or search warrants are administered." Gee, why not demand the accused stand as witness against himself while you are at it? If police and prosecutors are allowed to go through everything in your life with a fine-toothed comb, they can spin a tale of some nefarious act. It doesn't mean that you did it. But they can still get a conviction. The data on your phone is far too conducive to a fishing expedition.
  • Reply 35 of 43
    urashidurashid Posts: 92member
    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    I don't agree with name calling but while Jefferson spoke out against slavery "... he owned over 600 African-American slaves throughout his adult life and freed only seven."
    Looks like his democratic ideals didn't even match his own behavior.

  • Reply 36 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member
    So, let me get this straight:   It's horrific if there is even a remote possibility that China could force one its leading tech companies to enable the country to spy on its customers.  But it's a good thing for the U.S. government to do just exactly that which they say China might maybe do in the future.

    Got it.
    Hypocrisy at its finest.
    christ are you employed by china or what? i’ve never seen someone so dedicated to cheerleading an authoritative regime before (well, you and avon). it’s like you’re cool with the single party of china imprisoning and murdering those who dissent from their totalitarian policies and disregard for human rights. if you think that’s the same as a democratic republic of representatives government, please, try china. 
    Right now they have the best technology at the lowest prices.  Basically, 5G ready to roll.   Today.
    Trump is trying to block that -- by (falsely) accusing them of doing what we have been doing for years - spying.

    Human rights?   Ask Kaepernic about that.  But regardless, what does human rights have to do with spying?   (unless its just another excuse -- which it is).
  • Reply 37 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member

    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    He’s referring to Jefferson’s ownership of human beings as slaves while waxing about freedom & slavery. if you don’t see the hypocrisy you need your head examined.  
    Sorry, you maybe should learn a little history -- you would learn that most of our founding fathers and half the country owned slaves.   But, conservatives like to trash talk Jefferson -- so they do what they do best, spout false narratives.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    maltzmaltz Posts: 134member
    lkrupp said:
    Damned Facebook knows more about you than the government does.
    Only because the government doesn't care. Not all of us have the good fortune to live under such a government, nor can anyone guarantee that any government will be so benign forever.
    edited March 6
  • Reply 39 of 43
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,822member

    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    He’s referring to Jefferson’s ownership of human beings as slaves while waxing about freedom & slavery. if you don’t see the hypocrisy you need your head examined.  
    Sorry, you maybe should learn a little history -- you would learn that most of our founding fathers and half the country owned slaves.   But, conservatives like to trash talk Jefferson -- so they do what they do best, spout false narratives.
    Conservatives like to trash talk Jefferson?  Since when? I’m no conservative anyway.

    Jefferson had next to nothing to do with the US Constitution or the Bill Of Rights.  He composed the US Declaration Of Independence, the principles of which had already been voted on and agreed. So he wrote down what everyone already agreed with.  He’s a much bigger name than  his achievements would suggest. And he was a slaveholder and rapist.

    Far
    less than half the population owned slaves, check your sources.  The “false narrative” is not mine.
    edited March 7
  • Reply 40 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member
    crowley said:

    crowley said:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and rapist
    I wouldn't put much stock in anything that dickhead hypocrite said about freedom and slavery.
    That so called "dickhead" as you phrase not only wrote our Declaration of Independence, but was a primary founder and designer of our democracy.   Sorry, that he and his democratic ideals don't match with your ideology or biases.
    He’s referring to Jefferson’s ownership of human beings as slaves while waxing about freedom & slavery. if you don’t see the hypocrisy you need your head examined.  
    Sorry, you maybe should learn a little history -- you would learn that most of our founding fathers and half the country owned slaves.   But, conservatives like to trash talk Jefferson -- so they do what they do best, spout false narratives.
    Conservatives like to trash talk Jefferson?  Since when? I’m no conservative anyway.

    Jefferson had next to nothing to do with the US Constitution or the Bill Of Rights.  He composed the US Declaration Of Independence, the principles of which had already been voted on and agreed. So he wrote down what everyone already agreed with.  He’s a much bigger name than  his achievements would suggest. And he was a slaveholder and rapist.

    Far
    less than half the population owned slaves, check your sources.  The “false narrative” is not mine.
    I suspect that your current president is more of a rapist than Jefferson.   But nice burn!  In any event you need to learn (real) history rather than the alternative brand extremists like to spin these days.
Sign In or Register to comment.