President Obama urges prudence from both sides of encryption debate, warns against 'absolutist' pos

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    brakken said:

    postman said:
    I believe this is less about the President and more about FBI director James Comey. This public grandstand by the FBI and the DoJ is turning into an embarrassment for the administration. I think Comey started this, and that the President is now stuck having to support the FBI – reluctantly. 

    Why did Comey do this?
    There is strong evidence that, unlike the FBI, the NSA has the budget and the capacity to "break" strong encryption now. And that FBI director James Comey's reason for grandstanding publicly at this particular moment was that the FBI was in fact right in the middle of requesting to increase their budget by more than double.

    Mr. Comey essentially wants to make his job easier. And his strategy appears to be to either get Congress to change the law to force the device makers to give the FBI – and ostensibly all other law enforcement agencies – easier access, or to give the FBI the capability (like the NSA) on their own – with a vastly bigger budget for more manpower and super-computers to brute-force the encrypted devices.

    The WSJ reported in Feb: "The FBI this month was asking Congress for $69 million to "counter the threat of "Going Dark"– being unable to access data because of encryption and other techniques.The bureau currently devotes 39 people and $31 million to this effort."

    In other words, the FBI is using the Apple iPhone "access" demand to convince Congress to more than double their budget from $31 million to $69 million "this month".

    To those who do not believe the NSA has the capability to break encryption, read this article "NSA is Mysteriously Absent From FBI-Apple Fight"

    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/35563-nsa-is-mysteriously-absent-from-fbi-apple-fight

    My conclusion: This is a power play and money grab by FBI director James Comey. His history points to this – he was part of the Bush Administration and is one of the architects who helped write the 'Patriot Act', before being appointed as FBI Director in 2013. So he is a very experienced Washington insider.  I also happen to believe he is an authoritarian zealot masquerading as a law enforcement bureaucrat. When he states that 'this is the hardest thing he's ever done', I would take that literally – it is indeed very hard to get your way in Washington and convince Congress to make new law. Mr. Comey's entire agenda is to make his job (and law enforcement) easier. When he uses 'double-speak' and says things like "personal privacy and liberty are very important to me", what he really means is it is very important to him because the FBI wants unfettered access around it. George Orwell is turning over in his grave.

    Thanks. Your explanation makes sense.
    What I don't understand is that I perceive Coney as making unconstitutional requests. How can this be a platform from which to demand a bigger budget? 
    Great article - thanks again!
    This indeed makes sense. Thanks.
  • Reply 82 of 103
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 204member
    "...the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through.." Got it. In other words and like a bad cop movie.. 'we can do it the easy way. Or we can do it the hard way...'
    Sort of reminds me of obamacare!
    tallest skilewtheckman
  • Reply 83 of 103
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 204member

    cpsro said:
    Obama's a friggin' lawyer. He knows the impact of legal precedents.

    If the government doesn't like the existing laws (or lack thereof), it has only itself to blame, just like the government has only itself to blame for letting Malik into the U.S. after she made pro-ISIS postings on Facebook. And failings of our Immigration and Naturalization Service ultimately fall on Obama.
    Just means he passed a bar exam. I don't believe he ever practiced law!
    tallest skilSpamSandwich
  • Reply 84 of 103
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 204member

    tundraboy said:
    There is the simple fact that if you break OS encryption for smartphones, bad actors can simply install any of the easily available 3rd party encryption systems and the FBI is back to the same old problem.  Meanwhile, we have broken privacy and transactional security for hundreds of millions of law-abiding smartphone owners with nothing to show for it.


    Exactly!
  • Reply 85 of 103
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    jmc54 said:

    cpsro said:
    Obama's a friggin' lawyer. He knows the impact of legal precedents.

    If the government doesn't like the existing laws (or lack thereof), it has only itself to blame, just like the government has only itself to blame for letting Malik into the U.S. after she made pro-ISIS postings on Facebook. And failings of our Immigration and Naturalization Service ultimately fall on Obama.
    Just means he passed a bar exam. I don't believe he ever practiced law!
    The AG of the US has "practiced law" and I believe she's the one pushing Obama on this, so what the hell difference does it make.

    The "argument" they're making is an appeal to emotion, false dichotomies, non sequitur, straw men, essentially rhetorical spin, not really a legal one anyone.,







    designrewtheckman
  • Reply 86 of 103
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    jmc54 said:
    "...the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through.." Got it. In other words and like a bad cop movie.. 'we can do it the easy way. Or we can do it the hard way...'
    Sort of reminds me of obamacare!
    Right... That didn't go through all the proper channel 10 times over and got voted on essentially twice, no sir. Gimme a fucking break.
  • Reply 87 of 103
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 204member
    foggyhill said:
    jmc54 said:
    Sort of reminds me of obamacare!
    Right... That didn't go through all the proper channel 10 times over and got voted on essentially twice, no sir. Gimme a fucking break.
    Went through and got passed once using reconciliation without any republican input and survived a supreme court ruling with the help of Justice Roberts telling the administration that the fee must be called a tax or the IRS could not be used as a means of collection. Sorry no fucking breaks to be given this day!
    designrtallest skilewtheckman
  • Reply 88 of 103
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 204member

    foggyhill said:
    jmc54 said:

    Just means he passed a bar exam. I don't believe he ever practiced law!
    The AG of the US has "practiced law" and I believe she's the one pushing Obama on this, so what the hell difference does it make.

    The "argument" they're making is an appeal to emotion, false dichotomies, non sequitur, straw men, essentially rhetorical spin, not really a legal one anyone.,







    Don't recall even mentioning the AG. Responded to another comment!
  • Reply 89 of 103
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    foggyhill said:
    When a bozo like you pushes for a conspiracy and you think you know more than the supreme court... 
    What was the conspiracy; I missed it.

    They’re fundamentally wrong in this case, by the way.
  • Reply 90 of 103
    CMA102DLCMA102DL Posts: 121member
    razormaid said:
    The government has been collecting phone metadata and emails of law abiding Americans since 2001, completely disregarding the 4th amendment and contrary to the oath of office to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The domestic enemy is the US Government. The answer is the development and wide adoption of open source encrypted and deanonymizing communication tools for all communication, casual and professional. We just need to do a better job making these tools user friendly, fun and intuitive.




    edited March 2016 tallest skilfastasleep
  • Reply 91 of 103
     Obama really needs to just end his term already  and go home! Of course he has never been a defender of liberty and property rights and privacy and security.   The surveillance state is here folks, time to go back to pen and paper and in-person conversations.   We all know we cannot trust the government, look what Britain did to the 13 colonies, need I say more?! 
    edited March 2016 SpamSandwichCMA102DL
  • Reply 92 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,511member
    As I write this, there is an all out assault on Apple and the iPhone and encryption being launched on the TV show 60 Minutes.

    Oh, and they just said it was "no problem" to gain access to a Samsung phone that was found in a trash can discarded by Paris shooters.

    There you go. Samsung is the preferred phone of law enforcement and hackers...but of course they'd never use one for their own security!
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 93 of 103
    CMA102DLCMA102DL Posts: 121member
    As I write this, there is an all out assault on Apple and the iPhone and encryption being launched on the TV show 60 Minutes.

    Oh, and they just said it was "no problem" to gain access to a Samsung phone that was found in a trash can discarded by Paris shooters.

    There you go. Samsung is the preferred phone of law enforcement and hackers...but of course they'd never use one for their own security!
    I couldn't expect less from our state media and state propaganda.

    Civil liberties, privacy and the right to be secure in our possessions is the new Sasquatch in America.
    edited March 2016 SpamSandwichewtheckman
  • Reply 94 of 103
    apple ][ said:
    What a coward. On some issues, you just have to take a stand, and not be a slimy politician.
    He did take a stand.  Read the whole thing.  Basically, if encryption is upheld then some major catastrophe will be staged and it will be forced through the courts.  

    Quote from the article:
    "What you'll find is that after something really bad happens the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through. And then you really will have a danger to our civil liberties because the disengaged or taken a position that is not sustainable."

    He's basically saying, play along or we'll stage something super horrible to really drum up the unthinking publics support and push through something worse.  They know how to play that game and the general population eat it up.  Pretty much anytime the word "terrorist" is used it's to push an agenda.  Americas version of the boogie man.
  • Reply 95 of 103
    ratsrats Posts: 12member
    OMG, another clueless politician, ugh.

    Seems no one really understands this deeply enough to talk about it intelligently. 

    Basically, if you take Obama's position of not being "absolutist" then you are taking the side of , OPEN IT UP.

    LOL, there is no in-between.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 96 of 103
    CMA102DLCMA102DL Posts: 121member
    Sadly Obama is not clueless. He knows the kind of war we are fighting and he is the one pulling the strings. This is a war between a corrupt administration and the people it is supposed to serve and keep safe. The Constitution warned us of oppressive governments like this one. We can't even have good, uncompromised encryption to keep our private data secure without having the government feeling like it is entitled to your data. We just need bold companies like Apple that do not take BS to push back. I do want to see how far the government is willing to go with their dirty tactics to get their way with Apple. It is very revealing how dishonest, crafty and nasty the US Govt can be.
    edited March 2016 ewtheckman
  • Reply 97 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,511member
    CMA102DL said:
    Sadly Obama is not clueless. He knows the kind of war we are fighting and he is the one making calls behind the scene. This is a war between a corrupt administration and the people it is supposed to serve and keep safe. The Constitution warned us of oppressive governments like this one. We can't even have good, uncompromised encryption to keep our private data secure without having the government feeling like it is entitled to your data. We just need bold companies like Apple that do not take BS to push back. I do want to see how far the government is willing to go with their dirty tactics to get their way with Apple. It is very revealing how dishonest, crafty and nasty the US Govt can be.
    ...and people need to take their security into their own hands. Assume that lawmakers will ALWAYS make the wrong decision and act accordingly.
    ewtheckmantallest skil
  • Reply 98 of 103
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    foggyhill said:
    jmc54 said:

    Just means he passed a bar exam. I don't believe he ever practiced law!
    The AG of the US has "practiced law" and I believe she's the one pushing Obama on this, so what the hell difference does it make.

    The "argument" they're making is an appeal to emotion, false dichotomies, non sequitur, straw men, essentially rhetorical spin, not really a legal one anyone.,







    She's got nothing to lose. At worst she'll look like she's working hard at her job in the eyes of her peers. She doesn't care what we think, nor does her job performance depend on our opinions no matter how right we are.
  • Reply 99 of 103
    dmdevdmdev Posts: 31member
    Hmmm, the President doesn't mind taking an "absolutist position" when the "science is settled." Well, the mathematics regarding this issue is settled, as is pretty much the Fourth Amendment. So no, I think an absolutist position is perfectly rational here.
    ewtheckmantallest skil
  • Reply 100 of 103
    The government has proved that they can't be trusted not to abuse their access or power. Apple is "absolutely" right to fight the government's order to create a backdoor—and that's exactly what they're asking for, despite their claim to the contrary.

    Normally I agree with Obama on most things, but this is one issue on which he is absolutely wrong. There is no "middle ground" in this fight. Either phones are encrypted, and customers are secure, or phones are "backdoored", and customers are not secure.

    The post-9/11 government has overreached and violated people's personal freedoms too many times to be trusted to access "just this phone, just this one time. And in an age where more of our personal lives exist in digital form, encryption is all that much more important.
    edited March 2016 propodewtheckman
Sign In or Register to comment.