And of course after the next terrorist attack takes thousands of lives you all will be blaming the government for not knowing it was going down. Nice.
But the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in advance. This is shown in both testimony and documentation. False flag attacks have nothing to do with the government’s ability to stop terrorists, except insofar as they’re (partially) created for the PURPOSE of stealing our privacy under the guise of protection. The Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed without 9/11, and all it did was legalize what AT&T and the government (et. al.) had already been doing for years.
And of course after the next terrorist attack takes thousands of lives you all will be blaming the government for not knowing it was going down. Nice.
But the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in advance. This is shown in both testimony and documentation. False flag attacks have nothing to do with the government’s ability to stop terrorists, except insofar as they’re (partially) created for the PURPOSE of stealing our privacy under the guise of protection. The Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed without 9/11, and all it did was legalize what AT&T and the government (et. al.) had already been doing for years.
Yep, and George Bush ordered the twin towers to be taken out so he could invade Afghanistan. And don’t forget Building 7. And the New Orleans levies. Bullshit artists and conspiracy theorists have an answer for everything. What seems to be is always better than nothing, reality be damned. An evil government is always behind everything.
And of course after the next terrorist attack takes thousands of lives you all will be blaming the government for not knowing it was going down. Nice.
But the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in advance. This is shown in both testimony and documentation. False flag attacks have nothing to do with the government’s ability to stop terrorists, except insofar as they’re (partially) created for the PURPOSE of stealing our privacy under the guise of protection. The Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed without 9/11, and all it did was legalize what AT&T and the government (et. al.) had already been doing for years.
Yep, and George Bush ordered the twin towers to be taken out so he could invade Afghanistan. And don’t forget Building 7. And the New Orleans levies. Bullshit artists and conspiracy theorists have an answer for everything. What seems to be is always better than nothing, reality be damned. An evil government is always behind everything.
Uh… your obvious libel aside, what I said is true. FDR purposely refused to act on Australian reports that the Japanese fleet was steaming toward Hawaii. The Commission Report (or was it something else; I can’t remember) said that the Bush administration was aware of the plan to hijack airliners for months in advance. These are both public information.
It is such a shame that facebook did not exist in the times of mafia, and that is why whole mafia families were not prosecuted, (because there was no eviden)...oh wait. Somehow 50 years ago, FBI guys were able to collect enough information on those guys to put them behind bars. Did they lose the skill so now we need "no locks" on doors so cops could solve crimes?
I have a hard time believing that MS-13 gang members are more sophisticated than 1970-1980s Italian mafia.
What abject stupidity. The FBI used court ordered wiretaps and hidden microphones to listen in on the mob, as well as informants. How is that different from getting a court order to “wiretap” an encrypted texting service? How is a telephone call different from a text message? With probable cause and a judge’s order I don’t see the problem. The fourth amendment doesn’t prohibit search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. That you don’t trust the government is your problem, not the Constitution’s.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is different, in that they are now arguing they need to preinstall mics in every room of every building, just in case there will be criminals gathering in a room, but the court order is needed to physically connect wires coming from that mic to the preamp to get the signal. Why do you not think this is abject stupidity, I do not know... But, that is not how it was done back then. They actually had no mics in rooms, so they had to come in (after the court order was obtained) to install the device. Too bad you missed the point completely.
Google "why I wrote PGP Phil Zimmerman". It's as relevant today as it was in 1991 (and updated in 1999). While PGP has lost much of its relevance, his points could have been written this morning.
"If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy." - Phil Zimmerman
It is such a shame that facebook did not exist in the times of mafia, and that is why whole mafia families were not prosecuted, (because there was no eviden)...oh wait. Somehow 50 years ago, FBI guys were able to collect enough information on those guys to put them behind bars. Did they lose the skill so now we need "no locks" on doors so cops could solve crimes?
I have a hard time believing that MS-13 gang members are more sophisticated than 1970-1980s Italian mafia.
What abject stupidity. The FBI used court ordered wiretaps and hidden microphones to listen in on the mob, as well as informants. How is that different from getting a court order to “wiretap” an encrypted texting service? How is a telephone call different from a text message? With probable cause and a judge’s order I don’t see the problem. The fourth amendment doesn’t prohibit search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. That you don’t trust the government is your problem, not the Constitution’s.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You seem to have misunderstood.
They are are not talking about wiretaps for a particular case; they want encryption broken permanently for one particular case. I take it you’ll be fine when the FBI demands that Apple breaks encryption on all their products for the same reason.
Oh my, how did we ever survive our evil government for two hundred years before encryption saved us all. Hallelujah! And yes, it will be fine with me for the government to be able to get around encryption because I’m not delusional about security and privacy. I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory of some clerk in an NSA office rummaging through my emails and texts for no reason as they have much more important things to do with their precious time. And that’s NOT the “why worry if you’re not doing anything wrong” attitude. It’s the common sense attitude. This whole subject is just the cause célebrè of the day for techies.
Here’s one for you. Years ago there was a murder in my town. A woman killed her boyfriend, chopped him up into pieces and put him in her garbage can. She was in an upstairs apartment. The downstairs apartment called the police because a red substance was leaking down her walls from upstairs. I wonder what that red substance was.The cops went upstairs to talk with the woman. While in her apartment one cop lifted the lid of her garbage can only to discover the dismembered body. The discovery of the body was ruled inadmissible evidence because the cop didn’t have a search warrant when he lifted the lid of the garbage can. Is that really what the fourth amendment was designed for?
It would not be a clerk doing the rummaging. It would be an AI server farm. And it would not require a person to be doing anything illegal. Merely opposing the ruling party can result in ruinous punishment, as we have seen recently. The US has already implemented a mass surveillance system at least once. Remember when Clapper lied to Congress about whether the NSA was gathering phone data of millions of citizens without any warrant? You also ignore the likelihood that once a backdoor is created, it will be exploited by people other than the government. Are you as trusting of all the black hat type hackers out there as you are of the government?
And of course after the next terrorist attack takes thousands of lives you all will be blaming the government for not knowing it was going down. Nice.
But the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in advance. This is shown in both testimony and documentation. False flag attacks have nothing to do with the government’s ability to stop terrorists, except insofar as they’re (partially) created for the PURPOSE of stealing our privacy under the guise of protection. The Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed without 9/11, and all it did was legalize what AT&T and the government (et. al.) had already been doing for years.
Yep, and George Bush ordered the twin towers to be taken out so he could invade Afghanistan. And don’t forget Building 7. And the New Orleans levies. Bullshit artists and conspiracy theorists have an answer for everything. What seems to be is always better than nothing, reality be damned. An evil government is always behind everything.
Uh… your obvious libel aside, what I said is true. FDR purposely refused to act on Australian reports that the Japanese fleet was steaming toward Hawaii. The Commission Report (or was it something else; I can’t remember) said that the Bush administration was aware of the plan to hijack airliners for months in advance. These are both public information.
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
TS, I doubt the FBI “purposely” ignored aussie intel, the arrogant pricks probably didn’t give those hokey Ossies much credence. The information wasn’t part of “their” machine. No conspiracy, just refusal to accept and believe what it implied. Same with the modern FBI. Just because after the fact the WTC was more likely obvious doesn’t make it a conspiracy when the players didn’t recognise what the pieces meant at the time. Large organisations like the FBI have their internal politics, infestations of careerist bureaucrats who don’t like it when their cosy world is shaken up, or even disturbed. It interferes with their personal plans. Which means things are either missed or ignored because stupidity, it’s just inconvenient, or because it might reflect poorly on their political bedfellows. See shooting the messenger et al. It’s always been that way, just been a little more obvious recently.
Back to the matter at hand: the established law is that they can access the information by wiretapping etc. The difference is the authorities are also demanding the encryption is broken for its convenience. Back in the day it was the authorities that would work out how to break the encryption. That was useful as it meant the miscreants did not know their encryption was broken. Very, very useful. And authorities realised could it utilise this really this useful little tool with the appropriate allocation of resources.
These days though, the more recent dickheads in the polticial class can’t work out the obvious, that if it is public knowledge that the encryption on these devices is not secure, they would not be used by the bad guys for reasons of poor security. Better to clandestinely work out how to break the encryption. Like it was in fact done to the Japanese and Germans back in WW2.
I think it is because far too many senior law enforcement people these days are appointed for political connections rather than skill. A good reason for regular changes of government and its political affiliation. One of the benefits of democracy is it can do the cleansing mostly without bloodshed, no matter how much the previous vested interests scream.
TS, I doubt the FBI “purposely” ignored aussie intel, the arrogant pricks probably didn’t give those hokey Ossies much credence.
FDR. He ordered the standdown of PH forces and the circling of the planes so that it would take more time to manually pull them into position. Everyone knows that FDR wanted to drag the US into WWII. He ran for election on “he kept us out of the war,” just as Wilson had before him. And just as Wilson, FDR planned, from before his election, to get the US into a European war.
Back to the matter at hand: the established law is that they can access the information by wiretapping etc.
With a warrant, ostensibly, but we know they don’t get them.
Better to clandestinely work out how to break the encryption. Like it was in fact done to the Japanese and Germans back in WW2.
Good old Bletchley Park… Oh, and the US Navy had broken the Japanese code before Pearl Harbor and knew the attack was coming, too. Again, ordered to stand down (and all the old, pre-WWI ships were taken there, while the newer carriers just happened to be at other ports).
I think it is because far too many senior law enforcement people these days are appointed for political connections rather than skill.
An oligarchy, if you will. Hear hear.
One of the benefits of democracy is it can do the cleansing mostly without bloodshed
But is the reason that the oligarchy is formed in the first place, which is why the Founders had the Senate chosen by state legislatures (among other things).
I really don’t see the problem. Facebook should hand over the contents of the messages in response to the duly issued warrant. And let DoJ decrypt it. Would DoJ whine about getting an email text in, say, French? FB delivers then DoJ figures out what it means. Simple.
This will be the end result of DOJ and others get what they want on encrypted communication like Messages or FB Messenger: Criminals will move to underground third party apps that are end to end encrypted and the gov't will have no ability to force anyone to give them a backdoor into it. The rest of us will no longer have encrypted communication.
I suspect that's what they want anyway.
Given E2E encryption is only a few hundred lines of code. Yep. 100% agree. Anyone with a small amount of programming skil can implement the tech so no putting the magic back in the Book of Evil.
It is such a shame that facebook did not exist in the times of mafia, and that is why whole mafia families were not prosecuted, (because there was no eviden)...oh wait. Somehow 50 years ago, FBI guys were able to collect enough information on those guys to put them behind bars. Did they lose the skill so now we need "no locks" on doors so cops could solve crimes?
I have a hard time believing that MS-13 gang members are more sophisticated than 1970-1980s Italian mafia.
What abject stupidity. The FBI used court ordered wiretaps and hidden microphones to listen in on the mob, as well as informants. How is that different from getting a court order to “wiretap” an encrypted texting service?
Because back then there was no forced compliance issued to the manufacturer into defeating the purpose of their product so the FBI could observe the communication they wanted. It is the FBI’s responsibility to develop technology or contract other developers in order to accomplish what they want. Why should manufacturers alter and harm their own products just because the FBI is not skilled enough to accomplish what they feel they need?
Pretty sure there’s a wiretapping provision in law that required AT&T, for example (maker of telephones and the infrastructure to connect them) support wiretapping.
To my mind, communicatIons via publicly accessible infrastructure, like telephone systems of old or the internet today, is fair game for government snooping because it’s when such communication takes place that an idea in one person’s head can be disseminated and turned to actions that could cause great harm to society. I wouldn’t be adverse to government requiring any business along that path, from one end to the other, to assist in making such communications accessible to a government search, and not just the encrypted packets. It’s when government wants a backdoor into a personal device that I object; I see such devices as sacrosanct, as an extension of a person’s very mind.
You can't have it both ways. Today's telephone systems are the same as they were when they first came out. Phones are still tapped the same way. You saying your personal device is different doesn't hold water. My old telephone, when I finally was allowed by law to buy one, was my personal device just like my iPhone is now. You're still using a system to communicate that isn't yours to regulate (cellular and internet access). Our crazy governments could dictate that any communication over cellular systems or the internet can not legally use encryption to achieve the same thing as a backdoor. They could force companies to kill any encrypted data then there wouldn't need to be any end-to-end encryption because it wouldn't work. You know this could be achieved within everyone's router. Even though I own my Arris cable modem, Comcast has the lawful right to reconfigure it to meet their needs, which could include configuring it to strip encrypted data, leaving me with everything in clear text (again).
I don't understand why this hasn't already happened and I don't believe it matters whether the Republications or Democrats are in office. You can bring up the fourth amendment but even that doesn't matter because Congress and the States could kill this amendment and every other amendment any time it wanted to using something like the Patriot Act. I'm surprised we still are allowed to use any encryption, probably because very few of the people in power in DC actually understand anything about it. Technology has evolved way too fast for our feeble minds to adjust to and the biggest problem is we don't use our brains when we need to use them the most; during times of fear. This is what is causing all the problems in this world--fear. If we slowed down and didn't react so quickly we might be able to make rational decisions but that's not how people operate in today's world. Everything happens in a split second.
Very well articulated rob53. There’s also the subjective interpretation of what is “reasonable.” Humans are very pliable and easily manipulated into going along with anything when fed with certain influences that activate the emotionally susceptible parts and cognitive biases of human behavior. At such levels whether the triggers and influences are truthful, outright lies, or total fabrications does not really matter at all. None of this is rocket science or abstract speculation. We have an extremely well documented history, down to a daily journal level of detail from multiple sources, of an entire country, 1930s Germany, turning against all measures of morality and human decency and inflicting great suffering and death to tens of millions of humans around the world. If you think that people living in the 1930s were somehow primitive and less enlightened than humanity of today, think again. In terms of human evolution and modernity, the 1930s was a blink of an eye ago.
Science has advanced tremendously in the past 100 years but humans have advanced very little. Cryptography is great science but great science cannot save us from the basic evils the still infect humanity.
It is such a shame that facebook did not exist in the times of mafia, and that is why whole mafia families were not prosecuted, (because there was no eviden)...oh wait. Somehow 50 years ago, FBI guys were able to collect enough information on those guys to put them behind bars. Did they lose the skill so now we need "no locks" on doors so cops could solve crimes?
I have a hard time believing that MS-13 gang members are more sophisticated than 1970-1980s Italian mafia.
What abject stupidity. The FBI used court ordered wiretaps and hidden microphones to listen in on the mob, as well as informants. How is that different from getting a court order to “wiretap” an encrypted texting service? How is a telephone call different from a text message? With probable cause and a judge’s order I don’t see the problem. The fourth amendment doesn’t prohibit search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. That you don’t trust the government is your problem, not the Constitution’s.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What OUTRIGHT stupidity!!
Did wiretaps require changing the entirety of the phone system & making it less secure for all and a target for “bad actors”? Do you seriously not recognize the difference between an action that is tantamount to making privacy (via encryption, at any rate...) illegal, & am age old surveillance method than can (and is) executes only on specific individuals, without the entire populace losing fundamental civil liberties??
It is such a shame that facebook did not exist in the times of mafia, and that is why whole mafia families were not prosecuted, (because there was no eviden)...oh wait. Somehow 50 years ago, FBI guys were able to collect enough information on those guys to put them behind bars. Did they lose the skill so now we need "no locks" on doors so cops could solve crimes?
I have a hard time believing that MS-13 gang members are more sophisticated than 1970-1980s Italian mafia.
That's just what modern-day policing has came to. Even for minor stuff - I had some wheels and tyres stolen from my back garden one time, I called the police who asked if I had CCTV. I didn't at the time and was told "sorry mate, nothing we can do". Didn't even send a car round, didn't take a statement, didn't even file a police report so I couldn't even claim on my insurance without an incident number. It seems at all levels they need the evidence and facts to be laid in front of them so they can do as little as possible.
Comments
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
Why do you not think this is abject stupidity, I do not know...
But, that is not how it was done back then. They actually had no mics in rooms, so they had to come in (after the court order was obtained) to install the device.
Too bad you missed the point completely.
And this be against the US Constitution.
"If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy." - Phil Zimmerman
Same with the modern FBI. Just because after the fact the WTC was more likely obvious doesn’t make it a conspiracy when the players didn’t recognise what the pieces meant at the time. Large organisations like the FBI have their internal politics, infestations of careerist bureaucrats who don’t like it when their cosy world is shaken up, or even disturbed. It interferes with their personal plans. Which means things are either missed or ignored because stupidity, it’s just inconvenient, or because it might reflect poorly on their political bedfellows. See shooting the messenger et al. It’s always been that way, just been a little more obvious recently.
Back to the matter at hand: the established law is that they can access the information by wiretapping etc. The difference is the authorities are also demanding the encryption is broken for its convenience. Back in the day it was the authorities that would work out how to break the encryption. That was useful as it meant the miscreants did not know their encryption was broken. Very, very useful. And authorities realised could it utilise this really this useful little tool with the appropriate allocation of resources.
These days though, the more recent dickheads in the polticial class can’t work out the obvious, that if it is public knowledge that the encryption on these devices is not secure, they would not be used by the bad guys for reasons of poor security. Better to clandestinely work out how to break the encryption. Like it was in fact done to the Japanese and Germans back in WW2.
I think it is because far too many senior law enforcement people these days are appointed for political connections rather than skill. A good reason for regular changes of government and its political affiliation. One of the benefits of democracy is it can do the cleansing mostly without bloodshed, no matter how much the previous vested interests scream.
Good old Bletchley Park… Oh, and the US Navy had broken the Japanese code before Pearl Harbor and knew the attack was coming, too. Again, ordered to stand down (and all the old, pre-WWI ships were taken there, while the newer carriers just happened to be at other ports).
An oligarchy, if you will. Hear hear.
But is the reason that the oligarchy is formed in the first place, which is why the Founders had the Senate chosen by state legislatures (among other things).
Science has advanced tremendously in the past 100 years but humans have advanced very little. Cryptography is great science but great science cannot save us from the basic evils the still infect humanity.
Did wiretaps require changing the entirety of the phone system & making it less secure for all and a target for “bad actors”?
Do you seriously not recognize the difference between an action that is tantamount to making privacy (via encryption, at any rate...) illegal, & am age old surveillance method than can (and is) executes only on specific individuals, without the entire populace losing fundamental civil liberties??