Law Enforcement has stopped so many terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of potential terrorists. But because this all happened behind the scenes so to speak you don't believe it. If there was a successful attack, you would blame them for failing to do their job even though it is people like you that make it more difficult than it should be.
And as this happened "behind the scenes" you know about it ... how?
We already have a safe that can not be unlocked even with a Judge's order, it is our mind. Governments have not had a master key or backdoor key to our minds since the beginning of time and we as a species have still managed to survive and multiple.
We already have a safe that can not be unlocked even with a Judge's order, it is our mind. Governments have not had a master key or backdoor key to our minds since the beginning of time and we as a species have still managed to survive and multiple.
We already have a safe that can not be unlocked even with a Judge's order, it is our mind. Governments have not had a master key or backdoor key to our minds since the beginning of time and we as a species have still managed to survive and multiple.
Are you unaware of the mind-reading division of the NSA? ????
We already have a safe that can not be unlocked even with a Judge's order, it is our mind. Governments have not had a master key or backdoor key to our minds since the beginning of time and we as a species have still managed to survive and multiple.
FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates each have one of these private minds too. Who knows what manner of evil and perversion is in there, they should be made to provide all the contents. Single A4 page should be enough. They have no fundamental human right to have private thoughts or feelings.
They have said that they aren't looking for backdoors here, although what they describe would still fit that term:
""We're not seeking a front door, back door, or any other kind of door," Yates said.
Instead, she said, federal law enforcement wants tech companies to somehow retain data that might be accessed later during investigations.
Comey acknowledged the risk that hackers might steal consumer information using access given to the government. He didn't offer any technical solutions, but instead stressed how important it was for tech companies to find a way to keep data both secure and available to the government.
"Maybe this is too hard," he said. "But given the stakes, we need to give it a shot.""
They want something like what Google and Facebook do, which is permanently store data trails that they can read through on request to find out how someone has been thinking at a particular moment in time. All justified with helping to stop terrorism and other criminal activity.
It's more like an EULA where a company says they have the right to use anything you upload to their server. There are privacy companies that just shut down when the government asked them to do this:
I wonder if the FBI director and Deputy Attorney would be happy for their personal emails and private data to be available to any 3rd party that requests it. When someone hacks people like them, it sometimes has very bad consequences for their personal lives and professional careers. They should do to others as they'd expect others to do to them.
Fighting terrorism and criminal networks is a valid problem to be fighting. This is the information and communication age. You couldn't do things even 30 years ago that you can do now with the internet. There hasn't been much evidence provided to show that the communications spying is helping:
They should be required to at least justify to the people they want to implement any form of spying that they can use it to effectively reduce criminal activity. If they can't do that then they have no reason to be asking for it.
No laws requiring companies like Apple to build back doors. After all that would leave agents etc vulnerable since a back door invites hackers and it would actually give them something to find. Which they will
But on the flip, apple etc can't sue or such to stop the FBI etc from hiring all the hackers they want to try to find a hole. They won't have to worry about the FBI leaking the details cause the first thing Apple will do is close the hole. And the hired hackers would have immunity from having performed the hacks. Leaking them and ruining things for the FBI would be a different game
Amazing to watch the debate and see clueless Christie on the 4th Amendment! WOW! How ANYONE could support that buffoon, he reminds me of blowback-ignorant Giuliani.
Amazing to watch the debate and see clueless Christie on the 4th Amendment! WOW! How ANYONE could support that buffoon, he reminds me of blowback-ignorant Giuliani.
But the RP statement he criticized that "just collect data from terrorists" IS ludicrous.
Comments
Law Enforcement has stopped so many terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of potential terrorists. But because this all happened behind the scenes so to speak you don't believe it. If there was a successful attack, you would blame them for failing to do their job even though it is people like you that make it more difficult than it should be.
And as this happened "behind the scenes" you know about it ... how?
Intelligence?
Until the gov makes it law and Apple has no choice. Talk is cheap. This will happen.
Time to buy stock in burner phones.
We already have a safe that can not be unlocked even with a Judge's order, it is our mind. Governments have not had a master key or backdoor key to our minds since the beginning of time and we as a species have still managed to survive and multiple.
Are you unaware of the mind-reading division of the NSA? ????
FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates each have one of these private minds too. Who knows what manner of evil and perversion is in there, they should be made to provide all the contents. Single A4 page should be enough. They have no fundamental human right to have private thoughts or feelings.
They have said that they aren't looking for backdoors here, although what they describe would still fit that term:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102818912
""We're not seeking a front door, back door, or any other kind of door," Yates said.
Instead, she said, federal law enforcement wants tech companies to somehow retain data that might be accessed later during investigations.
Comey acknowledged the risk that hackers might steal consumer information using access given to the government. He didn't offer any technical solutions, but instead stressed how important it was for tech companies to find a way to keep data both secure and available to the government.
"Maybe this is too hard," he said. "But given the stakes, we need to give it a shot.""
They want something like what Google and Facebook do, which is permanently store data trails that they can read through on request to find out how someone has been thinking at a particular moment in time. All justified with helping to stop terrorism and other criminal activity.
It's more like an EULA where a company says they have the right to use anything you upload to their server. There are privacy companies that just shut down when the government asked them to do this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email
I wonder if the FBI director and Deputy Attorney would be happy for their personal emails and private data to be available to any 3rd party that requests it. When someone hacks people like them, it sometimes has very bad consequences for their personal lives and professional careers. They should do to others as they'd expect others to do to them.
Fighting terrorism and criminal networks is a valid problem to be fighting. This is the information and communication age. You couldn't do things even 30 years ago that you can do now with the internet. There hasn't been much evidence provided to show that the communications spying is helping:
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/youll-never-guess-how-many-terrorist-plots-the-nsas-domestic-spy-program-has-foiled
Surveillance equipment has helped:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/26/tech/innovation/security-cameras-boston-bombings/
They should be required to at least justify to the people they want to implement any form of spying that they can use it to effectively reduce criminal activity. If they can't do that then they have no reason to be asking for it.
No laws requiring companies like Apple to build back doors. After all that would leave agents etc vulnerable since a back door invites hackers and it would actually give them something to find. Which they will
But on the flip, apple etc can't sue or such to stop the FBI etc from hiring all the hackers they want to try to find a hole. They won't have to worry about the FBI leaking the details cause the first thing Apple will do is close the hole. And the hired hackers would have immunity from having performed the hacks. Leaking them and ruining things for the FBI would be a different game
Would not take long for a law to be passed. Then we all know what's next.
With congress and our idiot in the white house, you could see it become law in weeks.
Go Rand Paul 2016!
http://randpaul.com/
Amazing to watch the debate and see clueless Christie on the 4th Amendment! WOW! How ANYONE could support that buffoon, he reminds me of blowback-ignorant Giuliani.
Go Rand Paul 2016!
http://randpaul.com/
Amazing to watch the debate and see clueless Christie on the 4th Amendment! WOW! How ANYONE could support that buffoon, he reminds me of blowback-ignorant Giuliani.
But the RP statement he criticized that "just collect data from terrorists" IS ludicrous.