Slashdot Mirror
Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications
According to an article at The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has sided with British Prime Minister David Cameron in saying that police and government agencies should not be blocked by encryption from viewing the content of cellphone or online communications, making the pro-spying arguments everyone has come to expect:
“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” ... The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves. The Clinton administration fought and lost a similar battle during the 1990s when it pushed for a “clipper chip” that would allow only the government to decrypt scrambled messages.
Never.
I hope that we can soon change to another administration before anything like this comes to pass.
Maybe I don't want a bunch of cunts like David Cameron and Obama reading my private correspondence.
..comes Mohammedanic Security.
FUCK THAT !
Just ignore that bit about being secure in your papers and possessions! The Government should be able to take what it wants, for your protection!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Regardless of government laws and tactics, hiding your communications is incredibly easy for anyone who isn't an idiot.
What this means is that most terrorists must be incredibly stupid... or the government wants to spy on normal people more easily.
...there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.
Simply impossible with the inherent corruption in the system. He's making the same speech as the Supreme Chancellor in front of the senate, and he will get his thunderous applause.
There is nothing left to do but try to keep up and protect our selves as best we can.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?
....same as the old boss.
Yup, only the government.
No way it can be cracked, no way it can be used by the wrong people, no way the government will use it improperly.
There are other ways to deal with terrorism.
People won't have to use backdoord encryption (except for the existing backdoors, hi NSA).
"The people donâ(TM)t like to be conquered, sir, and so they will not be."
By definition, no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure.
It is much better that this attitude is established by the government in public, rather than our government lying and doing it anyway.
If you want secure communication, don't use a 3rd party.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
If spies are listening in, it isn't private anymore.
I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.
I am not afraid of terrorists. I am not afraid of religious extremists. I am not afraid of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drug addicts, carjackers, burglars, home invaders, "active shooters," or copyright violators. No, the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government, and that makes me sad.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
... When you abused the trust people put in the Government and the NSA.
Previously... before all this arrogant bullshit... you would have gotten that cooperation either publicly or covertly. But you gave everyone the finger and told them you could do what you want.
You told everyone that Due Process was for suckers and you could just do whatever whenever however. And that has a price.
You're paying it now. The whole country will be paying it.
I don't want to put this all on Obama. It is also on the people that run these agencies and it is of course on the previous administration as well.
None of them have any regard for the constitution. It is a social contract to be obeyed by the letter and the spirit. Not either or neither. Both. You do what it says and if you've come up with a clever way to get around it without breaking the letter of the law... you don't do it.
It isn't just a law. It is a relationship. It is a code. It is what other societies have for a holy writ. You don't break it or the nation cracks.
And that is what has happened. The nation has cracked... and cracked again... and it is starting to break.
Patriotism he says? This would be the patriotism that so many on the political left laugh at and spit upon? Well... why would patriotism shuffle over to the likes of Obama covered in phlegm and do his bidding?
All this anti America garbage has a price as well. How could it not. If you devalue patriotism then patriotism has been devalued. When you call upon it... the check bounces.
Take me... My patriotism is just about used up. It hasn't been honored. It hasn't been replenished. It has been condemned and devalued.
Then Obama presumes to call upon it in the name of what? More unconstitutional spying? He wants to use my love of country which he laughs at to destroy my country?
The man is delusional.
The country needs to be run people that at the very least understand what they're doing. I don't even need someone that is honest. I need someone that knows their job. Obama and the people he's got running the government do not. They don't understand what binds the country together or keeps it running.
I'll take anyone of any political bent so long as they know their jobs and honor their oaths. Beyond that they can do anything at this point. I won't be picky.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Just let this one slide. Two years free college yo!
corporations that control the government. They are the ones paying real money to prevent and remedy security breaches. It seems it would be in their best interests to have strong encryption to prevent a lot of expensive problems, yet they seem unusually quiet on the subject.
The terrorists will always find a way to communicate in secret. Eliminating secure encryption will simply raise the cost of secure communication for them. Meanwhile the rest of us will be left with our asses showing.
The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen. There's no basis for anyone to trust any government agency in the US. A few people will still trust blindly, or temporarily while their team is in charge, but it won't be many. Not for a long, long time.
Here we go again, 911 all over again. ...the ones who get out in the streets right fucking now and REJECT this bullshit spying with every ounce of their soul.
Let me tell you who the REAL PATRIOTS are....
America is a free country of brave independant self sufficient self defending souls, we dont need your fucking nanny state.
So go ahead Obama and congress and lawmen gone bad politics and all you other state terrorists and control freaks and plain old ragheaded terrists... you just try to take away americans freedom and slave us to your game.
Go ahead, wind that clock closer to 1770's again...
We'll show you who the REAL PATRIOTS are.
You can't make an encryption scheme that only the good guys have the keys to.
Hell look at the DRM for DVD and Blueray. That's EXACTLY the cause and effect. One key leaks, everything using the encryption is now useless.
The next step is thought police.
Or does he intentionally want to bankrupt Silicon Valley?
No-one in their right mind wants anything to do with US software products any more, because we've no idea how many backdoors they've built in, and can't trust them an inch.
Snail mail and land line phones were never secure, all it took was a search warrant/court order (really easy to get) and the police had it. Email is no different. All the ranting about the NSA and government intrusion just diverts from the fact that; 1) if you don't want anyone to hear what you say, don't say it. 2) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down. The USA founding fathers lived with the knowledge that they would be held accountable for what they said and wrote, and today it's no different.
The technology required is the "warrant" - issued by a judge on probable cause. I believe the technology has been around for several hundred years.
I mean, Obama couldn't possibly have been referring to intercepting communications without a lawful warrant, and certainly not without cause, right?
Go shout your "Heil Hitler"s somewhere else, asshole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Obama has betrayed the voters who trusted him. I am among those
who was fooled, so I am myself ashamed.
If Romney or any of the rest of the scum can be any worse,
I will be very surprised.
I intend to vote Republican this time just to see how much worse things can ..
get under their "leadership". I sincerely doubt it will be substantively different
than what the US has now.
By definition, no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure.
But with strong crypto it's secure enough that the 3rd party can see (or alter) your communications. Obama and Cameron and (undoubtedly) all other future leaders want to strip away this protection using the force of law to change how crypto products are designed. You will live your life under the state microscope and, as always, the proper prerogatives of government will be twisted to cover up incompetence and serve the powerful few instead of protecting the dignity of the individual.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
There must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that you technically don't actually have any private information.
Bonus points if you can force actual terrorists and criminal organizations to stop rolling their own cryptography of their own free will.
Let's get real.
Gov't is working on this now.
It is all down to matters of principle. So lets extend out the argument that encryption obstructs police activity and should be banned. Clothing allows people to hide dangerous items that could threaten the life of police, so let's ban it and require people to be naked at all times so they can not hide dangerous items on their person. People can run from the police and get away, so lets require that everyone must wear leg irons so that they can not run away. It's a great meme, let's add to it.
It is not the job of the citizen to surrender their liberty and privacy to make it easier for the people they employ to assist those citizens in the upholding of the law. I will not be naked and in chains because it makes it easier for law enforcement to control and abuse me, neither would I accept a leash around my neck or that I require permission from law enforcement before I do anything at all.
So fuck the autocrats, we 'EMPLOY' them to make out lives better not so they can fucking control them, be that politicians or police officers. Seriously 'What The Fuck' is going on?
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
For the law abiding police to be able to get warrants to search (i.e. decrypt) from judges after convincing them of the necessity.
Ah, if only it worked this way and not the total opposite as it is now.
Right, so we'll have an American Backdoor for the Americans, but they don't just anyone accessing their data so they won't share it with everyone, which means we'll also need a German Backdoor for the Germans and a French Backdoor for the French and obviously multiple law-enforcement agencies in each of those countries will need access and frankly even assuming that by some miracle none of the agencies in any of the countries have anyone on staff who is either corrupt or incompetent there's somewhere around a 100% chance that other people with (more) malicious intents will gain access to said backdoors.
Meanwhile these supposed terrorists that these backdoors are designed to stop are either a) already too stupid to properly secure their communications or b) smart enough to "manually" encrypt the message itself and not simply the envelope, which means all this is for naught anyway.
Words alone do not express my contempt for Obama. Instead, let me suggest those who have seen the movie "Little Nicky" to recall the scene in Hell with Hitler and the pineapples.
A dingo ate my sig...
... and avoid providing metadata to big business.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"Heil Hitler"s?
Good grief, this is the best you can come up with? Comparing my clear and straightforward challenge to deal honestly and fully with any pro-statist idealogue with one of the most murderous, detestable and tyrannical statists in all history?
You do understand that right? I loathe statists and socialists of all types, and Nazi Germany, and HItler were textbook examples of fascist statism?
No you don't, or you wouldn't have made that comparison.
Miserable and pathetic. Truly.
To Obama: fuck you
If you force weak encryption for everyone, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, you might shoot someone else in the foot as well in the process, but that's little consolation.
I'll take up your challenge when you you learn how to spell "idealogy".
10€ says you pronounce it that way, too.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
has heard at one point or another:
Get a warrant.
The job of technology is not to fucking eliminate all the freedoms our parents enjoyed.
Especially since there has yet to be any reasoning given for the wildly out of control access
the feds already seem to expect with little to no oversight or regulation.
Let's not even go over how many cases have been cracked that required law enforcement to crack encryption in a time sensitive manner.
(got any? like a statistically significant amount? me neither)
So tell ya what, how about you fucks get back to investing in useful infrastructure like rebuilding bridges and roads
and stop trying to power grab with the tools the free thinkers you seem to fear so much gave you mmkay?
God to be a fly on the wall if anyone brought this type of thinking back to the 1960's congress.
Its an undisputed fact that all terrorists drink water. Therefore, we should ban water.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I will debate any statist on any argument whatsoever, and I will destroy them (the argument that is!), and what is more, I will do so not only with real actual logic but as and when warranted with facts and references. And what is more I will be polite and will not resort to name calling or personal attacks at all, but will of course expect that same consideration in return. And I will win the argument, always, and completely. There is no argument for big government statism that can defeat me - because I am right and you are wrong.
Statists generally prefer one-to-many broadcast methods like the evening news to spread their (largely emotional, fear-based) propaganda. This way they know there will be no equal airtime given to someone who logically questions their proposals and looks at them with a critical view. They are too welcome in too many other, much more convenient forums to actually take up your challenge on anything like a level playing field.
Although, a favorite trick of some flavors of statist is to invite dissenters to call into the show. The host will mute the caller, talk over them, refuse to answer inconvenient questions, and usually entirely take over the asking of questions, respond to complex and nuanced issues by badgering the caller with a series of yes/no questions designed to lead to a predetermined conclusion (an abuse of the Socratic method), changing the subject ("We had no justification to be in Iraq." "Saddam was a dictator! Do you support dictators?!"), and use other propaganda techniques designed to appear legitimate. This will convince the naive that any debate is happening, and that no one can successfully get the host to admit fault because the host is always right.
In summary, you're not going to get an honest debate because these people are afraid of honest debate and go to great lengths to avoid it. With a mere five corporations controlling every major newspaper, broadcast TV news service, radio news service, cable news service, and online news outlets, there simply isn't enough diversity to allow for anything in the mainstream other than an echo chamber. It comes in two flavors: "left" and "right", which are two slightly different methods of reaching the same conclusion that the solution to our problems is to concentrate more wealth and power into fewer hands.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Correct.
The problem may be you have people who don't understand technology trying to write laws governing the use of said technology-or they do understand it and have another agenda altogether. I think both options are scary.
It seems like this might be one part "make the Republicans look like terrorist-loving pedophiles by mindlessly opposing me," and one part "make sure even the stupids want encryption."
Also, if encrypted information is required to convict someone? The prosecutor is either REALLY bad (and then the person should go free anyway), or the law under which that person is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. Encryption takes speech and makes it secret. We have very few exceptions to free speech, and all of them involve generating eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. A competent prosecutor could make a case without it.
Yes Barack, IF there is 'evidence of a terrorist plot', there is a problem.
If there is NO evidence of a 'terrorist plot' and our email gets snooped by strangers in the gov't, we have a completely different problem. One I would argue is much worse than this so-called 'terrorism' bullsh*t.
There is a way, it's called 'encryption'. I actually agree, police could be allowed to listen in WHEN A COURT APPROVES. An actual court, not just some overpaid moron with a rubber stamp. And... spies!? NOPE.
captcha: diabolic
I think its to have something against apple/google to encrypt phones by default. They cannot block you from providing secure TLS on your website, but they can force companies to implement a backdoor in their hardware encryption.
Does anybody ever consider the NSA and government system spies on upcoming politicians and most likely officials who hold office as well?
Does anybody notice how people who are strong critics end up in office only paying lip service to positions they legitimately held before they had any power? If not entirely flipping their previous positions?
We've caught the military using PsyOps to win over Senators. You think that is all that has ever happened??
The UK is so in bed with our industrial military spy complex one expects them to parrot each other if not experiment in the UK before trying it out here.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Uh huh. Sorry, this isn't a school paper. Spelling Nazi fail.
So your attempt to champion your idealogy that steals from the productive people, fattens the wallets of the eilte, and gives the scraps out to to the lazy and stupid solely to buy their votes, has failed.
Not much of an argument of course, but I have destroyed it.
Face it, you cannot defeat me, the individual.
Will Pig Latin be a misdemeanor or felony? :-)
Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17, 2015 @05:09PM (#48840971)
After destabilizing Syria and funding ISIS with US tax-payer money: give up your privacy to prevent terrorist threats. Really?
The latest round of attacks hasn't yet terrorized the public to the extent that they'll tolerate this level of government abuse - perhaps next time?
Interesting point. That said, I am interested in any takers and will honestly address any argment people want to make.
Of course you are quite correct, all I am getting is the odd insult and pathetic verbal jab, no one has even tried to support their failed system of tyranny with logic.
Telling, isn't it? Afraid they are, of facing the truth.
but I guess this does them in for good.
WAHHHHHH!
All government and police can stuff it in their pie holes. It is because of your over reach and out of control officers why I made sure everything is encrypted.
How about you start putting NSA,FBI and LEO assholes in JAIL that violate the constitution as a good will gesture to the Citizens before you start whining about encryption.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The leopard can never change its' spots, and nor can Obama - in fact, Obama is rather less flexible intellectually than most cats I know...
This really isn't fair. You need to fess up and tell us what meds you're on.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
For all the drivel that people dislike Obama for it amazes me that stuff like this goes almost entirely unmentioned. Republicans love this kind of stuff, too, so it's also amusing that it goes unmentioned. If this was Bush the Fox News nuts would be like, "Hell yeah! Spy on us!" But since it's Obama they have to hide their glee. O.o
About everything you need to know about "new measures and improved encryption" Google, Microsoft and others use to block spying is nicely wrapped in these words: "He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. 'They’re patriots.' "
839*929
ALSO encrypted with high-grade encryption.
If you want to kiss that goodbye, fine but you can't have that and breakable encryption elsewhere.
I for one am tired of the government from being slowed by locks whenever they need to find a terrorist suspect, I think the government needs a master key that can open any lock, and everyone combination lock needs to have a master unlock code to unlock it.
Since the master keys would only be available to a few thousand (ok, maybe a few hundred thousand) law enforcement personnel, I fail to see how the "bad guys" would ever get access to them. The government has our best interests at heart, and they carefully screen employees to ensure that none of them are the "bad guys".
Personal liberty and and privacy ALWAYS trump national security.
ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves
The US Government is willing to break their own constitution so they can secretly spy and kill people.
They need to demonstrate that there is effectual oversight to their abuse of power, and that the courts are capable of operating independently before they can be trusted.
Does anything else really need to be said?
You've established that you think you don't need actual court approval just like Bush.
Now go fuck yourself and take everyone who thinks like you along to n the sit and spin.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm not here to defend obama (I'm not american), but british news sites are saying that actually he and UK prime minister cameron showed disagreement on encryption in friday's joint press conference. The WSJ reported an ambiguous statement, but the tone of the press conference sounded quite different to those who were there. Here some paragraphs from a Daily Mail's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... ...But behind the smiles there remains sharp differences over Mr Cameron's call for US web firms to do more to open up encrypted messages to security services in the wake of the atrocities in Paris last week. ...
However, as the press conference progressed it became clear that differences remain over the extent to which security agencies should be able to snoop on encrypted messages and social media like WhatsApp, SnapChat and Facebook.
last line should read '...a “clipper chip” that would supposedly allow only the government to decrypt...'
The next step is thought police.
Indeed. Elsewhere another commenter argues that the key is that Obama's balance (as reported here FWIW), fails because of the nature of human corruption. While true enough, that is not the key. The key is the fact that we really aren't so technically far away from potentially being able to literally scrape some significant portion of information directly from a suspects brain. Just think highly accurate fmri/whatever combined with flashing images on screens, and perhaps some sleep deprivation or forced medication for increases maliability and decreased resistance posture.
Even if such mind-reading leading to the feasibility of literal thought police is unlikely in our lifetimes, the likelyhood of nation states attempting partial success is extremely high (if not just plain historical).
Thus when looking at someone carrying effectively encrypted ideas (that may when sent become communications), one must really decide- do we have an ultimate right to privacy within our own skulls? The way the summary spun it, it sounds like Obama's philisophical answer is no. I.e. if there is information about us, that can be technically extracted, Obama sounds (again, from the marvelously reputable slashdot summary) like he believes your gray matter is fair game for the state. Sure, call it an extremist argument. We'll talk again in 10 years.
Its an undisputed fact that all terrorists drink water. Therefore, we should ban water.
And arrest everyone who has drank water, since they must be terrorist sympathizers.
Because the government can of course be trusted, not!
Its called RIPA and means a court can compel you to hand over your key or decrypt files, otherwise you can be gaoled. Of course, this usually means the paranoid are gaoled rather than real terrorists, but actually finding real terrorists seems to be a problem, there's not that many around.
IS VERY CHEAP AND EASY
The last refuge of scoundrels.
Citizens' privacy should not be hampered by government intrusion.
I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the big corporations that control the government.
You're surprised because you misunderstand the situation, because you've dramatically oversimplified it. Big corporations have influence but they do not "control" the government. They do attempt to influence its actions, particularly whenever government interferes with their business operations and sometimes when they think they can get government to interfere with the operations of their competitors, and they meet with some degree of success.
However, politicians still understand that corporations can't vote, and that they can't even contribute anywhere near as much money as private citizens can, assuming said citizens choose to make the effort. This anti-terrorist agenda is not a corporate agenda, by and large. Oh, there are a few corporations in the military-industrial complex who like the military side of it because it enables them to sell lots of expensive gear. But the spying, insofar as it works (which it mostly doesn't), reduces their business opportunities.
No, the anti-terrorist agenda is driven by masses of fearful individual citizens. Few of them hang out on slashdot, or work in IT organizations, so they don't have a loud voice here, but there are a lot of them, as is clearly evidenced by the utter lack of major political figures campaigning loudly for putting the NSA out of business. Said political figures understand where their votes come from, and aren't going to rock that boat. Now, if major corporate lobbying dollars started pushing one side or another of this agenda, they might do something, but outside of a few tech companies which are being hurt by their users' fear of spying (especially overseas), the corporate world doesn't care.
They are the ones paying real money to prevent and remedy security breaches
True, but irrelevant. Spying or the lack thereof has no effect on their security problems, which are mostly about their failure to properly secure information needed to do business with their customers. Communications encryption wouldn't have any impact on them, because this is data that you voluntarily give them in order to do business with them anyway. It's entirely unrelated to the question of government spying. Again, the only ones who care are the tech companies, and they by themselves simply don't have enough pull to override the politicians' healthy regard for the fears of their voting constituencies.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Mirrors Edge was a satirical poke at an orwellian future, not a fucking blueprint for goverments.
Imagine a type of encryption that changes text into other text by swapping words with words from an agreed dictionary (swap verbs with verbs etc). The resulting text wouldn't look like it's encrypted, it just isn't meaningful. A private and public encryption key can determine the seed for the swapping and the dictionary to be used.
Would such an encrypted text still be recognized as encrypted, or would it be able to stay under government radar?
This is not the sig you're looking for.
TFS points out that Clinton tried essentially the same thing, but weaker. I see Obama is using the same argument as Clinton. I'm pretty sure Obama was quoting Clinton when he said "despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we canâ(TM)t penetrate that, thatâ(TM)s a problem".
What we should not be hampered by is political correctness.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson
Which Boswell reported that Johnson said in reference to False Patriotism.
In this case I would say that Silicon Valley does have Patriotism, the sort of real patriotism that will fight to preserve civil rights in the face of an over reaching government that lacks an understanding of the realities of secure communications and security of person.
Interesting point. That said, I am interested in any takers and will honestly address any argment people want to make.
Of course you are quite correct, all I am getting is the odd insult and pathetic verbal jab, no one has even tried to support their failed system of tyranny with logic.
Telling, isn't it? Afraid they are, of facing the truth.
The political elite class that had anything to do with making those decisions likely doesn't actively participate in this site. The most you're likely to find here are people in denial who are clinging to the idea that by voting within the two-party system, they are somehow exercising anything resembling real choice. That doesn't remotely fit your description of what you're looking for.
I agree that the personal insults are pathetic. A lot of people choose things which are (or should be) beneath them.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You are replaceable. Congress is replaceable. The World Trade Center is replaceable. Pearl Harbor is replaceable The 4th amendment right of privacy from government intrusion without a court order or signed warrant is not.
>"Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications"
Yeah! The Gov't should be hampered by inconvenient stuff like the Constitution or freedom, due process, liberty, privacy, or other annoying things that WERE the cornerstone of the formation of the USA.
Hows that hope and change thing feelin on ya right now? You really thought he was different. A civil libertarian. Wow. Talk about gullible.
"There must be a way to keep it unreadable, but we can read it when we need to."
No. You're asking for a logical contridiction. Common for politicians, granted, but it doesn't make it any more possible.
Article IV of the Bill of rights reads "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." This has often gone ignored by the government and is something that needs to change. As for the encryption issue, in 1776 personal data was stored in my houses, papers, and effects. In 2015, my papers and effects also now consists of encrypted electronic data which also need to be secure from our very own government. the electronic "wrapper" is no more than a safe, the government can sieze a safe, but if they cannot crack it than they have to gave you give them the keys. This situation should be no different, sadly it sounds like the president wants more electronic eaves dropping (aka Unreasonable searches on my person, houses, papers, and effects).
"Heil Hitler"s?
Good grief, this is the best you can come up with?
Poopsicles, Thou art the funniest damn thing to cross the wereborder since granny got her tit caught in the clothsewringer.
I'll bet you a pig's testicle that you cannot blench the toebanger, yet you bluncate like a smithworthy's little pounce.
Deny it, lest ye be cast into the dungmuffin woobymaste'rs blouching overalls.
Your move punce. Cunctator awaits.
Uh huh. Sorry, this isn't a school paper. Spelling Nazi fail.
So your attempt to champion your idealogy that steals from the productive people, fattens the wallets of the eilte, and gives the scraps out to to the lazy and stupid solely to buy their votes, has failed.
That might be so, but you obviously cannot clench the pucker strings of nevida without resorting to krinkleweed potions and unloading whizbang geolotoads.
ideaology? Bloody hell, Mrs Calabash - you cant even spell quiznoti! Even knowing the h is silent and if we spot ye the two unlat's!s!
Can you deny it? Because once you do, your penile explant will slam shut, leaving you to wince like the dog in Ghostbusters and snap at your own rectum.
Rectum hell - darn near killed him!
Who is AC?
He had to go and use the p word.
I think it's quite funny that the word "patriot" originally meant a person who was inherently skeptical of the government, someone with a Madisonian perspective who thought people with power will always abuse it to the extent they can manage and no one should trust the government farther than they can throw it. Orwell was right. You don't have to rewrite all the history books. Just rewrite the dictionary.
If people really want to be secure in their communications, there are so many layers of encryption, then encoding, that can be used. Decoding and decrypting will become relatively difficult. Yes, there are "bigger", "faster" and "quantum" computers. All they need to do is delay the discovery until it is useless and the situation / deed has come and passed. Multiple, orthogonal (by way of thought) layers should work for several years.
After that, there's the oldest, and relatively, most secure method: someone you know and trust because they have proven themselves. But your suspicion remains, so you have a cut-out and a hold-out and an unanticipated exit.
Of course the "governments" want theirs. History, anyone?
fuck the US. Seriously? My security as a non-US citizen, who has no plans to ever visit or interact directly with your shitty country, has to be compromised so you can feel a little safer? You need access to every communication I ever make, just in case my name pops up in one of your lists?
It's shit like this that actually makes me think the Second Amendment may not be as stupid, as it's tragic consequences have made it seem.
"That doesn't remotely fit your description of what you're looking for.
No really, just interested in the diversion, and what floats up. That's all.
I hear those terrorists breath a lot of air, we should probably get rid of that too
The new Frontline tracing Putin's rise showed a great danger for the USA: a power vacuum (from budget showdown or debt ceiling fight) could be exploited by someone at the top of one of our own spy organizations.
You want me to go fight the Viet Cong? No Viet Cong ever called me nigger. You want me to kill Afghan and Iraqi Muslims? No Afghani or Iraqi ever spied on my private communications. My enemy is the American government, not "terrorists." You're my opposer when I want freedom. You're my opposer when I want justice. You won't even stand up for me in America for my privacy, and you want me to go somewhere and fight when you won't even stand up for my freedom at home.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.
That's a chimera, it something that anyone with any technical understanding of security issues knows does not and cannot ever exist. It's like building a lock that only "good guys" can open: computer systems, just like physical locks, cannot distinguish between good guys and bad guys. If you build a weakness into a system that police can access with warrant, then so can $EVIL_COUNTRY's state-sponsored hackers, with no need for such legal formalities.
4th Amendment
5th Amendment
Obama can f**k off. This is simply intolerable. Civil disobedience must prevail should his drivel actually succeed in becoming law. Not a world I want my kids growing up in. I was born free. So were they. This is unjust and sickening. We used to deride Nazi Germany for the Stasi and Gestapo. What the hell are they doing?
This is not sane. This is not a slippery slope. This is a cliff. Nothing good will come of this.
You cannot say that with any certainty. You want that to be true but it may not come to pass. She could meet someone like me who gets her strung out on meth so I can donkey fuck her tight pink asshole. You concede khasim's point regarding terrorists because you know he's right. You aren't afraid of terrorists- you're afraid of people like me...as you should be.
If the OP died of a heart attack this weekend, praytell, how is he going to be a servant in the Obama household? Are you claiming Obama now does voodoo and raises zombies? THATSRACIST.GIF
Goddamn that Obama...it's all his fault....
I dunno where the President gets his information from.. but.. Seems to me, even if you could pass any sort of law requiring everyone to use some backdoored encryption method so police and intelligence goons are listen in when courts say its ok.. with me here? If that happened... what delusional idiot thinks the bad guys are going to use the method the police/intelligence can easily spy on? Does anyone in government really think they're are that frickin' stupid? Nobody is that stupid.
That's why most of the posters here are all singing the same tune: "Not going to work, just spying on everyone EXCEPT the bad guys with this retarded idea."
Really? The POTUS is this stupid? Wish I could say I'm surprised.
Before making such idiotic statements? Pretty please? It needn't be me (actually, it sure as FUCK wouldn't be me!) but hire someone who has at least half a clue before making yourself look like a total Cameron to someone who knows even a little bit about security.
A "government backdoor" is NEVER EVER a "government ONLY backdoor". There is no such thing as "government only" when it comes to something where it is impossible to detect if it is being used. If you create a "VIPs only" door to a club and you cannot put a watchman there to guard it and you can't even monitor the entrance to see who goes in or out, how long do you think it will take for people to know that this entrance exists (no matter how well you camouflage it and write "Jehova's Witness recruitment center" over the entrance), notice that it's the easy way into a club and simply USE it, knowing that there won't be anyone who will find out?
And no, requiring some superspecialawesome Goverment-only key doesn't do diddly jack. Because since some government goon with half a day of training has to be able to use it, anyone who knows his way around doors will be able to forge it. And no matter what you say, I simply cannot imagine this being the one awesome exception to the rule of government accepting any half assed job as "a-ok" because they themselves have no idea how to gauge the quality of the work and will accept anything because nobody gives a shit.
No. Sorry. Government-only backdoors do not exist. They're by definition public. At the very least, they are public enough that every OTHER government will have the keys to it, too. One way or another.
And now let's ponder for a moment whether we want the Iran to have backdoors to computers at, say, Lockheed Martin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I get what you're saying. Effectively that we shouldn't be at war with each other but utopia doesn't exist and in fact, no we can't all just get along. When you are in a war, you don't stop to ask the enemy about his thoughts, hopes, and feelings. You shoot the bastard before he shoots you!
Perhaps you'll claim that we aren't in a liberal vs conservative war but it is fairly obvious that we are. Each side will purposely pass or stonewall legislation with the intent of harming the other side. I know that I perceive someone intending to harm me as an enemy and I'm a liberal. I WILL fuck the other side before they can fuck me. I've found the major difference between liberal vs conservative is who tries to fuck who first. Almost universally it is the conservatives who fire the first shot. I never start the fights but I will most assuredly finish them.
When you type something into a Google search box, it sends your keystrokes to their servers so they can auto-complete a search for you. Guessing at what you want to look at before you even commit to looking for it with that 'enter' key.
Almost as if the things you're just...thinking about...are already going into somebody else's database...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
changing the subject ("We had no justification to be in Iraq." "Saddam was a dictator! Do you support dictators?!"), and use other propaganda techniques designed to appear legitimate.
The correct answer to that question is "Yes, I support dictators and so do you."
Like, Rumsfeld once shook Saddam's hand because he was a valued ally in the region.
Even a cursory glance at the USA's current list of allies in Africa and Eastern Europe/Central Asia makes our support of dictators readily apparent. The list gets longer if you include Middle Eastern monarchies as de facto dictatorships.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is what happens when the technically illiterate and clueless have the power to make law, not understanding the law of unintended consequences. If the government can access your data, so can anyone else! Sorry Barack, but this position is just plain brain-dead!
It will be interesting to see which algorithms are made illegal to use in the future. Those that are made illegal are the ones that work properly and the govt. can not decrypt so terrorists will simply use them while those that aren't made illegal are those that are already subverted and no one will use any longer. The real question is will AES be made illegal or not?
How about this; the 9 supreme court justices post their public keys on www.supremecourt.gov, keep their private keys safe, and I'll voluntarily split copies of my private keys into 5-of-9 shares using Shamir's secret-sharing scheme and encrypt each share to one justice and post the ciphertext publicly. Then the NSA can stop introducing weaknesses in the free software I use, and heaven forbid they need to peek at my shopping list, but if they do they can convince some actual judges to let them see it.
You DID get TROLLED, guy, you just don't know it. A 6 digit user ought to know karma's MO by now. His name should be KarmaWhore. That big speech that just made your dick hard? It's from his list of prepared responses appropriate to maximize karma which in turn satiates his need for attention and approval. He regularly plays devil's advocate, flip flops, and confuses everyone here as to his beliefs and intentions. He has multiple accounts which each have a different "personality" that he uses to mod his own posts up and mod down the detractors. Hell, just look at this one post! It's written like a politician would write! Simple sound bites, key feel-good words, and healthy appeals to emotion (which you prove work). Furthermore, in order to elicit maximum views and karma, notice how he puts every sentence on one line and double spaces them. Why would he do that? To make it more readable you say? Bzzt! To make it physically large so that it screams LOOK AT ME! Throw in periodic astroturfing mod points to keep it above score 3 and voila! You've whored a fuck ton of karma and made an army of yes men. Go read his posting history and come back here saying he's such a patriot. You can't do it!
If a terrorist in this day and age is dumb enough to use open communication channels then he was likely going to get caught anyway. Seriously anyone that actually wants to secure their conversations can do so with very little effort in a manner that the government can never hope to decrypt and it would not require the support of Telco's or government approval or rely on any particular product. I am far more afraid of what the government would do with unfettered access to peoples information than I am of any terrorist.
With a warrant, that is. Same with webmail and any other hosted service. Warrents describing a particular place and person have a way of producing encryption keys from service providers. When warrents aren't fast enough for them, then you know they're doing something very, very wrong. Unlike movies where Jack Spy decrypts the terrorists' plans in real-time to thwart them, our jokers can barely even share high-priority bulletins about suspected terrorists planning to board a plane in a day or two. It's ludicrous to suggest that they need faster access to information when they can't even manage what they have already.
(a) It's fundamentally at odds with any notion of privacy (b) It won't work Sorry, but it is the citizens with the rights, not intelligence agencies. There is absolutely ZERO right of anyone to decrypt my data.
If the government continues along the current path, your daughters WILL be growing up in a fascist dicatorship!
So we want backdoors for our government to our hardware which gets manufactured on untrustworthy assembly lines in Asia and transferred to us via untrustworthy supply lines... What could possibly go wrong?
You have forgotten how the corp/gov relationship works. Corporations only exist to earn money, at least theoretically, which is why you said
"They are the ones paying real money to prevent and remedy security breaches. It seems it would be in their best interests to have strong encryption to prevent a lot of expensive problems".
How the relationship works though, is that when the gov does find an "issue" they want "fixed", they simply dangle the carrot of "you hold no responsibility" in their face. They do that by shifting losses into the externalities category. So if this back door would open up a megamillion dollar lawsuit, it's no big deal- they've been guaranteed profits and guaranteed immunity. We, the People, will make up for the shortfall through tax payments shifted into their accounts. Whenever you see a company dealing with the government "lose" money, what you should realize is that they haven't lost anything. We'll simply bail them out.
Now that we are approaching the end of his term, was Obama or Bush, Jr. was more full of shit?
There is a function to allow anonymous posting, yet we are attacked when we use it, solely for the fact of using it.
You're not being attacked. You're being mocked for identifying anonymity with cowardice, while at the same time posting anonymously. The fact that the name used when posting anonymously is "Anonymous Coward" is just icing on the cake.
I have no problem with the anonymous posting feature, I find it necessary and useful. I do enjoy mocking hypocrites like you, faulting others for their anonymity while posting anonymously.
Attacking is a completely different thing. On that subject, you're some goddamn deluded pathetic narcissist if you think anyone gives a fuck about whether you "challenge" them by claiming they will be "destroyed" and that if they don't challenge you specifically, they are wrong and you have defeated their lies. Guess what, nobody wants to have a serious discussion with someone like you because you would be boring as fuck. You have your perfect little set of arguments that you're ready to use to "destroy" any dissenting opinion and you're pissy about the fact nobody wants to play ball with you. You act like arguments are like some kind of chess game and you've found the perfect checkmate strategy for winning, and claim that nobody wants to play with you because they know you will destroy them and they're tacitly acknowledging their defeat. You're the bully who hangs out around the corner of the playground yelling that anybody who doesn't enter a fistfight with them is admitting that he's so much stronger and awesome than they are. You're that guy. Nobody likes that guy.
Fact is, nobody wants to argue with you because you're so fucking full of yourself that you come across as a petulant know-it-all child with a grudge. And you don't argue with those unless you're so fucking bored that the alternative is something like watching paint dry.
You ask "So where is all this intelligence? Just not seeing it." and the thing is, the intelligence is in not trying to argue with someone who doesn't want to have an actual discussion, but instead just wants a pulpit to spew their set-phrase counterarguments to any nebulous subject, and claim victory when people get tired of trying to actually have a conversation with them. That's why people mock your spelling or your hypocrisy and don't engage you in your "challenge". Hope you see it now! Happy to help, have a nice day.
O M G!
I had a friend telling me about some erotic book he was reading that was written by a white Canadian living in California whose book was written as if he were a gay Mexican. It was completely obvious, because evidently Mexicans say stupid shit like "Odelay vato, eh?" and "chinga tu madre, dontchaknow" Anyway, I often make racist jokes, so I went hunting for a picture of what a Gay Mexican Canadian might look like. Truth be told, I was hoping to find a mostly nude Hispanic beefcake lying on a couch pouring maple syrup all over himself while holding a Molson Ice in the other hand. I didn't find that, sadly, but if you only knew the all of the fucked up terms I had to put into to google to find the pic I did, well.....I guess Google must think I'm a gay Canadian Mexican who has a syrup fetish- at a minimum!
Please cite some resources that claim the other country's software isn't just as riddled with back doors, key loggers, etc. I don't think you can. But hey, keep up the self loathing (if you're American, that is).
A backdoor/vulnerability/weakness that the government can exploit is one that a bad actor can exploit. Digital data of many sorts *requires* integrity and confidentiality. To allow an opening for surveillance is to allow an opening for hackers. It is simply not tenable to the economic functioning of the planet to allow communications and storage that are other than secure.
Supposed to mean? Says who? The Founding Fathers were building up to a war. England was pissed. They very well could have known that being held accountable meant being summarily executed. Why do you think they specifically put the "no cruel and unusual punishments" clause right there in the Constitution? Ditto for having firearms, not allow soldiers to be housed, and security in one's personal effects. That alone should indicate to you that things were not as rosy as you thought they were. Sure, we're fucking those ideals up at the moment, no doubt, but I can't help but think this entire post of yours was just a simple way to get some America bashing in, eh?
You've never heard of the citizen's united supreme court decision? Corporations are people and money is free speech. Corporations can give as much as they want to any politician or party they choose.
Spying and security problems at corporations are directly related. If data was kept encrypted until it is used, including the data I voluntarily give corporations, they'd have fewer hackers stealing credit card data type security breaches and it would be harder for industrial espionage to take place. It would also be harder for governments, foreign and domestic, to intercept communications.
The problem now is that no one can trust any encryption because you can't be sure the NSA hasn't already put back doors into it. If someone comes along and claims they have encryption that the NSA can't bust, how are they going to prove it?
Everyone already has a back door installed. I can understand how you may have forgotten. You've been fucked in the ass so much and so hard by the gov that I'm sure your sphincter is numb by now. You aren't alone.
What always miss from these arguments is that such a tool is a two edged sword. If the government can do it, so can likely all other governments too, and it does not stop there. I know, you got nothing to hide for authorities, corrupted officials or not. Sooner or later you hear corrupt officials used their position to obtain and sell information such your vacation plan to criminals robbing homes, insurance companies about confidential information of your health, and so on...
The gov't isn't of the people, by the people anymore. Corporations have merged with both progressive republicans and progressive democrats to give us the sorry state of freedom we now endure. Find the most libertarian candidates you can find and vote them in if you want this to stop.
We are Anonymous Coward.
We do not remember.
Yet we complain all the time.
Do not fuck with us.
Step 1: Encrypt as usual.
Step 2: Bytes in the encrypted stream are used to index a known edition of a specific English dictionary.
Step 3: Replace I's and A's with 1's and 4's.
Your message is now indistinguishable from pen1s enl4rgement spam.
The western governments are all feminist surveillance states.
They violate every right of man, from prohibition of guns to prohibition of girls.
They imprison, kill, and steal at will. This will only stop when they are dead. They believe they are a god.
Is he giving it up too?
Or we looking at an attempt to reserve encryption for the privileged class?
Built in VNC server on chip.
Can also read from the bus and ram.
A backdoor.
Can always be remotely reenabled.
The only option is violent revolution. Europe and America must burn as they once did.
I can make a guess, by looking at the track record and the lobbying spending of the usual suspects, but still it would be more appropriate, in the name of transparency, to state explicitly whether the companies that we are entrusting with our personal information are a neutral third party or, instead, are patriots. So we can choose.
The real problem is when whacky prosecutors and other use les is ways not intended. The prole is if you give them the power all it takes is one Crack pot prosecutor to over extend a laws intention.
Has anyone forgotten the threat that OC poses? Weakened crypto can be used by drug cartels and the mafia to look into the lifes of potential witnesses that testify against them in a court of law, furthermore they pose a threat to potential victims of computer fraud. This is concerning especially since VOIP phones are on the rise. Even with (the weak crypto) they'll be easily tappable by organised crime.
Never had a doubt in the beginning ....
Never a doubt
Trusted you true in the beginning
I loved you right through
You made me promises, promises
Knowing I'd believe
Promises, promises
You knew you'd never keep
The next step is thought police.
Already successfully crowdsourced, through the permanent institutional "inquisition" of political correctness. Why expend resources when you can get people to do it for you?
No they drink sand...
Ban any encryption in government :-)
and his war on math
Yes we can! Just need some more silicon lube.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
'He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.”' Translation: you WILL cooperate with us, fully. In these times, the opposite of "patriot" is "traitor" and you would have to deal with... Unpleasant consequences. You lead good lives. Your families lead good lives. It would be a shame if anything bad happened but it's up to you.
Go fuck yourself, Obama. Do you want someone to listen when you talk to your wife and daughters?
Don't be surprised. I assure you that Billy Badass CEO has all of his communications suitably encrypted, and if he's ever charged with a crime, the authorities will probably 'lose' the device with data needing decryption and say they don't have any evidence to hold him. No, the target for this is the little guy. The people in power are always protected and excused from having to comply with those pesky laws foisted upon hoi polloi.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
so all you have to do to transform a democracy into repressive police state is poke a stick into a oil rich ant hill long enough. twist and turn. ... oh well .. nevermind.
once the ants go all beserk we
If they'd been adhering to that for even unencrypted communications we might not have gotten so paranoid about it lately...
Encrypt everything. searches, emails, downloads (legal or not) and Make them work for it. They hate encryption because it makes them store data that they know nothing about and use an inordinate amount of horsepower to find out about it. Read the article in 2600 from over the summer on the same topic for an idea of how simple encryption can put a halt to most of the domestic spying the government does.
There is good evidence that Apple cannot read any messages sent through iMessage with its current software. So what our politicians would want is that Apple would change their software, so that if there is evidence that a strongly suspected terrorist uses iMessage, then someone can ask Apple to give them a key that gives the government access to that terrorists iMessage account and read all his messages.
But if Apple can give some key to the government that gives the government the capability of reading one specific terrorist's iMessages, then Apple must have the capability of getting a key for any user and read that user's messages. So Apple can then read anyone's messages, which means any other government agency can issue warrants for anybody's iMessages. So no matter whether the government claims this would only affect suspected terrorists, it affects anyone.
Moreover, _someone_ at Apple would be handling these requests. That employee could be bribed, or tricked, or their computer hacked, for other governements or criminals to get access to anyone's iMessages. Including iMessages sent by military, diplomats, polticians and so on. So this thing would risk the safety of anyone. How likely is it that terrorists would find a way to exploit such a weakness to help them with their terrorist plots?
The way out would be that i would have to license and register private keys for encryption. This is dificult to enforce since there is no way to judge if you use unregistered private keys without entering your home and looking at your harddrive.
The result would be that criminals would continue to use it, and that normal people would be criminalized.
Yes. And your country *WILL* comply with our orders, or there will be... Consequences.
Don't worry because oversight.
None of your bullshit has any meaning without the resolve to fight and win wars. You people simply don't understand the cost of the freedom
to encrypt anything. Or to say anything. Walk around with one leg before you bitch about freedom. You small time miserable fucks will
die. Evolution ensures that. And I do believe in evolution. The sooner the better.
They can outlaw strong encryption, but it doesn't change the fact that strong encryption they can't break exists. The net result would likely be that law obiding citizens obey the law and criminals/terrorists do not. The side effect is that those of us who obey the laws get hurt more often because our important private communications (i.e. purchases, bank records, etc.) are either protected with a far less safe form of encryption or a 3rd party (i.e. government) has all the keys and our security is only as good as their security.
The only real positive outcome (if you can call it that), is that if the government catches you with strong encryption that isn't approved they can arrest you for just that (they still won't be able to read those messages). Presumably though most terrorists who are good enough to use strong encryption are also smart enough not to send/receive it from trackable ips that directly link them to people who can easily be arrested within the target countries.
This is a bit like gun control in this sense. If you ban guns, only criminals have guns. If you ban encryption, only terrorists have encryption.
Hope. Yes-We-Can. Traitor. Asshole.
why would you want to hide it? Privacy, such an antiquated concept. Why not just post your paystubs and 1040s on a website, maybe your college transcripts too! Hey Mr. POTUS, about those transcripts... Apparently some animals are more equal than others.
In the words of ben franklin, you dont need to decrypt a cellphone to get terrorists.
What's next, no more defragging and security wipes?
Statists like Obama and Cameron don't care about the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people. We have the right to live our lives in peace and privacy and free from the intrusion of the state unless they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause of either criminal activities or the intent to carry them out. If they have that they can get a warrant from a judge to investigate further but do not have the right to monitor everything we do. Comments I may place on here or YouTube where they're open to the public are one thing but personal e-mails and text messages to another private party are another.
Democracy is the Government of the Politicians, by the Politicians, for the Politicians;
Casteism
Apparently Obama lives in a fantasy world. He must believe in a world where corporate espionage does not occur and where sensitive information does not need to be protected from prying eyes, He also forgets that if there is a back door for government then that same back door is available to criminals and so there is no protection for data at all.
... but noone listens to me anyway.
You can also ask any cryptoexpert. There are ways to crypt and also have decrypting by court order only.
PKI plus public key of authorities, decryptable by 2 keys. government decrypt key is owned by multiple people so decrypting without court order is difficult
Won't work for OTR obviously
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Same asshole as the old boss...
"Bush did it too" people to speak up. Yeah he did, and so did pretty much every president for the last 50 years or more.
Go fuck yourselves, you fascist pigs!
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
If you trade your liberties, you don't get safety. You just get fewer liberties.
I've been thinking about this and I think that privacy is a right not a privileged.
So it is very easy if the government feels they have the right to listen to my conversations without my consent I feel it is fair that any person that sits in public office should make their communication available for public scrutiny. Don't you think it is just fair that the president that is working for us must make his communication open and available. He has nothing to hide does he.
And if he feels that he has legitimate reasons to hide some of his communications from the public don't you think we have legitimate reasons to hide our communication from the government.
Just wondering ....
Well, well now isn't that precious. I supposed when you honor our Constitutional BOR. Mr. Obama tell us about your open and transparent government. NOT! Tell us about how all your personal files were sealed by executive order so nobody could know about your checkered past. Tell us about all the scandals of your administration that you've hog tied the justice system by your executive orders.
It's adding up to quite a total. Tell us about your Muslim partnerships. Tell us about all your personal associations with people who want to do America wrongly and your desire to diminish us as a nation (your words). Some of your personal friends and advisers are real pieces of work. Yeah I believe in you. Oh wait I almost didn't. I must need a little more of Tinker Bell's pixie dust.
Amendment IV of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights. The supreme law of the land.
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.
The only secrets are the ones you haven't shared
All 3 branches in the US are broken, including most of the 4th estate.
Not only do broken systems allow for corruption but one of the BEST ways to do corruption is by breaking the system!
Congress is so far worse with the worst approval ratings in history; far worse than the executive and they end up re-elected anyway. The industrial military complex has almost completely gamed that democratic body. The reason all three largely move in the same direction while in fighting is because the entire game is rigged... like a Casino, people win/lose but the house always wins (unless Trump owns it.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What you can't do is get it without asking. IOW, bulk scanning and indexing is not doable. And it shouldn't be. If you want some info, go get a court order for *just* that info. Don't legislate a fishing expedition for all of the info.
Sad as it is, the constitutional arguments will fall on deaf ears as long as people can get their 65" TVs.
There is a more impactful argument: What if you can't afford that TV (or a house...or even food)?
You can't invent an algorithm that another cannot break. "Not yet broken" is not the same as "can't break".
If we make it so the government, however well-intentioned, can break into our communications (with our banks, lawyers, accountants, etc) then so can criminals.
Even worse than the big corporations do already, they'll view us as walking wallets they will empty at will.
Let's fill out a petition for the whitehouse! He /might/ actually hear this:
http://wh.gov/i4Lc4
To be honest, he probably doesn't listen there either, but we've got to do /something/.
The Obama government should be educated on the theory and practice of one time pads. O.T.P. is a very simple encryption system which (if used correctly) can be mathematically PROVED to be unbreakable. Human laws should not try to legislate such things. It is comparable to trying to legislate that pi should be legally defined as exactly 3 to simplify calculations.
You can't possible get what you want (absolutely no anthropomorphizing) because:
"Vacuum wants to be filled."
How about some of that transparency we were promised? Where's the American people's backdoor into Obama's communications?
Oh, that's right... All people are created equally until one of them is working for the government.
Fuck Obama and his spooks.
In light of the recent hacks, don't these guys realize that backdoors aren't just for who they were made for? Who gets to actually encrypt their communications then - the military, banks, infrastructure? What about just general big business.. how about politicians? Basically the rest of us peasants should just walk around naked on the internet?
X
that algorithm has been published and is available in many different text books. so yeah looks like im going to jail because no matter how they try this ill just encapsulate a pgp message inside of what ever solution they are proposing...
not to mention that the "bad guys" have used code in their dealings every day, how many names are there for marajuana or cocaine?
its just another case of people who have no idea about technology yet they are making the decisions about it..
FFS dont show me a pres who learnt to code, show me a pres who CAN code and understands the complicated mechanism known as the internet
Since you have to stop people parting with information, losing information and using information, you have to do work to STOP it being free.
Hence information "wants" to be free just like water "wants" to flow downhill.
Statements like this from Obama are just preparing everyone: one more terrorist attack in the U.S., and we can kiss legal encryption goodbye.
That word stopped having any kind of positive connotation to me after the Sept. 11th attacks.
"To stop the terrorists."
Your examples aren't quite comparable. I can hide weapons in my clothing, but there are situations where I can be searched for weapons quite legally. I can run from the police, but there are situations where I can be legally arrested and restrained.
Encryption can completely foil any attempts to read what I've got, whether the attempt is legal or illegal. Most of the time, it doesn't matter, since the government has no authority to read everybody's mail or email or listen on telephone conversations. However, law enforcement officers sometimes have legal authority to listen in on telephone conversations, and in fact telephone systems have to be set up to allow legal wiretapping (see CALEA). What Obama is asking for is something along the lines of CALEA for email, where the government can read it given a warrant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You don't get it, not my problem and they are attempting to force it to become my problem, just like the clothing issues, just like the leg irons and 'hmm' just like forcing people to strip and groping them because maybe might be. You get the warrant and you resolve the issues, that what you are paid to do. You do not attempt to force everyone else to make life easier for you. Seriously, email counts post incident or is this all about turning our society into a panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... where the fear of being under observation is used by government to control the population. Tough, do it the hard way, get a warrant, wait for the target to leave and make adjustments to their hardware. Mobile phones, well, we already know exactly how you can tweak the configuration of those device to ensure information is only pretended to be encrypted. So no, this is another power grab over the whole of society which will be used to disrupt the proper functioning of the democratic process, the ability of the majority of the people to communicate in privacy, whether it be about crappy employers or crappy government or crappy investigatory agencies free of threat of ramifications for doing so. What is your organisation's name the Stasi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... because that is exactly what you are turning it into, all to make you life easier, that is not what you are paid for.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The Stasi? You have no idea how to do a good ad hominem, do you? Particularly when you advocate breaking in and installing keyloggers as police practice. Bear in mind that not everybody who a search warrant is served on is guilty, and a keylogger is a bigger invasion of privacy than reading somebody's enciphered files.
The clothing issue isn't the same thing, for one reason. If the police have an applicable warrant, or other legal reason, they can remove my clothing and search it for weapons. If I encrypt stuff, and the police have an applicable warrant, they're still unable to read it.
I don't know how this could be made to work (if strong crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have strong crypto), but it is a legitimate concern of government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Baker, the former NSA lawyer, called that argument a “red herring.”
“We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad cryptography.” "
No you just have to leave a gaping ginormous hole instead.
You know the old saying about something seeing and something doing...
anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is a madwoman
>
She's not mad...she's just dumb...or does not do enough on her own to dispel that notion.
Ineffective communicator.
Do you think that the financial markets are too important in todays global economy to allow them to be manipulated by the rich Wall street capitalists, and that the only entity smart enough and capable enough to do this job is the federal government?
The "capitalists" (in name only) and federal government (in name only -- it does not answer to the people) have merged together, it's called the "federal reserve" ... and actually, the private banks got this cartel (which is NOT capitalism) granted to them because "state-run banks are too risky...let's do the same thing on a national level" (not what they said, but what actually happened) ...
so both of your strawmen do not exist.
There are no "Rich Wall Street Capitalists" because Wall Street is communist for AT LEAST the past 100 years.
The federal government DOES already "manage" it all (well, taking orders from private banks they are in cahoots with)...this is how
communism and cartels operate...an offer noone can refuse.
The mob > the federal government. So "the federal government" IS running the show, but they are just following orders of private banks. So, you might say there is no "federal government" interference in that sense, because the gov. has been bought and is no longer a gov. at all. The fact their cartel is legal means the "federal government" does manage it all, already. We already have "big gov." on Wall Street.
You are roughly ~100 years too late.
So there are
1) no "rich wall street capitalists" at the current time, or the past 100 year or so, becaus wall street is all communist (gov. supported cartel...funded with money stolen from the taxpayer...not capitalism at all)
2) the federal government already does manage it all. (merely doing what private banks tell them to do, so arguably not gov. - run, since "the people" have no say)
Your question makes no sense...... 1) do you think unicorns must be outlawed, 2) and instead the gov. must require everyone racing horses not do so on the freeway?
That is your question. My answers are: 1) does not exist 2) is already the case...however people don't race horses on the freeways anyway, cars would hit them. so whether it is "against the law" or "gov. managed" is mostly besides the point.
"todays global economy" is just ~100 years of "capitalist" (in name only) planning by your Morgan, Rockefeller, Watson, and Carnegie types (and/or their descendents and trustees who took over their estates) ... and it is the make-believe play-acting "capitalists" (your Gates & other foundations, "one world gov." goes WAY back, your Carlos Slims, your Google and Apple and Intel...your Bush I and Bush II .....) who benefit the most from a pre-planned (communist) "global economy" .....they are the ones hyping this.
"World peace through world trade" was Mr. "carnegie endowment for international peace" chairman...at the same time selling tabulating machines to Hitler. So your "one world gov." types are actually:
1) not capitalists at all, collectivists
2) profit off of war when it is suitable, don't really care about any country or "world peace" at all
3) don't really believe in "world trade" either -- they believe in the "elimination of all national governments" and replacing them with a single government that runs everything
Do you think the rich don't pay their fair share, and that *something* *should* *be* *done* to make great justice and happy times for all?
It is true, but "something should be done" is less government subsidies and less corporate communism. And closing tax-exemptions for those dedicated to the destruction of the U.S. (admittedly, hard to quant
Do you think all people have a right to a minimum wage, and paid days off to boot, so that you can party like it's 1984?
Not particularly...however the only asnwer is "is this better than the current situation"
The "current situation" is a gazillion subsidies and govenrment interference for "in demand" fields...the WHOLE FUCKING ECONOMY Is already "government managed" ... so versus the CURRENT SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY GOV. CONTROLLED IN EVERY ASPECT and EVERY INDUSTRY...
then yes, I would prefer a "no strings attached, bare minimum sustenance, that I can spend however I like" to the current system "you only get government help if you comply with government orders" .
you know who was in favor of "work through freedom" ? the nazis.
again, you put up strawmen.
without ending all the corporate subsidies, without closing the dept. of education (and perhaps dept. of labour too) NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY FUCKING MATTERS. without ending the federal reserve...THE GOV IS ALREADY RUNNING THE SHOW COMPLETELY.
IT IS ALREADY COMPLETELY GOV. MANAGED, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. EVERYTHING.
"minimum wage" is useless anyways, without a maximum wage.
it is just acting anyway, a show to fool you.
your question: "do you think all people deserve unicorns and leprechauns?"
A: it doesn't fucking matter, because we don't have fucking unicorns and leprechauns.
The rich "capitalist" (in name only) statists are CLOBBERING YOU and you don't even know it, think they are looking
out for you. You don't even see when they hit you. It happens invisible, you are too distracted with THINGS THAT DONT FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY COMPLETELY RIGGED IN EVERY SHAPE AND FORM.
Arise and accept it,
You get +1 for not being a completely fucking brainwashed idiot.
You get -600 for being full of strawmen and part of the problem.
Note: you are still not -666 where the COMPLETELY FUCKING BRAINWASHED idiots are who hide behind silence
and can't even fucking answer. at least you fucking try.
You are at least +1 also for not whining "that radical socialist Obama" (as if the U.S. wasn't radically socialist far before he entered office...ha!).......as if the "conservative" "Republicans" (in name only) aren't full of corporate communism themselves.
You are halfway there...keep digging.....it just gets worse and worse... the "statists" are already running it all.
one piddly little election, 5 or 10 administrations, will make no difference.
question for you: do you think "statists" should be destroyed and their stolen "wealth" taken from them and given to others?
question: do you think communists who have stolen money from others should have their "wealth" taken from them and given to others?
it is nice you think that two wrongs don't make a right...but you are already completely fucking gone and lost.
the damage is already done. you are way too fucking late.