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.

Comments

No.

[TFlan91]

Never.

Re:No.

[buchner.johannes]

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.

If the court approves, they can just go and obtain the computers. That is already solved.

If the hard disk is encrypted (very rare I suspect), the expectation of legal costs or indefinite holding at Gitmo without any trial are already there as motivation to comply.

No, better spying is not what we need. It destroys our freedom of speech and quality of life. We need due process. We need protection of all those not proven guilty yet, because it could be any one of us.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” ...

Translation: there are already companies in Silicon Valley ready, willing, and able to fulfiy this mandate.

Silicon Valley is full of people who'd sell their soul for a nickel.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

How to tell if the author of an encryption summary/article thinks you're an idiot: they use the word "scramble".

Re:No.

[gweihir]

Indeed. And "cyber".

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption cyber-scrambles the wiggly-bugs what live in the desk TV.

Re:No.

[houghi]

So first they can obtain computers. People were upset, but nothing changed and they are able to do it.
Next they were able to put people into Gitmo without due process. People were upset, but nothing changed and they are able to do it.

Now they want to spy even more. People are upset. So what will change now?

And you know if it doesn't work to put it into law this time, it will the next time. People will be upset and nothing will happen.

If your kid steals a cookie and all you do is being upset, it will steal again. Just telling the kid it should not do that is not enough.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Coward]

if the hardware is compromised, the software doesn't matter so much.

Re:No.

[penguinoid]

Never.

But don't you understand? The terrorists killed twelve people! Twelve! Never again (until we need more powers). Now, bend over.

Re:No.

[Opportunist]

I have no idea what "cyber" means, but from context I can piece together that it is usually used in the sense of "I have no idea what I'm talking about".

Re:No.

[Opportunist]

The problem is that this kid is one of those that you see on TV in those Super Nanny shows, the ones that kick your ass if you try to take away their cookie.

Re:No.

[Opportunist]

Yes, and France already has all that and more in place.

Maybe try to limit some other freedoms for a change? Some that have not been proven to do jack shit against terrorism if stolen from your population? Maybe for a change some that only people simply know won't do any good?

Re:No.

[ArmoredDragon]

Not only that but if this ever became policy, it would create an interesting line that will have to be drawn: What constitutes a hidden message that needs to have its keys or its otherwise actual meaning revealed to the government in plain English?

For example, the US government itself hid its communications from the enemy in the WWII Pacific Theater by simply translating it to another language that the enemy couldn't understand, and then using code within that language.

Although that was actually so weak it was rather pathetic (side note: even more pathetic that the Japanese never broke it, but then again it was never used in long range communication so they rarely had ever heard it in action during a time that they could meaningfully use it) there are a lot of ways you can encode information that aren't necessarily for cryptography, yet even more advanced datamining techniques will easily miss it.

And what's the punishment for sending a message to somebody in a manner that the government cant decrypt without providing them with key escrow, even if your actions were completely benign and you had no intention of hiding anything to begin with?

Re: No.

[donaldm]

if the hardware is compromised, the software doesn't matter so much.

That is true, however if it became know that Brand X computer was hardware compromised (and it eventually will) then said company is going to loose credibility and sales to Brand Y computer hardware that has not been compromised. Now we have to ask the question has Brand Y been compromised and we don't know yet?

Sounds silly doesn't but when you consider computers are manufactured by different companies around the world and it is in the best interest of each country to make sure computers that are sold there are not compromised because of potential customer and even government backlash. This same scenario can be played out with operating system software since no major software company would want to take the chance of being found out. Of course "click bait", viruses and worms are a different story since a spying agency be it governmental or criminal has plausible deniability.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but what's the alternative at this point? Because plenty of people have had rallys and marches and whatnot for various causes and haven't effected change. Voting the bad guys out doesn't work because there are no bad guys in modern politics - THEY'RE ALL BAD GUYS!

Is it revolution time? Is that what you're saying? Because I'm not sure what the next step is if not that, and I'm not sure how we know if we're at that point or not.

Re:No.

[Stoutlimb]

Pathetic? Let's see how well you can deal when you lack some extremely obscure knowledge, and live in a world with no Internet. Security through obscurity used to work damn well in the past, which is why so many people still think they can rely on it.

Re: No.

[epyT-R]

Not if all brands of computers are compromised... NSLs are powerful and chilling legal devices.

Re:No.

[DaHat]

Like it or not, those in power are long used to that term, and as a community we can either denigrate them for it or try to work with them.

Before you answer... remember that they are the ones in power and more guns and lawyers than you.

Re:No.

[phantomfive]

Believe it or not, most people aren't upset (I don't know why, but that's a different topic). If a politician wants to make a wise move, he will choose to be on the side of the people who are not upset. If he doesn't, he will get voted out. That's how politics works.

Re:No.

[countach]

Depends what the hypothetical law is. Most likely it would allow them to go after any company to allow spying when they want to. The problem for them is what happens about code and programs that don't go through some central server and therefore there is nobody to chase and take to court when people use it to send encrypted messages.

Re:No.

[Z00L00K]

I agree - weakening the fence that encryption offers will just cause more problems for the general population.

Criminals will just put more effort into encrypting their data and use additional methods like steganography where the messages are hidden in documents like images. You can't even know if a text message contains typos or are coded. "I is not amused" - a good example of a common mistake made by people not fluent in English. Dialectal perks are also a headache.

Better result will be obtained if the suspects are targeted by classic means. Listening in on network traffic only is leading to misunderstandings if only part of the communication is seen - the users may discuss gaming strategy rather than real world attacks.

Re:No.

[ArmoredDragon]

Well, some very good linguists have been able to easily decipher languages they've never heard before, even when those languages aren't very well related to other languages they've heard before. After that is done, it's just a matter of breaking the rather simple substitution cipher that was used. For example they'd substitute the English word "battleship" for the Navajo word "lo-tso" (whale.)

Re:No.

[ArmoredDragon]

That could see a bigger rise in open source software used to defeat such a measure. I.e. since no company would be legally allowed to produce software that provides end to end encryption, end users could attach their own ciphers to it instead.

That couldn't be killed by the government because of the first amendment. I think it was Phil Zimmerman who argued in court that he could print the code in a book and send it overseas, and that the government then couldn't legally do anything about it because printed material was already so heavily protected against censorship by case law (even though digital wasn't at the time.)

Re:No.

[Bert64]

And therein lies the fundamental flaw with such a system...
Most people aren't upset because they aren't aware of, or don't fully understand the problem.
The primary source of information for the majority of the population is mass media, media which is controlled by the incumbents who have no motive to rock the boat because their absolute worst case is sharing power with the other incumbent party.

If you don't control the media, you can't get the word out to enough people, so it doesn't matter how good your policies are nor how bad everyone else's are, even if the truth is so bad that 99% of people would vote for you if they were in full possession of the facts, you have no way to get those facts out to enough people that it would make any difference.

Re: No.

[Bert64]

In which case, computers which are not backdoored will start being manufactured in other countries... If there's a market demand, then someone will fulfil it.
Also each country is likely to want their own backdoor, so the terrorists will source their computers from countries which are not friendly to their enemies.
And they could always use old computers which never had hardware backdoors.

Also governments are guilty of both corruption and incompetence, if they have a backdoor then sooner or later it will leak and then law abiding citizens will suffer greatly. The terrorists won't suffer, as they will already know to avoid any government backdoored equipment. On the other hand, they may make use of the new found leaks to aid them in whatever attacks they wish to perpetrate.

As for leaks themselves, for everyone like snowden who wants to get the word out to the general public even to his own significant detriment, there will be many more unscrupulous actors who would rather make personal gains and will sell their information privately to the highest bidder. There are many well funded groups who could afford to buy such information, and it's highly likely that they already do so.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are not upset because the debate has been framed in such a way as to make it the bad guys who are the ones being attacked, not the people.

This is not by accident.

Re:No.

[gnasher719]

Translation: there are already companies in Silicon Valley ready, willing, and able to fulfiy this mandate.

Your translation is wrong. The correct translation is "I except the Silicon Valley companies to support us, otherwise we will do our best to denounce them as unpatriotic".

Re:No.

[houghi]

So? If you watch those shows, you see that they are solved as well. At least 95% of them and 100% if the parents never gve in. Not giving in is the hard part. Then there is the kid that has seriosu mental issues, because it was allowed to go on for too long.
The big differnce is that you are not allowed to kill this kid and make a new one.

Re:No.

[Megane]

That's great when you can get the communication as text. It's another thing when it's only spoken, and could possibly have phonemes that are not identifiable or can be differentiated by most non-speakers. Would you be able do a "simple substitution" on people speaking a tonal language like Chinese to each other? And Japanese is really poor in phonemes, especially vowels, compared to other languages, which probably put them at more of a disadvantage than others would have been.

Re:No.

[houghi]

All the things you describe are basically just telling them you do not like it without any consequenses for tjose in power.

Revolution might be something. It does not have to be violent. But first you must look at why it has become so bad. Just replacing the people with the same sort will do nothing. Look as to why has it became so bad?
Is it because of money in politics? So that means lobbying. So you need something that will keep lobbying out.

However for many taking away power from powerfull people might feel as if it is taking away the American Dream where they can become one of those powerfull people.

Almost every step you might want to take would mean becoming more socialist then what you are now in some way or another and as long as that is an issue, not much will change.

Unfortunately I do not have the answer, otherwise I would have given it away. But yes, history has shown that revolution can have a cleaning influence for some time. Some quotes:
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
    -- Henry Ford
In retrospect, all revolutions seem inevitable. Beforehand, all revolutions seem impossible.
    -- Michael McFaul,
A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.
    -- Mohandas K. Gandhi,
A revolution is coming â" a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough â" But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.
    -- Robert Kennedy

Re:No.

[Opportunist]

Nah, the kids behave as long as the cameras are rolling, only to get back to their old behavior as soon as Mrs. Proper is gone. Not unlike the US government, which also returns to its actual self the moment the peoples' attention (who were just protesting a bill that would have eliminated yet another few rights) is on something else and the bill can be passed quietly.

Re:No.

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that no matter how much power they have there will always be crime and terrorism. They will never stop it all, but every time it happens people demand to know why and that next time they will prevent it. So they ask for more power, we lose some freedom and liberty, and then it happens again anyway.

Re:No.

[khallow]

I guess that's why you'd have a linguist do it instead.

Re: No.

[tysonedwards]

And Greenpeace showed that they don't give a fuck about the environment when they added their own contribution to the Nazca Lines. They elevated themselves to PETA with antagonizing victims of shark attacks, which I didn't believe was possible, so congratulations guys... You did it... (slow clap)

Re:No.

[currently_awake]

The problem with encryption is the key exchange. End to end encrypted communications is trivial once you figure out that part.

Re: No.

[Hognoxious]

There are no case of an all out war between the government and the people where the government won.

That's because there's never been an all out war between the government and the people, anywhere, ever.

Re:No.

[Hognoxious]

Look at what happened to the last two on that list.

Takeaway: Nobody likes a smartass.

Re: No.

[iluvcapra]

Well, firstly, Navajo Code Talkers were only used for tactical communications, where the information had a half-life of minutes: directing fire, company-level movements, stuff like that.

The Japanese did actually kidnap a Navajo speaker at one point, and they tortured the shit out of him and forced him to listen to the radio to translate. He wasn't trained as a Code Talker, though, so all of the strange idioms and jargon didn't make any sense. So the Japanese tortured him some more and simply gave up trying to figure it out.

Navajo code was also used to a limited extent in WW1 in Europe, the Germans were a bit less obtuse and made a priority of sending German linguists to America in the 30s, to document all the American aboriginal languages.

Re:No.

[Ash Vince]

If the court approves, they can just go and obtain the computers. That is already solved.

They want to listen in, not shut the conversation down so storming in anywhere armed with your court order is not a solution.

So many people here are ranting on about this but what he said is actually 100% reasonable in that he stipulated the government needing a court order. The truth is that if they can stand in front of a judge and convince him you are a legitimate target then you have very little expectation of privacy. Based on that judges say so they can legally sneak in to your home and plant listening equipment if they have information that indicates they have a chance of recording you discussing engaging in illegal activities.

A few years ago things were much simpler for them, they could ask a judge nicely and he could order a tap your phone line. Nowadays though, that does not help them as much as it used to. They can take that warrant to your ISP, get full access to all your email, and still be none the wiser about what you are discussing if you have decent encryption.

If some could come up with a perfect solution to this problem where a judge could order something decrypted and only then could government use their magic key to access it then I personally would have no problem with it, providing a few other safeguards were also in place, such as full disclosure in the case that nothing is found after 6 months or a year or something. Obviously, this magic key would also have to be bulletproof so that there was no possible other way that government or anyone else could decrypt it.

The problem is that this perfect solution is is not what government goes looking for, instead they always seem to look for something that provides us no safeguards whatsoever. So even if it is possible (which I personally doubt anyway), there is sod all chance of them ever coming up with it and if anyone else does I can seem them actually supporting it.

Re:No.

[phantomfive]

And therein lies the fundamental flaw with such a system... Most people aren't upset because they aren't aware of, or don't fully understand the problem.

Democracy requires people to educate themselves. Democracy will never be better than the people who live in it. People don't go out of their way to educate themselves beyond mass media, so the candidate needs to advertise a lot on mass media or lose.

If you don't control the media, you can't get the word out to enough people, so it doesn't matter how good your policies are nor how bad everyone else's are, even if the truth is so bad that 99% of people would vote for you if they were in full possession of the facts, you have no way to get those facts out to enough people that it would make any difference.

I'm not sure 99% of people would oppose surveillance. The mass media has been talking about it for years, nearly everyone knows about it. They just don't mind if the government spies on them.

Re: No.

[LinuxLuver]

The American Revolutionary War wasn't between the government and the people. It was between the government, supported by Loyalists, and the would-be revolutionaries. Some of my ancestors were Loyalists who glad to Canada. "The People" were far from unanimous about the revolution.

Re:No.

[khallow]

You'd need a linguist that can understand the language in question.

Which is pretty much every linguist without a hearing impairment and a lot of people without a linguist education. "can understand" is not the same thing as "currently understands".

Re:No.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The correct translation is "I except the Silicon Valley companies to support us

You except that? Somehow, I expect that you're wrong to except that....

Re:No.

[ArmoredDragon]

What's wrong with RSA based key exchange? If we're worried about NSA breaking it, just go with 4096 bit.

Re:No.

[CrimsonAvenger]

However for many taking away power from powerfull people might feel as if it is taking away the American Dream where they can become one of those powerfull people.

And for some of us, taking power away from powerful people means either:

a) the only powerful people will be those in government, or

b) taking away power from the government, since they're far more powerful than the non-governmental powerful people.

Note that the more powerful any particular government is, the more worthwhile it is to bribe/buy that government to give you what you want. Which we see a lot of in the USA.

Re:No.

[BranMan]

Key exchange IS the problem - it relies on trust, partially, and obscure mathematics, partially. The keys are used for both parties, by using parts of the others' keys (i.e. the Public half of a Public/Private key pair) to generate the same Secret key. Then that Secret key is used to encode and decrypt messages.

It is not fundamentally secure. The correct way to do it is to physically travel to the other party and exchange Secret keys directly - and use 4096 bit to boot. With keys that long it *is* mathematically unable to be cracked using brute-force methods. Ever.

Re: No.

[epyT-R]

To a point, however, it seems most industrialized countries are moving towards top heavy states. Most equipment is manufactured in china, which is not known for its respect of individual rights. However, overall, I agree with your statement.

Re: No.

[epyT-R]

Nuclear fallout does not respect political boundaries. Any significant nuclear exchange would be to everyone's detriment.

Re:No.

[g0bshiTe]

We will know we are at that point when we are there.

Sadly by that time it will be too late to stop.

Re:No.

[g0bshiTe]

For this American the government spying on my phone or internet records may as well be them breaking into my house while I'm not there and rummaging through my stuff. It's the same thing.

Harmless meta-data is not harmless at all if it were no one on earth would be interested in it.

Re:No.

[phantomfive]

That's good. Now all you need to do is convince a significant portion of your fellow citizens to agree with you on the topic. Right now more voters disagree with you than agree.

Hope and change

[ArmoredDragon]

I hope that we can soon change to another administration before anything like this comes to pass.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.

Re:Hope and change

[MrBigInThePants]

AHAHAHA. That was a good one. Christ this is the funniest post on this article.

Seriously. I just love your style of minimalist humour.

Wait...you were joking right.....?

Re:Hope and change

[ColdWetDog]

The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.

Oh yeah? Explain George Bush.

Re:Hope and change

[SuricouRaven]

Fake as all the others.

The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.

Re:Hope and change

[causality]

Fake as all the others.

The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.

Yes, Heaven forbid the man occupying the highest office of the land and charged with making important decisions be known as an intellectual. I mean, this IS America...

Re:Hope and change

[reboot246]

We've had intellectuals as President, including the man holding the office now. Judging by their records, I'm about ready for the random person from the phone book. Couldn't do any worse.

I'm looking at the potential candidates from both parties, and I don't like (or trust) any of them. Surely we can do better.

Re:Hope and change

[gizmo2199]

We've had intellectuals as President, including the man holding the office now. Judging by their records, I'm about ready for the random person from the phone book. Couldn't do any worse.

I'm looking at the potential candidates from both parties, and I don't like (or trust) any of them. Surely we can do better.

That that were the case, but running for president (and being unscrupulous enough to be nominated in either party) is a very self-selecting process. People with the competence and willingness to do the right thing by their fellow citizen get weeded-out early in the process.

Re:Hope and change

[ArmoredDragon]

Or, somebody's accent and mannerisms aren't indicative of their overall intellect or knowledge.

I myself graduated at the top of my class, yet I behave more like the common-folk, mainly because I choose to, which itself is mainly because that's what I know best. I don't ever intend on running for office of anything either. I disagree vehemently with some of the more so called "civilized" mannerisms because they're outright pointless, such as wearing a tie to a business meeting. And you know what? When I talk to other people who wear ties often, they all agree.

I mean shit, if you compare modern values to the Victorian era, we're all a bunch of uneducated rabble. All of us. For example, anybody who couldn't speak Latin fluently was an uneducated nobody (even though Latin was a long dead language by this era.)

Besides, there's been a somewhat long-standing theory that it's best to keep the vocabulary to a minimum. Using really complicated and/or obscure words doesn't benefit anybody, ever. At best, people who you need to get your message across to haven't heard the word before and misunderstand you (there are somewhere north of a million words in the English language; nobody anywhere knows all of them) and at worst you sound like a snooty asshole. It cannot benefit you in any way to constantly use them, but it can harm you and those around you. That's a fact.

Re:Hope and change

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are you totally unaware of the fact that intellectuals have a really bad track record of totally despising the common folk? It's not that intellectuals don't take commoners' interests to heart when making decisions, it's more like they make decisions deliberately to harm out of genuine malice or depraved heartlessness.

If you don't believe me, ask around the next time you're at a cocktail party. You'll get some really ugly responses.

Re:Hope and change

[Squiddie]

The answer may surprise you: it's both. It's anyone's guess as to what particular moment consists of real stupidity or shenanigans by an evil genius.

Re:Hope and change

[Hognoxious]

But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business.

Totally on merit, I'm sure. Nothing to do with family connections at all.

Re:Hope and change

[Handpaper]

Abnego 2016!

Re:Hope and change

[DarkOx]

There is a difference between being an intellectual and what the pols and media mean when they say intellectual. As the GP points out G.W. Bush was plenty well educated as has just about every president we have ever elected has been, even early on when that education was less formal.

What the media and the people who state they want an intellectual mean is something very much the opposite. They want insular academics, who regardless of their party membership have 100% confidence in their untested leftist theories, and 100% belief in their excuses for all the failures of those they have tested, and finally and most importantly an ability to maintain enough cogitative dissonance to hold instance ideas like the financial crisis had something to do with inadequate regulation rather than being the logical and eventual consequence of moving to a money system not tied to a commodity but based solely on: regulation.

In short they want a bunch of guys that can earn degrees and look down on the rest of us. I am come on folks these guys are saying things like "lack of transparency is a feature" and lets take advantage of the "public's ignorance of economics to get this done."

We should not be voting for these people...they don't represent us...

Re:Hope and change

[goarilla]

I mean shit, if you compare modern values to the Victorian era, we're all a bunch of uneducated rabble. All of us. For example, anybody who couldn't speak Latin fluently was an uneducated nobody (even though Latin was a long dead language by this era.)

You're talking about the age where education/science was a hobby for the highly privileged (aristocracy).
These people had servants, fortunes and real estate as support. And knowing latin isn't any different as knowing any other language.
Frankly, you have a very romantic view of the Victorian era.

Besides, there's been a somewhat long-standing theory that it's best to keep the vocabulary to a minimum. Using really complicated and/or obscure words doesn't benefit anybody, ever. At best, people who you need to get your message across to haven't heard the word before and misunderstand you (there are somewhere north of a million words in the English language; nobody anywhere knows all of them) and at worst you sound like a snooty asshole. It cannot benefit you in any way to constantly use them, but it can harm you and those around you. That's a fact.

I get what you are saying. KISS right.
The problem is sometimes you do have to use these "difficult" words since they describe more exactly what you want to mean.
And a bunch of clarifying sub-sentences doesn't make your communication more legible anyway.

Re:Hope and change

[AutodidactLabrat]

I remind you that your loss of rights revealed by Snowden happened pre-2009. Who was President from 2001 - 2009? Hmm?
See? A Republican administration is far less interested in your safety than they are in THEIR control, so why whine about Obama for demanding the same rights and powers you willingly surrendered to the "Very-very-sorry" chimp?

Re:Hope and change

[AutodidactLabrat]

Actually, he was a 'gentleman's "C"' at Yale, and an undistinguished 'scholar' at Harvard, whose Thesis has NEVER been cited in any paper anywhere in any formal journal of Business.
He was a Connecticut Yankee who summered in Texas, attended Maine private school and graduated at the very bottom of his class, all while gathering FOUR arrests for major crimes including B&E, Drunken Driving with injuries (albiet slight), Malicious Mischief and Speed so as to endanger.
His Administration holds the record for MOST recessions and WORST GDP, Job and Wage Growth since Herbert Hoover, who had the misfortune of following Coolidge.

Re:Hope and change

[Kuruk]

All the little government boys have had their fingers in the jar for a long time now, being naughty. They will not give that up easily and lying to the people is no problem anymore. We seem to have been conditioned to put up with it. Modern psychology at its best.

Re:Hope and change

[SnærRjóðrSkegg]

Explain George Bush as a sharp lookin' and smart-talkin' guy, or the one that started all of this spying on US citizens under the Patriot Act?

Re:Hope and change

[ArmoredDragon]

You're talking about the age where education/science was a hobby for the highly privileged (aristocracy). These people had servants, fortunes and real estate as support. And knowing latin isn't any different as knowing any other language. Frankly, you have a very romantic view of the Victorian era.

Typically when I talk about the Victorian era, I talk about how many dumb traditions we've carried over from it, such as what I did just now. How then, can my view of it be romantic?

The problem is sometimes you do have to use these "difficult" words since they describe more exactly what you want to mean.

So use them when you have to use them (or in those cases where you want to add flavor with a joke) but they shouldn't be every day words. Which is basically what I said.

Yeah

[Greyfox]

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!

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

You still have your copy. Information should be free. Don't buy imaginary property

I'm getting sick and tired of people chanting that false mantra. Information doesn't "want" anything, so stop anthropomorphising. Should your genome be available to anyone on request because, after all, you'll still have the original, and "information wants to be free?"

Be careful what you wish for - you may get it, and it will get you in the end.

Re: Yeah

[SuricouRaven]

Take out the anthropomorphising and you can see the intended meaning: "It is a unavoidable property of information that it can be and will be replicated and dispersed."

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

Then they should have said that. They didn't - instead they anthropomorphised with their silly "Information wants to be free" chant. Don't blame me if freetards can't express their ideas properly. Also, your "translation" is also wrong - my genome (which is information) stays with me. It's not open for replication outside my own body.

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

So why should information be free? It's not a law of nature, a property of the universe, or any other such. If someone creates the cure for the common cold and keeps it secret even to their grave, that's entirely their business. Sure, they're being dicks, but there's not a law against that (yet).

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

And it's false. Look at how much money and effort goes into determining the laws of the universe - that's information that we're only now starting to get - and may never succeed at, even though it's being actively sought by some of our best minds.

Re:Yeah

[Technician]

The government should defend the Constitution instead of tear it apart.

The people should be secure. The people should have the right to assemble, and exclude a government representative from the meeting.

A meeting my phone should have the same protection.

It is illegal for citizens to wiretap a cell phone signal. This should apply to everyone.

It became clear this was not true. Other tools were made to enforce what should have been standard.

Now the government is a little upset that encryption exists.

Re: Yeah

[Narcocide]

...my genome (which is information) stays with me. It's not open for replication outside my own body.

I think you'll find this statement is factually inaccurate. The human body sheds all kinds of material (like hair and dead skin cells) that contain this data all day long as a normal process of living. Unless you live your life in a cleanroom suit you would find it actually quite difficult to fully restrict the spreading of your genome data.

Re: Yeah

[Slashjones]

But we sure as hell can try to stop government thugs from violating our privacy. They seem pretty worried about that possibility. This has nothing to do with "imaginary property," and information can't want anything.

Re: Yeah

[Slashjones]

Which they can... if they can decrypt it. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to force people and companies to make it easy for them to decrypt information in the event they'll ever want it because they couldn't do it by themselves. There's a difference between the government having the ability to try to get the information and saying they have some sort of absolute divine right to the decrypted information to such an extent that everyone must streamline the process for them.

That's unconstitutional. No one is under any obligation to help worthless government thugs violate their privacy.

Re: Yeah

[mrchaotica]

If someone creates the cure for the common cold and keeps it secret even to their grave, that's entirely their business.

In that case, does it even count as "information?" It might as well have never existed, since it makes no difference. It also, of course, would have no value, because nothing was ever done with it.

It would also have no legal protection. Patent law wouldn't apply, because it wasn't disclosed to the patent office. Copyright law wouldn't apply, because it wasn't published. It wouldn't even qualify as a trade secret, because there was no "trade!" Such a piece of alleged information would really be no such thing, because it would be effectively nothing at all.

In other words, information figuratively "wants" to be free because until an idea is shared, it doesn't even count as "information," and once it is shared, it's fundamentally impossible for the originator to prevent it from being shared further.

Re: Yeah

[Sardaukar86]

That mantra is no more insulting than you shouting from the rooftops that you're a woman when in fact you are not.

Great form, buddy: it's your Gaaahd-given right to punish someone with silly ad-hominen attacks when you disagree with them. Never mind that Barbara had an intelligent position and argument and got modded +5 for her efforts *for each post*, something the AC would be unlikely to achieve themselves.

Isn't Slashdot aimed at people who appreciate intellectualism and reasoned argument? Why does it also seem to attract unintelligent mud-slinging blowflies like this AC?

Re: Yeah

[BronsCon]

I'm sick and tired of people not being able to detect the slightest hint of ironic sarcasm, even when the words they're reading are drenched in it. The +0 post you replied to should actually be marked +5, Insightful; I'm sure it would be if it ended in .

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

"should" is meant in the moral sense here. Are you really that bad at listening comprehension?

There is no "moral sense" that information should be free. "information" has no moral rights of its own. "information" is not suffering if it's not free. And if someone creates something, it is up to them whether to share it or not. You have no moral right to dictate what they should do.

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

Nice try, but information has no "wants." My original point stands - people who say "information wants to be free" need to quit anthropomorphizing. It's just data.

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

By the same argument, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody't there to hear it, it doesn't make noise, which is a load of horse pucky.

The formula for Coca-Cola isn't patented - and a good thing, because the patent would have expired by now. According to your logic, Coca-Cola doesn't exist.

And yes, it's still a trade secret, and anyone who stole it would be culpable.

If you put a bullet in your head but do it in complete secrecy and your body is never found, you're still dead. There's no "sharing" needed to have the event have meaning, even though according to your argument, the event "makes no difference."

Re: Yeah

[Reziac]

Well, your hair doesn't want to be free, but it falls out all the same...

Hey, maybe they can put their money where their mouth is -- get their DNA sequenced and torrent it to the world!

Re:Yeah

[Reziac]

The government should be =restricted= by the Constitution, as the Founders intended: government can or must do *these few things*, and all other actions are forbidden.

Re:Yeah

[scamper_22]

I don't know. I understand the libertarian end of privacy. What I don't understand are people who generally love government then complaining about the government invading your privacy.

I'm as confused as anyone on what the better way is (libertarianism, socialism, capitalism...) I don't bloody well know.

It just seems strange to have this dichotomy.

It just seems a little strange.
Want the power to send me to jail for smoking weed? Sure go ahead. It is for the greater good.
Want the power to confiscate half my money and decide how to spend it? Sure go ahead. It is for the greater good.
Want the power to be in charge of my kids education and what they learn and the values they have for most of the day? Sure go ahead. It is for the greater good.
Want the power to be in charge of the healthcare system, spending huge portions of tax money and controlling/restricting labor? Sure go ahead. It is for the greater good.

Want the power to be in charge of a huge powerful military costing a huge portion of tax money and capable of killing millions upon millions and intervening in other countries? Sure go ahead. It is for the greater good.

Want the power to scan my emails in the hopes of catching terrorists? AAAAAAAAAAAAH, invasion of privacy, slippery slope, my rights are infringed....

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

Pepsi did exactly that when Coke introduced New Coke. However, Coke brought back the old coke (renamed Coke Classic) so they shelved making "Savannah Cola".

Re: Yeah

[Gob Gob]

Its a law of nature is that everything is free in the monetary sense until a being decided to assign it ownership and set a price on it. .....unless you are paying for a different sun than I am (in which case your Internet Connection is awesome from whatever sun you are orbiting)

Re:Yeah

[Mr. Shotgun]

The government should defend the Constitution instead of tear it apart.

Unfortunately the constitution and the associated bill of rights were intended to be limits upon the government so it is not surprising to see the government tearing at those walls. It is after all in it's nature to try to expand it's power, much like fire will continue to seek more fuel or a wild animal will feed again.

What is rather disappointing is to see the people, who are supposed to be the ultimate checks on the government, react with such antipathy towards these encroachments on their rights. The constitution and bill of right was designed so that they was a constant struggle between the will of the governments insatiable lust for power over the governed and the citizens desire to be free of the encumbrance of the government. But lately the people have abandoned their post and thrown their lot behind whoever has a letter behind their name that pleases them the most.

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

Its a law of nature is that everything is free in the monetary sense

Really? Since when does nature care about money? Nature got along quite nicely for billions of years without it. And the "law of nature" was, and still is, that everything has a cost - see the laws of thermodynamics. :-)

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

my genome (which is information) stays with me. It's not open for replication outside my own body.

I appreciate your sacrifice, as it keeps the Flynn effect going.

Not really - I have 2 daughters, and they're totally awesome :-)

Re: Yeah

[BarbaraHudson]

Still doesn't answer my question - why should information be free?

It's certainly not in nature - quite the contrary. It takes energy to get information from point A to point B or entity A to entity B, and both result in an increase in entropy for the system as a whole. "Free" information is not free - it has a cost.

Re:Yeah

[Slashjones]

What I don't understand are people who generally love government then complaining about the government invading your privacy.

I don't really love government generally, but I think it's a matter of believing that the government should have certain powers and shouldn't have other powers. It's not a matter of big vs small, but a matter of whether or not the government should have a specific power. Some powers are easily abused and would affect our fundamental liberties, so people reject the idea that the government should have them.

Even considering that, people who believed some of the things you listed while still pretending to believe in the constitution and freedom would be hypocrites.

Want the power to scan my emails in the hopes of catching terrorists? AAAAAAAAAAAAH, invasion of privacy, slippery slope, my rights are infringed...

People in favor of the war on drugs tend to also be in favor of just about every authoritarian policy imaginable.

Just be glad

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just be glad

[currently_awake]

Given how unbelievably rare terrorists are, clearly they want these powers to spy on you.

Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[fustakrakich]

...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.

Re:Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[easyTree]

"<prefix> There is nothing left to do but <suffix >" == false

Re:Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[SuricouRaven]

Can't be done, for the same reason you can't make an anti-child-porn filter that cannot be easily reconfigured to block other things. The technology is the same in either the use or abuse cases - all that changes is the order given by the human element, and the entire history of politics can be summed up as trying and failing to address human fallibility, selfishness and corruptibility.

Re:Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[meta-monkey]

Alan Turing, John von Neumann et al. went to an awful lot of trouble to develop the "general purpose computer," that can compute any algorithm you can describe in logical, concrete steps.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, world-spanning minds. Second I'd say only to Newton.

Now, serious hats off to the motherfucker who can develop a computer that can run any program except the ones the government doesn't want you to. That kind of math would make Turing and pals look like children.

Re:Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[Immerman]

Nonsense - most of the history of politics has been a study in the art of refining selfishness and corruption into a finely honed tool to keep ever more power flowing into the hands of the powerful.

Re:Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell

[SuricouRaven]

You don't need mathematics for that, you need physical engineering. It's already a well-established field - games consoles, iPhones, etc. They take active measures to make sure you can't run anything the manufacturer doesn't want you to run. While it's possible to hack them by exploiting imperfections in their design, this is a task beyond the capabilities of most people - and it only gets harder as technology advances and all those handy little external busses disappear into an SoC where you can't even measure them without access to a cleanroom facility.

Precedence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?

Re:Precedence?

[causality]

Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?

They try again and again to implement the same bad ideas, knowing that defeats don't matter, understanding that they only need to score a single victory and their maladaptive proposals will be forever enshrined in law, never to be repealed. These are people who play chess and as such they learned to take a long view of things, realizing that most Americans have incredibly short memories and are only considering the here and now.

Re:Precedence?

[easyTree]

Incorrect, I'm fairly sure lots of Americans can remember all the contestants from the first season of American Idol.

Don't diss yourselves bro.

Re:Precedence?

[causality]

Incorrect, I'm fairly sure lots of Americans can remember all the contestants from the first season of American Idol.

Don't diss yourselves bro.

Well then, in the context of popular television shows, I do stand corrected.

Re:Precedence?

[AHuxley]

There are two ideas on that topic. The past idea was the vital importance of keeping all public spying topics limited to the Soviet Union, Russia and China. That kept the domestic press happy and the simple domestic message that the internet was too big and fast to "collect it all".
The other idea was to make all collection legal and use the results in secure or open courts.
Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... shows that it is possible to reconcile a vast usage database removing all anonymity and privacy.
The security services worked out decades ago that telling people that crypto was broken or that all communications was been logged changes how people use networks and telecommunications services.
Sock puppets and propaganda could still contain whistleblowers and their material in the press.
Now nations are talking of decryption and collecting it all openly. The past 90 years of well hidden surveillance is now out in public and legal.
A digital Berlin Wall is now legal and public.

Meet the new boss.......

[Anonymous Coward]

....same as the old boss.

Nothing New And Not a Problem

[TrollstonButterbeans]

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.

Re:Nothing New And Not a Problem

[countach]

"no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure. "

Define totally secure. A one time pad is pretty much totally secure. And not going via a 3rd party is no guarantee that someone might be eaves dropping. So your comment isn't really very helpful.

I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[jonwil]

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.

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! For fucks sake yes! Let's turn your argument around then? Where would you stop to not make what you say happen? What if it took cameras on each and every person's forehead that are constantly streaming to the NSA? That's fine with you? If that's what it takes to stop killing mothers I mean... If so, where do YOU draw the line? If I can't have private communication with people, I don't feel like I'm human anymore. Then nothing is worth anything to me. Get it?

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[trippin_efnet]

Yes. Do not allow our liberties to go away out of fear of what the worst case scenario could be. Statistics show the odds of dying from terrorism are extremely low. And there are plenty of other tools in their anti terror arsenal. They need to stop treating their own citizens as enemies and actually do targeted investigations.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[causality]

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.

This is more generally known as refusing to be a coward.

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[jonwil]

What I am really trying to say is "we should not use terrorism as an excuse to make the world less secure or less free" (this includes bans or restrictions on encryption, internet censorship, unconstitutional or illegal acts by governments and their agencies, deliberate backdoors in off-the-shelf software and hardware to make it easier to break and wholesale collection and retention of data or metadata without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity)

As one of the founding fathers of the United States said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[khasim]

And I would rather not die.

If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.

But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.

The question is whether you believe there are more terrorists in the USofA or more bad cops/contractors/other-people-with-access-to-track-your-daughter.

Once you sign away her privacy she probably won't be getting it back.

And she will still be in more danger from her boyfriend/husband (and ex-boyfriends/husbands) than she is from any terrorist in the USofA.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[gweihir]

Even if that means you daughter grows up in a fascist dictatorship? There are things worse than death...

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[bug1]

Or to say it another way...

âoeIt is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.â - John Adams

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[BarbaraHudson]

" would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated."

Methinks you need a bit of perspective here. Besides, there's already tons of stuff that isn't private because of individual's actions. Like married people getting caught posting dating profiles on web sites claiming they're single, using illegal drugs, posting selfies that show off the stuff they've stolen, those "private" pics and videos that make it all over the net after a break-up ...

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[currently_awake]

Corrupt police kill more Americans than Terrorists do. So giving them more tools to track and attack you increases the risks to you and your family.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[mark-t]

Last time I checked, there wasn't any coming back from death. A fascist dictatorship, however, can at least be eventually overthrown.

Of course, overthrowing said regime requires that you actually be alive.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[InterGuru]

You are in more danger of being shot by a toddler, than a terrorist. .

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

It's all well and good to point out that terrorism isn't much of a threat and that their efforts won't likely provide us with actual security, but it's much more important to point out that freedom is more important than safety. So, to his question, I would answer "yes."

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

Freedom is an incredible, wonderful thing. But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.

Then move to North Korea, rather than a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sacrificing our fundamental liberties and saying that the government can ignore the constitution to keep people safe demonstrates that you're anti-freedom.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

Methinks you need a bit of perspective here.

I don't. He's absolutely right: Freedom and the constitution are more important than safety.

Besides, there's already tons of stuff that isn't private because of individual's actions.

Yes, because of individuals' actions. It's a choice that they make, and one I barely ever make. That doesn't mean that everyone (even people who are careful with their information) deserve to have information they don't put out in public spied on by the government.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[anarcobra]

If the choice is between dying and not dying, then yes, not dying is better.
But if the choice is between loosing my freedom and maybe dying, then having my freedom is far more important to me.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.

Unless you've missed the whole thing about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA molesting people at airports, the government doing loads of unconstitutional spying, and tons of other privacy-violating issues, you should know that that is simply false. You don't have privacy if government thugs are spying on you, or using automated tools to do so.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[khasim]

You know who has trouble with "bad cops?" The people who don't respect authority in the first place.

Maybe you can do a little research (Google) on cops accused of rape.

Or just look at cops sentenced to life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Eppolito_and_Stephen_Caracappa

I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.

No, you do not.

Not being interesting to the authorities is not the same as having your privacy intact.

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Opportunist]

If, and only if, you can PROVE without a doubt, and I don't mean "we are sure that...", NO! If you can PROVE TO ME that this erosion of liberties has caused ONE SINGLE ATTACK not to happen, we can start TALKING about it.

France has by some margin the most broad, most insane and most invasive anti-privacy laws in the EU. They did not repeal the data retention law even when the EU supreme court called it what the US would call "unconstitutional". They have exactly what Obama is asking for here. Their government has every single crappy anti-privacy shit at their disposal, without oversight.

You might remember what happened last week, yes? The newspaper that was shot up with a half a dozen journalists dead? By terrorists who got the wrong house first before and ASKING FOR THE WAY before finally hitting their target (i.e. undoubtedly insanely well prepared, shrewd professionals), no less.

Maybe remind me again where the FUCK this happened?

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Algan]

Yes, precisely.I am more afraid of the government that the terrorists. The government killed more people.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Opportunist]

In risk management you learn early that there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. Actually, you DO accept risks quite a lot. Yes, even in everyday life. When you get into your car and drive to work, there's always the risk that you get into a fatal car accident. All it takes is some drunk driver hitting you head on and a hint of bad luck, and you're a goner. Happens every year, a few thousands of times. When you pit that risk of losing your very life against the quite mundane gain of getting to work, are you nuts to dive head first into that risk, are you a bad parent because you put the rather minor goal of getting to work ahead of your chance to watch your daughter grow up? Of course not. Yes, the risk exists and yes, people die. But the chance of it happening is sufficiently small that you accept the risk in favor of being able to get to and from work, keep the job and keep earning money.

The same is true with terrorism. Is there a chance that some terrorists will kill you? Yes. They could well be plotting right now that they plan to blow up the building your office is in on Monday with you getting killed in the process. Should we now throw away any and all liberties we have to avoid this? No. First and foremost, if the whole shit that went down in Paris proved anything then that no matter what freedoms you relinquish, you don't buy security with it. France has about the broadest surveillance laws in the EU and the most ridiculous limitations on encryption, and it meant jack shit. Personally I consider it amazing that something that proved without a doubt that total surveillance serves no purpose in terms of terrorism prevention can be used as an argument for MORE privacy erosion.

But second, even IF it did serve any meaningful terrorism prevention, which we now know it does not: Does such a small chance of being a terror target warrant the total elimination of privacy? One might easily say "Of course, I don't want to die!"

But then I'd rather not drive to work anymore. If the chance to die is all that matters, going to work is WAY, WAY more dangerous than not throwing away your freedom.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[msauve]

I'm sure all the people and families who suffered under Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot find great comfort in that.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[meta-monkey]

You know, I was totally against this whole panopticon thing. Government monitoring my movements, my purchases, my communications. Tracking everything I do, spying on me 24-7. Totally against it.

But you...with that thing you just said about your daughter? Totally turned me around. Straight up 180. Hell, twice that. I did a three-motherfuckin-sixty.

Because you made me think about the children. Why, before you just said that, did no one ever think about the children?

Thank you. Thank you for making me think about the children. Now go. Go and spread that message to the world. God bless you, Patriot.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[thesupraman]

Good thing your Daughter does what she is told by authority, it should make life MUCH easier for the following type of cops:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/raped-cop-police-chief-advice-break-law/

Of course, you are good with that, right?
After all, they represent AUTHORITY.
Personally, I would rather teach children what is right than to be good little sheep.

Oh, and about that privacy you still have... you DO realise they catch everyone in their nets right, not just 'the bad people'?
Lets hope someone in a position of authority doesnt decide they want to take you down a peg or two..

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[DocHoncho]

Not to mention fascist dictators predilection for mass murder renders any concern about staving off death moot. Then again, maybe this guy is just in the right [race|religion|political] group and would be more than happy to line up with the rest and shout whatever mantras the regime cooks up. America has a pretty strong history of Jingoism, so expect a hardline super baptist wrapped up in Jesus and the Flag.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[bloodhawk]

You are more likely to be accidently or intentionally shot in the US than be a victim of a terrorist. over 10,000 people are shot each year in the US. you are hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident. you are more likely to win the lotto. Yet you would happily trade your freedom to prevent that 1 in a couple of hundred million chance of dying? the gun lobby and cars are infinitely more dangerous to your young daughter

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Solandri]

And I would rather not die.

If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.

If you live in the USA, you are in more danger of being killed by your TV or furniture falling on you than by a terrorist. (24 fatalities per year vs 17 per year).

When we were at war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, I could see temporarily giving up some of our freedoms for security. But to give them up in perpetuity for something as trivial as terrorism? If you believe that's a worthwhile tradeoff, then the terrorists have truly won. The whole reason terrorists use terrorist tactics is because they don't have enough manpower or firepower to mount a head-on attack, or even a guerrilla attack. They deliberately choose a tactic which has maximum impact on public sentiment (i.e. terrorizes them, hence the name) for minimal effort. 9/11 was a fluke, a statistical outlier, whose tactic was already rendered impossible to replicate by the time the people on the 4th plane realized what was happening.

In the grand scheme of things, terrorists are nothing, less than a roundoff error in our vehicle accident fatality statistics. Would you accept government monitoring of your everyday driving behavior for added safety? Why not? Nearly 2500x as many Americans are killed in car accidents each year than by terrorism. Shouldn't that be making your "would rather not die" alarm go off like crazy?

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[gnasher719]

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.

Actually, if 1000 terrorists were sent to prison at the cost of one single innocent person having their rights violated, I'd be all for it.

But what our politicians want won't catch a dozen terrorists and will violate the rights of 100s of millions, so the situation is a bit different.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Opportunist]

People don't like being wrong. They'd rather forgo logic, reason, sanity and even safety than accept being wrong and admitting that their solution does not work out.

Let's hope they don't make a religion out of it, that's probably the only way it could get worse.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Methinks you need a bit of perspective here.

I don't. He's absolutely right: Freedom and the constitution are more important than safety.

First, like more than 95% of the world, I don't live in the USA. And yes, I like my gun control laws.

Second, the "1000 terrorists go free than see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated" line is self-contradictory, because 1,000 free terrorists are sure as heck going to violate the security and civil liberties of a lot more than one person.

You are engaging in "black and white thinking" (aka splitting), which is characteristic of people with orderline personality disorder and/or narcissistic personality disorder. It's a form of cognitive distortion, but the problem is that people who suffer from it don't see it as such, but as a "good thing."

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

Second, the "1000 terrorists go free than see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated" line is self-contradictory, because 1,000 free terrorists are sure as heck going to violate the security and civil liberties of a lot more than one person.

It's not contradictory in the least. You need to recognize the difference between random people hurting you and a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people infringing upon your *fundamental liberties*. I'll give you a hint: One is far worse than the other. One should not be allowed to happen.

This is why it is not contradictory in the least. I am fine with taking the risk of some random fool violating my liberties, but I'm absolutely not fine at all with allowing the government to violate my country's constitution and my fundamental liberties to protect me from these random fools.

And by security, he obviously meant the inherent problems that sabotaging encryption will create. You weren't thinking when you called any of this contradictory.

You are engaging in "black and white thinking"

And? I believe what I say is correct because I am on the side of freedom, no matter how you decide to arbitrarily classify that. But go on and pretend to live in a free country as you surrender your fundamental liberties for safety, real or imagined.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[BarbaraHudson]

But go on and pretend to live in a free country as you surrender your fundamental liberties for safety, real or imagined.

I don't have to imagine that I live in a free country, as I don't live in the US. Canada, New Zealand, and Switzerland are the only countries in the world ranked "free" (top ranking) in the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom. It also shares the top ranking for the 2014 Press Freedom Index ("good situation"), and again the US is only ranked "satisfactory".

The Economists' Democracy Index for 2012 puts my country way ahead of the US:

The US and the UK remain at the bottom end of the full democracy category. US democracy has been adversely affected by a deepening of the polarisation of the political scene and political brinkmanship and paralysis.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

I don't have to imagine that I live in a free country, as I don't live in the US.

Every country in the world, including the US, violates people's freedoms, and often in different ways. Unjust surveillance is a common problem, and something we must reject if we wish to have actual freedom.

Linking to random, arbitrary freedom indexes will not convince me of a single thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say, "This freedom index says these countries are better than some other countries, and as we all know, being better than something else means that you're overall good!"? I'm just not sure what your point is.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[mark-t]

I'm not saying that things that can sometimes be described as being worse than death aren't really all that bad, but I *am* saying that anything where you are still alive, regardless of how you end up or how rotten your position, is better than not coming alive out of it at all, without somehow quantifying the value of a human life.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[shutdown -p now]

You know who has trouble with "bad cops?" The people who don't respect authority in the first place. The people who have done things that harm others and the society at large. My daughter will never be in a confrontation with the authorities - never become a Michael Brown - because she has been raised to understand the need for the police and for keeping the peace (as much as I can teach her).

Your daughter will be in confrontation with authorities if, say, her house gets SWATed on a false charge (because an unreliable informant pointed at it), or simply because they got the wrong address or the wrong door. She won't get a chance to say "yes sir, please and thank you", because she won't be asked - the first thing she'll know is when her door is blown off the hinges with a shotgun and a flashbang comes in. Maybe it lands into her baby's crib, too. Maybe she gets a limb or two broken when they put her face down into the floow. Best case, they will only shoot the dogs and mess up the room with the entrance before they figure out something's wrong and leave (with no apologies and no compensation for damages).

Or perhaps she'll be driving around with a couple thousand dollars in cash, that she won in a lottery, and gets stopped by cops because they'll claim she's speeding (but really because she's cute). And when they see the money they will claim that such a large amount in cash is suspicious, and arrest it as proceeds from drug sales, because they get to pocket a good part of it for their PD (i.e. to buy more toys like MRAPs and .50 BMG sniper rifles for themselves).

If she is black, it might get even more interesting. For example, during a routine traffic stop (for which she needn't do anything wrong, they might just be randomly pulling people over) an officer will ask her for ID, and she'll reach for her pocket because that's where the wallet is... and get shot point blank because the officer thought she's reaching for the gun. Because that's what he thinks of first when he sees a black person reach for their waist.

Or maybe she'll get arrested on an outright false charge just because she happens to come across a cop who "just hates niggers, that is all".

FYI, all of the above is not a figment of my imagination. It's all real stories that happened right here in USA with different people. The chances of something like that affecting your daughter are still orders of magnitude higher than the chances of being killed by a terrorist. So rather promoting more surveillance state, you might want to talk to your representative in Congress about police militarization first.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[jonwil]

If there is evidence (even circumstantial) that an individual is a terrorist or plans to carry out illegal activity (or that a given email account or ISP account or forum account or other online identity is connected to terrorism or illegal activity) then that should be sufficient evidence to get a warrant from a court (even a secret warrant if necessary) to allow their communications to be monitored.

My real point is not that we shouldn't be going after the bad guys (we should) but that we shouldn't be using dragnet surveillance on everyone (good and bad) as a way to catch the small percentage of the population who are planning to do bad things.

Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

How is that "just"?

It's more just for random people to violate others' rights than for a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people to engage in a mass violation of people's rights.

What if those thousand people would include some of those friends you want to communicate with? How "human" would you feel then?

Mass surveillance is wrong and unconstitutional, and it will always be wrong. The government has no legitimate authority to ignore the constitution.

I feel most human when I have my freedoms respected by my own government.

Get some perspective.

Get some principles or move to North Korea.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[Slashjones]

I could see temporarily giving up some of our freedoms for security.

Nope. I couldn't. The government has no legitimate authority to violate the constitution. If it does, then it's just a group of thugs that need to be stopped one way or another.

As "the land of the free and the home of the brave", we must reject the 'safety is more important than freedom' arguments. Plenty of awful things happened during WW2, and it wasn't just the enemy's doing. The government violated the constitution numerous times, and even went as far as placing citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps. Maybe that was "temporary," but it was intolerable and should never be allowed to happen again.

Temporary or not, we should not tolerate the violations of our liberties.

Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free...

[RyoShin]

Everybody says "Think of the children"
Nobody says "Think of the children's future"...

No thanks

[ShaunC]

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.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

"the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government"

Yes and no.

Obama was elected twice; the people have put him - and the rest of the statist tyrants in these positions of power. And yes, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it is the state vs the people.

It is your neighbor voiting to steal your money to get "free healthcare", the man in line at the grocery store next to you voted for Obama to get "paid days off", the woman in the car next to you voted for Boehner, to get "tax the rich" and to enact "common sense gun control".

We are living in a post-constitutional period, the state violates this compact whenever it pleases them. Our individual rights and liberties are for all practical purposes already gone. Your money isn't yours, you are only allowed what they decide you can keep. You cannot choose what kind of toilet you want without the state entering the transaction to "protect" you.

The problem isn't the politicians. A scrorpion only does what a scorpion does after all.

It's you fellow citizen you cannot be made to spend 5 minutes to think anything through when assessing claims such as "this will reduce your health insurance by $2,500 dollars! All men have a right to healthcare!" while they blindly vote for more and more government intrusion in their lives.

The problem is you. Wakt the fuck up America. It is far past time for a 5th amendment convention of the states.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

People didn't elect him, brainless idiots with an IQ lower than a rock did.

Re:No thanks

[SuricouRaven]

While you do point out some serious problems, you are placing your blame too firmly on one side. For every citizen who can't spend the time to think through the 'reduce your health insurance by $2,500' claim, there is another of equally simplistic thinking who sees only 'big gubment be coming to take my money.' The problem is neither too much more too little government - the problem is people who are so caught up in supporting their overarching political ideals in all cases, they fail to properly consider each issue presented as an independent decision. They do not ask 'What is the right policy?' They ask 'What is the Conservative policy?' or 'What is the Liberal policy?'

Re:No thanks

[dryeo]

What a coincidence, the biggest threat to my freedom also comes from your government.

Re:No thanks

[Megane]

the woman in the car next to you voted for Boehner

Nope. I am nowhere near Ohio. (Wait, he's from Ohio? Sheesh.)

Re:No thanks

[david_thornley]

There aren't all that many registered voters with IQs lower than rocks. With Obama's popular vote totals, lots of people clearly elected him.

That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

... 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.

Re:That is what you lost...

[lkcl]

dear karmashock,

thank you - genuinely - for making your feelings known so clearly. it is not often that these kinds of words get through on slashdot: so often they are treated as "troll" or "flaimbait", but your words are genuine and from the heart, and everyone can see that plainly.

i've said this often enough, but it is worth repeating: i am not a U.S. citizen but i know that where the U.S. leads, everyone else follows. so it matters *a lot* that the U.S. remain a stable country and a shining example for the rest of the world. the USA uses something like 25% of the world's resources and is only 1/8th the world's population: obviously not everyone can follow *that* example or we would need more Earths to live on!

the only thing i can suggest is that if you are truly a patriot, read the U.S. Constitution again. it was in the film "National Treasure" that that incredibly critical section first came to my attention - the one about "every citizen having the absolute duty to uphold it" and even to *overthrow* the government if it becomes tyrannical.

so i'm absolutely serious: think hard about that. i don't think it's quite come to it yet: they're being quite subtle about it as well as, in some ways, being really quite self-delusional in the genuine belief that they are doing the right thing, and that in itself is part of the problem. these are *rational people* in power, but they are justifying some pretty borderline decisions.

i guess what i'm really saying is: talk to other people about this. get a consensus. find out if other people believe that your government has gone too far, to the point of being tyrannical. if other people don't believe that's the case, then that's fine too. but if they do, then, collectively, you know what to do.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

In fairness our alternatives at the time were McCain, Hillary, and Obama.

Of the three we thought... "why not... he couldn't be any worse those those idiots"... and it seems he was if only because he didn't realize what his job was in the first place.

The one thing I've always found the most fascinating about Obama is that he doesn't know what the role of the president is in the first place. He thinks he is in charge when really his job is to EXECUTE. He is not a judge... that is for the judiciary. He is not a maker of law. That is for the legislature. He is a glorified administrator. A functionary who's job it is to see that policy is executed quickly and efficiently.

In fairness, Bush was likewise pretty stupid on this point. I think he thought of himself as some sort of moral figure.

Presidents are not about morality. They don't do things because they're right or wrong. They do them because they must be done.

That is the president I want. A politician that is good at politics so he can kiss the babies, then when he goes to work executes the law as written and in spirit. I want a politician that carries out diplomatic policy in the interests of the people that pay him his wage and put him in the seat. Americans. Should the US go out of its way to screw over other countries? Not out of its way... but we have interests and they should be our primary concern.

Re:That is what you lost...

[XXongo]

I don't want to put this all on Obama

Correct. This is, basically, continuing policies set up by Bush on the excuse "911 happened, OMG". Obama ran on the platform that he wasn't Bush. Pity, I rather liked that platform, too bad he didn't carry forward with it.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

Wrong. This is on Obama as well.

Do not take my sincerity to not play politics as an invitation for you to coopt my position and inject your own.

This is on both men at least equally.

To those that say otherwise, you are part of the problem.

Re:That is what you lost...

[macsimcon]

As an American, I think it’s more than a little unfair to blame Europe for what has happened to our country.

European citizens vote at rates far higher than we do. If we ever get to 80% of the eligible population casting votes in an election, and we still get corruption, then maybe it would be time for a revolution.

But you can’t even consider a revolution when barely half your nation votes. When a large segment of the population thinks the government should keep its hand off medicare, when they consistently vote for Republicans who only have the interests of the top 1% and the corporations in mind.

President Obama sucks in many ways, but he’s no President George W. Bush, and he’s no Mitt Romney. He may kill people with illegal drone strikes, but he didn’t destroy an entire nation for nothing, leaving hundreds of thousands dead. He didn’t run up a $3T war debt, with billions unaccounted-for being paid to government contractors.

As a nation, we get the government we deserve, and many of us just don’t pay attention or vote.

Re:That is what you lost...

[XXongo]

You seem to be vehemently agreeing with me.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

Voting rates don't especially mean anything. I think Iraq had a very high voting rate after the overthrow of Saddam. What exactly did that mean?

What is more, in many european countries you're required to vote so it is hardly voluntary. They either show up and cast a vote or get a fine. And contrary to what some might think that doesn't lead to a more sensible civic process since a lot of people that are forced to vote made zero effort to actually inform themselves.

It is a good thing for people that are not making an effort to inform themselves to not vote.

As to your political opinions that the republicans only care about the top one percent that is about as unbiased as the Palestinians saying the jews drink arab blood. You're spouting insanely biased propaganda.

Moderate your position please. You're also contradicting yourself. You're saying you want a higher percentage of people to vote and then you're attempting to paint HALF the voting population as puppets of some shadow corporate oligarchy... which is basically the political complexity I would expect out of a bad comic book.

Try harder.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

Repeat that without using an AC account, please. It is profoundly hypocritical to criticize the posting history of someone that is using a traceable name while you throw crap at them from the shadows. For all anyone knows you spend most of your time on this board posting racist rants.

I mean... how are we to know that you're not just mad that I shouted you down a few posts back for supporting pedophilia? You could believe anything while hiding behind your AC tag.

I don't post as AC because I'm already using a fake name. I don't need to hide even that. What kind of an absurd coward even posts AC in the first place? I don't even know why AC exists at all. Does anyone know? I don't get the point.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

Very little is irredeemable. Though that was of course quite stupid.

A major and increasing problem in our society is the increasing power of the federal government. In large part because as the feds gain in power it is increasingly important that they be competent.

Imagine a more interdependent system where the feds do less and states do more. Even if the feds are incompetent, most of the states will do fine simply by ignoring them and using their own best judgement.

This push by many in washington on both political sides is hurting the country because it creates a too big to fail system. Where everything rides on the feds not being colossal by the numbers fuckups.

It is also bad in that it damages the "laboratory of democracy" which was one of the geniuses of our society. Every state could do things a little differently and we could see emperical results from those choices. Each state was a little experiment that would show you the merits or pitfalls of given programs or ideas.

But that is being taken away. They want to nationalize public education so every public school in the whole country has to do it the same way even though some of them were doing just fine. No, force all the schools even the ones doing well to follow the same program as if the whole country should have a one size fits all program.

Consider kids going to school in Hawaii, they should learn more about the old Hawaiian kings and hawaiian history then kids going to school in New Mexico. The kids in new mexico should learn a bit more about the local tribes and history of that state while perhaps getting more of a background in spanish. That is just more appropriate for their region. And that is just basic cultural stuff. Some regions will probably profit form different types of vocational learning. Kids never should have lost shop class, art, and music.

One size programs are increasingly inefficient as any system grows in scope. As a system grows it must become more compartmentalized and interdependent to remain efficient and effective.

Think of analogs in computer networking. You don't build a network for 100,000 machines the same way you do for 10. You break it up into smaller networks that are individually manageable then build them into hierarchies that link one organizational structure to the next.

Think Cities, Counties, States, Judicial districts, and finally the full federal level. That is how the system was set up at one point and how it should be set up now.

The people that keep trying to turn the US into a giant version of some single European country with one unitary government are completely failing to understand the inherent inefficiencies of such systems as they scale.

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

that isn't how the US came into being... we have done better and we can be better.

Re:That is what you lost...

[macsimcon]

First, some definitions: in English, the word "many" is defined as a large number. Two is not a large number.

There are only two countries in Europe with compulsory voting, and they don't enforce it (I'm not going to name them for you, you'll have to learn something by doing the research yourself). Australia is the only English-speaking nation with compulsory voting which also enforces with a fine, and they aren't in Europe.

Second, you're (intentionally, I suspect) missing my point that, in general, an educated populace is more likely to vote, where an ignorant populace will not, and that's the reason Europe has higher voter turnout than the U.S.

Third, you can't claim I'm spouting biased propaganda without providing evidence. Do you have any? Ah, I thought not. But don't trouble yourself, I do have evidence. Both President Clinton and President Obama have raised taxes on the wealthy, and they are Democrats. President George W. Bush TWICE cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he's a Republican. Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul...all are Republicans, and all have consistently suggested lowering taxes on the wealthy. Just this month, Republicans reduced the amount of the Social Security Disability Fund in the future, which helps those who are not wealthy. Republicans have reduced food stamp funding, and they've fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which help poorer people afford food and health insurance, respectively. Republicans support the Keystone Pipeline, which benefits the billionaire Koch brothers. The United States Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, illegally halted the recount in 2000 to allow Republican (and member of the top 1%) George W. Bush to become president. He subsequently charged up trillions in debt to pay wealthy private industry to wage war, probably one of the largest redistributions of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy that we've ever seen.

President Reagan (darling of Republicans everywhere) reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. He was a Republican, and that benefitted the wealthy, no one else. And it was Republicans in Congress who came up with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowing the 1% to gamble with their money and stick middle class and poor taxpayers with the bill (while also setting us up for the Great Recession).

Have you even looked at the Republican Party platform? You can read it, you know. It endorses regulatory reform (so the wealthy can get away with poisoning our food and environment without fines or penalties), and privatizing Social Security (so wealthy banks can get trillions of dollars in new accounts they can charge fees). It suggests pulling more money out of welfare programs (so the poor will be desperate enough to take that job at the local McDonald's...owned by a wealthy person), and both gut the FDA and restrict Americans' rights to sue when they're harmed (both great for the top 1%).

I don't straddle the fence like some milquetoast moderate, I see things for what they are: the Republican Party stands for elevating the wealthy, while destroying the middle class and the poor, and represents the single largest threat to America since World War II. Yes, more than terrorism. And much more than Libertarians.

While we're engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit the truth, and think I should moderate my position. Republicans came down with the Citizens United decision, which benefits the top 1%. Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns as well, but it is a false equivalency to claim the parties are basically the same. Democrats are pro-union, which benefits working people, and not the top 1%. Republicans are anti-union. Democrats want to help poor people, and the Republican Party does not.

Honestly, I can't figure out if you're just ignorant, or a moron. Is it possible you're a sociopath or a malignant narcissist? Those are practically prerequisites for Republicans and Libertarians these days.

Politics is a

Re:That is what you lost...

[Karmashock]

As to the number of countries in europe with higher voter participation as a result of compulsory voting... I take your correction. I was under the impression it was wider spread then I believed however I was in error.

As to why there is higher voter participation, I do not know why however I have found such questions to always be more complicated then they at first appear.

I do not know for example how these stats are being counted. Are you including illegal immigrants in one set of rolls and not another? Just an example of something that could tweak results.

As to educated people being more likely to vote I am quite certain that your education stats are including people in the US that are not being counted in Europe. The US is far more diverse then any country in Europe and a great deal of that diversity is immigration from other countries where people either would not consider a college education in the first generation. Or they sometimes do have a college education as was often the case from the former soviet union and their college education was not considered valid in the US.

I am furthermore noting what appears to be some bigotry on your part and I only tolerate so much of that before I will break off contact on the basis that you're a troll. So please do keep your bile to a constructive level. If you just go on some stupid anti american rant, I am going to ignore you.

As to your citation of tax policy, I fail to see the relevance. It is the socialists in any case that are passionate about progressive taxes. Simply saying those are good merely makes it more likely that you are a socialist. I fail to see why that is a point in your favor.

As to keystone, and liberal billionares fought against keystone while at the same time buying up rail companies in Canada which the oil was transported by because there was no pipeline. The rail transport of oil is much dirtier then pipe transport both because of spills and carbon output from engines.

So you're against republican billionaires because they are cleaner then liberal billionaires? See, you're so politically biased that the issues don't matter to you. They're just weapons that you try to cherry pick to win arguments but your knowledge is little more then a memorization of talking points. You know nothing. You're a puppet. A tool. An empty vessel someone smarter then you poured words into and on command you parrot them out as if you actually have a little thought in your empty little head. You are pathetic.

As to Reagan only helping the wealthy, the economy improved which helped everyone. Carter was fucking it up and everyone knows that.

As to republican party platform, if you'd like to address any specific element of it, then I'd be happy to debate it with you. However, expect an actual debate... with logic. Your foaming spittle doesn't intimidate me or seem at all convincing. So if you are able to actually have a civil discussion... game on. Otherwise, I expect you to run away.

As to not straddling the fence, that is not what I hold as respectable. Rather, I expect people to think for themselves. Saying you have chosen a side means you've also allowed a side to do your thinking for you.

I am sympathetic to certain political policies but I do not let them do my thinking for me. I am a fence sitter. I vote democrat sometimes and I vote republican others.

For example, I voted for Obama the first time and against him the second time. Why? Because I choose issues and people not parties. You are a primitive tribalist presuming to lecture me on the moralities of philosophical purity. You don't even know what you're talking about.

As to citizen's United, the ban on money did not include unions, and special interest groups. Just corporations. Your faction has more funny money sources that aren't corporations. So obviously you found a system that made it harder for your opposition to raise money while not as harshly impacting your own revenue streams. It was a crass political ploy.

If you wa

I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the big

[mark_reh]

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.

IRS Targeting Scandal

[Kohath]

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.

Re:IRS Targeting Scandal

[XXongo]

The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen.

I do point out that the IRS is supposed to deny tax-free status for political organizations. That's their job. Political advocacy groups aren't tax exempt. And shouldn't be.

The IRS failed if they did not investigate some political groups that were "favored" ideologies. (I don't know whether they did or didn't, actually.)

Re:IRS Targeting Scandal

[SuricouRaven]

The IRS targeting 'scandal' is still lacking in evidence that might confirm intent or systematic bias. Without this, there is little substantial to the accusations. It may simply be that one end of the political spectrum is more prone to pushing the limits of non-profit status.

Oh God, he said "Patriots"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again, 911 all over again.
Let me tell you who the REAL PATRIOTS are.... ...the ones who get out in the streets right fucking now and REJECT this bullshit spying with every ounce of their soul.
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.

No right to privacy of self, is no rights at all.

[RichMan]

The next step is thought police.

Is Obama stupid?

[0123456]

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.

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[bsolar]

Not to mention that if US companies are supposed to "patriotically" enable and support access to encrypted communications to US officials the same goes for other countries. I'm sure he would not be ok at all with China stating that all Chinese hardware manufacturers should "patriotically" implement some solution to allow the Chinese government access.

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[Tablizer]

What country makes products without being under a snoop-friendly gov't?

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[houghi]

The rest of the world doesn't care. They are just as bad and the people just as lazy. And if there are backdoors, just sell them to the other countries. Problem solved.

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[DigiShaman]

PRISM compliant devices. By legislation or under national security, the "clipper chip" ***WILL BE MANDATED**, and that to circumnavigate, disrupt, or disable would be a felony (no doubt). It would also release corporations from the undue burden of having to staff employees full-time to process subpoena requests and face liability.

This will be the new normal. People will accept it. Silicon Valley will have no choice.

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[Kjella]

Not to mention that if US companies are supposed to "patriotically" enable and support access to encrypted communications to US officials the same goes for other countries. I'm sure he would not be ok at all with China stating that all Chinese hardware manufacturers should "patriotically" implement some solution to allow the Chinese government access.

And this is where it all starts to break down, it's better applied to close allies. Does the EU want the US listening in on all their phone calls? Does the US want the EU listening in on all their phone calls? We probably don't and an intercept-free solution is probably a download away with open source.

Re:Is Obama stupid?

[david_thornley]

The answer is "yes" to both, frequently. The US government lacks legal authority to spy on Americans too much. The UK government does have legal authority to spy on Americans, so if the US and UK share intelligence each government gets massive amounts of information on its own citizens.

Communication has never been secure

[stevez67]

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.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[Mikkeles]

The point is: I want some people to hear what I say and some people to read what I wrote. That is why I talk to some people out of earshot of others and send letters in sealed envelopes (or the equivalent for modern communications).

Re:Communication has never been secure

[mrbester]

Did they accept that they would be "held accountable" for *everything* they said or wrote? That every note, every love letter to their wives, every scribble and jotting, every thank you letter to Grandma for that sweater they didn't really like that they got for Christmas, every snarky comment made about someone they didn't get on with, every utterance no matter how benign and immaterial would be scrutinised by a tyrannical government hell bent on criminalising them by any means via self-appointed and absolute powers? Of course they didn't, you fucking idiot.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Sure they are, you just need to add your own security on top of it. People have always been able to break out their favorite secret book and OTP their message or speak in code.

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.

Unacceptable.

) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down.

See above.

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.

Really so while negotiating and working to build consensus it was all out there for anyone to know their bargaining positions? There was no need for secrecy?

Re:Communication has never been secure

[gweihir]

Have you ever heard about a little thing called "scalability"? Apparently not.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Unacceptable.

I think you spelled "reality" wrong :-) Never say or do anything you wouldn't want your mother to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[causality]

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.

"Being held accountable" is supposed to mean something along the lines of "people might decide they don't like you, or at least don't agree with you". It's not supposed to mean things like "you mysteriously end up on the no-fly list", or "the IRS gives you lots of special attention", or any other methods by which your government -- that's nominally supposed to be serving you -- is going to find a way to screw with your life.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[WaffleMonster]

I think you spelled "reality" wrong :-) Never say or do anything you wouldn't want your mother to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.

Good advice when making public statements or comments.

When having a private discussion with trusted people the government and any other peeping toms who think they have a right to it can eat random noise.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[currently_awake]

The ranting is about needing the court order part, not the ability of the police to tap your phone.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[Slashjones]

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.

Don't want the government molesting you at airports? Don't fly on a plane. Don't want government thugs molesting you for getting on buses or trains? Don't get on buses or trains. Don't want government thugs randomly searching you if you leave your house and walk around? Don't leave your house and walk around. If you don't want the government to violate your rights, move to another country. The government obviously should have the power to make you surrender your rights if you want to do something completely innocuous, because you're always free to not do it, so it's okay!

The land of the free and the home of the brave! A land full of courageous people who are free to move elsewhere if they don't want the government violating their constitutional rights. Truly a courageous nation filled with freedom.

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.

It's about privacy, not being held accountable. Government thugs shouldn't be spying on my communications without warrants.

Re:Communication has never been secure

[TrekkieGod]

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.

You mean people like Madison and Hamilton, who wrote the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym to keep their authorship of them secret?

Prior art

[Livius]

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?

Re:Prior art

[hduff]

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?

You must not be a "patriot", Citizen. Otherwise you would accept the good intentions of the governmnet without question. Perhaps you can wait in this jail cell while we question your commitment to keeping babies from being killed . . .

Re:Prior art

[swillden]

The technology required is the "warrant" - issued by a judge on probable cause. I believe the technology has been around for several hundred years.

And when the lawfully signed and delivered warrant results in the obtaining of encrypted data of which the authorities can make no use, what then? I disagree with the idea that we should compromise our security infrastructure in order to enable government access on demand, but this is what Obama et al are really concerned about: the development of a world in which warrants are useless because the data itself is protected in transit, end to end, and at rest, with keys available only to the parties communicating.

Re:Prior art

[Slashjones]

And when the lawfully signed and delivered warrant results in the obtaining of encrypted data of which the authorities can make no use, what then?

Too bad, that's what.

Re:Prior art

[swillden]

And when the lawfully signed and delivered warrant results in the obtaining of encrypted data of which the authorities can make no use, what then?

Too bad, that's what.

I agree, as I pointed out. But it doesn't change the fact that the poster to whom I replied missed the whole point.

And the true colors are revealed.

[Anonymous Coward]

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. ..

Re:And the true colors are revealed.

[hduff]

If Romney or any of the rest of the scum can be any worse,
I will be very surprised.

Your logic is flawed by asssuming that they play for different teams. They are all one team against us.

Totally a Problem

[firewrought]

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.

Re:Totally a Problem

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"You will live your life under the state microscope".

Perhaps. From their point-of-view at least.

If my life is defined my communications. And maybe it is.

If I wanted total privacy I imagine I could move to Alaska or the middle of Montana.

But my communications would not really be of interest to others. I am sure I may feel differently if I lived a life of politics or life of intrigue or sold bags of weed or raised money for Palestine or something ...

Re:Totally a Problem

[BarbaraHudson]

"You will live your life under the state microscope".

So it'll be like having my own "The Truman Show"

Do I get paid union scale? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will lead to some nice overtime :-)

Re: Totally a Problem

[Slashjones]

Amazing that /.'ers assail governments who are trying to protect them from terrorists

There's not a single government throughout history that didn't horrendously abuse its powers, and that includes the US government. To suggest that the poor, poor government wants nothing but to protect us and is filled with absolutely perfect beings who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes is an absolute fantasy. Furthermore, you'd have to have so much faith that you believe that not only will the current government not abuse its powers, but all future ones won't either. Given history, that's complete and absolute nonsense.

"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is demonstrably false and has always been demonstrably false. Only the ignorant think otherwise.

and then turn a blind eye to Facebook, Google, Yahoo who gladly monitor your communications to - give you pointless adds.

I don't turn a blind eye to them, you ignorant fool. They're scumbags, and they gladly work with government thugs and hand them any information you give them.

Re:Totally a Problem

[meta-monkey]

"I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear?"

That's the best you can come up with, Trollston?

Not in my house. Better get your ass back to troll school, son. That shit is weak.

Re:Totally a Problem

[AHuxley]

Re But with strong crypto it's secure enough that the 3rd party can see (or alter) your communications.
With international crypto standards set by tame groups that failed in the past and offered junk crypto?
All a nation has to do is work out who is connecting and with what software products. Encryption can be removed by ensuring the wide use of junk encryption.
Low costs, free, tame academics, NGO's, foundations, front companies can all push a message of testing, security and options around tame crypto.
Any good quality encryption is lost to the flood of well funded weak products offered for free or the need to use a tame international standard.
The producers of good quality encryption can also be found, their product can be weakened or sold to a more tame brand.
If good encryption exists for free then the users are tracked and tame operating systems or hardware might allow the plain text to be recovered.

Re:Totally a Problem

[anagama]

But my communications would not really be of interest to others. I am sure I may feel differently if I lived a life of politics or life of intrigue or sold bags of weed or raised money for Palestine or something ...

You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government. If you are a member of the wrong religion compared to those in power, or no religion -- your communications might well be incredibly interesting. Or maybe it is your skin color, your sex, or any myriad seemingly mundane things. That could be very interesting, and dangerous to you, especially when you willing shrug as the only protections you have against the Government gulaging you, dissapearing you, or bankrupting you, is that Constitution you are so apathetic about.

Re: Totally a Problem

[firewrought]

Amazing that /.'ers assail governments who are trying to protect them from terrorists and then turn a blind eye to Facebook, Google, Yahoo.

If we're going to stick to simple arguments: governments kill more people than terrorists; ergo, they are the greater threat.

Of course, if you want a more sophisticated argument, then you need to go back to democratic principles. Separation of powers, checks and balances, due process, and so forth. It's always about power and preventing too much of it from pooling in one place. No matter how noble government objectives are at the current moment (which you seem to have some charmingly naive assumptions about), you don't want to setup bad power structures or the next thing you know some low-level spook will be defacto dictator of your republic.

Alternately, you could point out that all this spying and intrusion on civil liberties is an enormous waste of money. The government could save wayyyyy more lives by focusing on cancer, heart disease, and vehicular deaths. Heck, poisonings are the second leading cause of accidental deaths, but nobody's insisting the government watch you take your meds or make you lock up your cleaning supplies.

And I don't know what you mean about slashdotters turning a blind eye to Facebook and Google... we bitch about that all the time too.

Re:Totally a Problem

[gnasher719]

You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government.

Your communication might also be of interest if you have a date with the ex-partner of someone whose job is spying on people, or if you are a good looking man / woman who likes to send nude pictures of themselves, and many other reasons.

Email Back Doors = Steganography Boom

[BoRegardless]

Let's get real.

Re:No right to privacy of self, is no rights at al

[BoRegardless]

Gov't is working on this now.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[rtb61]

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?

Backdoors for everyone

[Spad]

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.

Re:Backdoors for everyone

[macsimcon]

There won’t be a backdoor for anyone but the Americans, and maybe Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, because those nationas already have agreements in place to spy on each others’ citizens when the home country is legally prevented from doing so.

A scene from the movie "Little Nicky"

[glitch!]

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.

Re:A scene from the movie "Little Nicky"

[Patent Lover]

Sorry, I'd rather have all my privacy compromised and be sent to Gitmo than watch "Little Nicky".

Re:A scene from the movie "Little Nicky"

[glitch!]

Ouch. Touch crowd. Okay, I feel lucky and will double down on this. For those who watched the movie "Idiocracy", I would like to see Obama play the starring role in the sub-movie "Ow! My balls!"

Re:A scene from the movie "Little Nicky"

[Patent Lover]

Redemption is yours. Love that movie.

Unpatriotic treasonous bastards use encryption ...

[CaptainDork]

... and avoid providing metadata to big business.

Mutual disadvantage

[charronia]

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.

Re:Statism for the WIN

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'll take up your challenge when you you learn how to spell "idealogy".

10€ says you pronounce it that way, too.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[davmoo]

Its an undisputed fact that all terrorists drink water. Therefore, we should ban water.

Re:Statism for the WIN

[causality]

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.

Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[BrennanPratt]

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.

Re:Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[Hognoxious]

Data is physical evidence.

Obligatory car analogy:

You have a locked building. The cops turn up with a warrant to search it. You can give them the key, open the door, or they'll break in by force.

An encrypted drive is a locked building with an indestructible door and an unfindable key. Could they have even imagined such a thing back in 1776?

Re:Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[BrennanPratt]

Data is an abstraction of physical objects that can't be interpreted without the help of a machine. An encryption key usually takes the form of language that enables mathematical way of interpreting otherwise inscrutable contents. Imagine you're being arrested for possession of pot, but your back yard appears to be filled with ferns, and some magic word would change the contents like an old-style speakeasy. And that ain't even touching on the implications of deniable partitions. And this doesn't really address at all my main point: if encrypted data is your only source of evidence, you're either really bad at your job or prosecuting a thought crime.

Re:Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[BrennanPratt]

Even more relevant to your "data is physical evidence" is this: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014... In the context of 4th Amendment and search pursuant arrest, the court found that data is NOT simply the contents of a locked container that police would ordinarily be able to search without a warrant. Data is different, and there's no consensus on whether 5th Amendment protections shield someone defying a court order to decrypt something.

Re:Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[Hognoxious]

if encrypted data is your only source of evidence, you're either really bad at your job or prosecuting a thought crime.

I never said "only", that's entirely your invention.

Let's say I have other evidence (mysterious trucks seen moving, tip-offs or whatever) that you're selling something you shouldn't to someone you shouldn't. We know that a middleman made a payment of X amount on date Y to account Z, but we don't know who account Z belongs to. That would be the icing on the cake. So I get a warrant, naming the thing to be searched for and so on.

Why does it make sense that if you have financial records on paper they're available but electronic ones aren't?

Re:Long Game + Lazy Prosecution

[BrennanPratt]

Right. I invented it in the OP you responded to. That dictated the context. Since this appears to have gone outside that context, I decline to respond further. See my other response on the ways in which data is different, and the "is it speech" split on 5th Amendment protections.

I guess its not primary against TLS ...

[allo]

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.

ALL politicians in power sound the same

[bussdriver]

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.

Re:ALL politicians in power sound the same

[Karmashock]

I can't speak to the UK, but the US doesn't have that problem at the legislative level. At the executive level, so much of the government is a black box. We don't really know what they're doing and they have been caught lying to congress. So... the conspiracy theories are going to run wild. Why try to stop them.

Price of lying to congress which is a thing the NSA was caught red handed doing.

Of course, the IRS also recently lied to congress.

And the head of the new ACA or Obama care system just resigned mostly for lying to congress as well.

So... it is a thing. The executive is lying a lot. Congress really needs to get a spine and gut the executive.

The legislature is our most democratic body. The executive should fear them. But they don't. They see the legislature as a joke they can control. Largely at this point because it is full of so many useful idiots.

Re:ALL politicians in power sound the same

[ColdWetDog]

Come now, who cares what politicians do these days? We have Miley and Justin to push the edge of what is compatible with human behavior. Not to mention the Rolling Stones, Kim Kardashian and Kiss.

The days of 'the only way I could lose the election is to be found in bed with a dead girl or live boy' are over.

I suppose we have the Internet to thank for that.....

Re:ALL politicians in power sound the same

[TarPitt]

This has been true at the local level as well. Police departments made a practice of maintaining files based on surveillance of local politicians and had no qualms about letting their targets know they were being watched.

For example:

The commendation resolution, which several council members said they acted on without paying attention, gives no hint of Paul's role in the controversial PDID. The unit was accused of keeping files on elected officials considered hostile to the LAPD and of infiltrating liberal organizations.

The PDID was disbanded by the Police Commission in 1983 and replaced by an anti-terrorist division after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit accusing the unit of spying on 131 law-abiding citizens and organizations. The lawsuit was settled in January, 1984, when the city agreed to pay $1.8 million in damages.

Before the suit was settled, an LAPD internal investigation found that Paul had stored confidential PDID files in the garage of his Long Beach home and had provided sensitive information to a private, right-wing organization. Paul was suspended, but a police trial board later found that his activities had been sanctioned by his supervisors, and he was reinstated with back pay.

The controversy over the PDID activities lasted for months, grabbing headlines regularly and prompting widespread criticism of the department.

"This is outrageous," Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU said upon learning of the council's action Tuesday. "Jay Paul betrayed this city; he disgraced the Police Department."

http://articles.latimes.com/19...

Ixnay on the oopid-stay

[theodp]

Will Pig Latin be a misdemeanor or felony? :-)

Re:Statism for the WIN

[ElKry]

Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward

by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17, 2015 @05:09PM (#48840971)

Dear Obama....

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Nosey fuckers

[easyTree]

Makes no difference - I don't understand the process by which these things happen but I'm assuming that the feedback loop involving the public has a zero weighting.

Re:Technically

[Lumpy]

There is, 1 time pad, not even the BEST in the US government can crack it.

Re:Statism for the WIN

[ColdWetDog]

This really isn't fair. You need to fess up and tell us what meds you're on.

Love him or hate him....

[JimRogersJr.]

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

They are patriots!

[should_be_linear]

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.' "

Re:They are patriots!

[BarbaraHudson]

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.' "

Translation for the slow: "We got supporters who want to make money off this banging on our doors."

And locks too!

[hawguy]

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".

Re:And locks too!

[causality]

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".

I appreciate your sarcasm.

Re:And locks too!

[zlogic]

Uhm, TSA already has a master key for luggage and are allowed to remove non-approved locks by cutting them off.

Re:only the government

[easyTree]

Government == government + <anyone providing a campaign bribe> - oui?

Trust

[bug1]

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.

Re:Trust

[Slashjones]

Nope. Even if they did that, forcing in backdoors would still be unacceptable. Even if we assumed that normal criminals couldn't use these backdoors, I value my freedom and privacy more than safety to begin with.

Hey ... Obama ... FUCK YOU.

[BitZtream]

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.

UK news sites are saying exactly the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:UK news sites are saying exactly the opposite

[sumdumass]

It appears that what is not in agreement between them is more about who holds the keys to the car not who can use it.

Or in other words, it isn't substantially different. Its just that cameron seems to want a set of keys and not have to ask the US before using it.

Re:UK news sites are saying exactly the opposite

[Opportunist]

Yeah, they could not agree on who gets to sniff in whose undies. What they agree on is the sniffing itself.

Typo in summary

[real gumby]

last line should read '...a “clipper chip” that would supposedly allow only the government to decrypt...'

Re:Technically

[gweihir]

Does not help. The law is not applied to protect citizens these days, it is applied when it can be used to screw citizens and ignored when it would hinder or prevent that. Come on, what do you expect from a barbaric state that tortures its prisoners?

No Way!

[Panthros]

Because the government can of course be trusted, not!

Re:Technically

[SuricouRaven]

If you can solve the key distribution problem. While a OTP is certainly a useful device in some circumstances, it is only an option if the participants have previously been able to communicate over a secure channel with verified identities. It's not much use on the internet, though I have considered the possibility of it being used for corporate VPNs - with the size of hard drives now, a traveling employee could comfortably take a 1TB or more OTP with them on a business trip, more than enough to last for a couple of weeks.

We already have that in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[swillden]

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.

Bloody Hell

[Rainwulf]

Mirrors Edge was a satirical poke at an orwellian future, not a fucking blueprint for goverments.

Idea for stealth encryption

[Rashdot]

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?

Re:Idea for stealth encryption

[Sardaukar86]

The resulting text wouldn't look like it's encrypted, it just isn't meaningful.

Would such an encrypted text still be recognized as encrypted, or would it be able to stay under government radar?

Unfortunately I suspect that even the untrained eye will be able to figure out that something is going on, even if they can't tell what exactly. :-p

Obama quoting Clinton

[raymorris]

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".

Re:Statism for the WIN

[causality]

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.

Hampered?

[markdavis]

>"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.

No, you can't

[Chris Mattern]

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.

"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.

Re:Technically

[currently_awake]

Using torture doesn't mean you live in a barbaric state, it means you live in a stupid one. Western countries stopped using torture because it's provably unreliable, and rational people don't want to base their national defence on unreliable intelligence.

I don't like guns but...

[DMJC]

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.

Re:Technically

[Slashjones]

It's stupid *and* barbaric. Even if it worked, I would reject it completely, as people who value morality and justice do.

Who is the real enemy?

[jdavidb]

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.

There isn't a technical way

[js_sebastian]

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.

Re:There isn't a technical way

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Yeah, you also forgot to point out.. what self-respecting bad guy is going to use the government approved and mandated locks? None!

The whole idea is retarded on so many levels, it leaves me flabberghasted that any supposedly 'intelligent' person would even suggest this, yet.. our beloved POTUS has done just that...

The Constitution is not toilet paper.

[ogdenk]

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.

Re:The Constitution is not toilet paper.

[partofthepuzzle]

The problem is that if there's another terrorist attack is the U.S. then the panic will create a climate of fear and a strengthened Patriot Act., including an "emergency" on the unreadable encryption is almost a certainty. Additional attacks and we're probably looking at Constitutional Amendments that we would have considered unthinkable a few years ago.

Meth's a hell of a drug

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter will never be in a confrontation with the authorities - never become a Michael Brown - because she has been raised

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.

Stupid

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re:Stupid

[countach]

Exactly. If they ban encryption only the good guys will be spied on, and the bad guys will be unaffected.

Could you hire an IT security person?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Could you hire an IT security person?

[steveb3210]

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.

Not necessarily, Dual_EC_DRBG's potential back door lies in being able to choose the parameters of the protocol - namely choosing two points on the eliptic curve P and Q such that they know e where eP= Q. The only other way to "discover" this back door key would be solving the discrete logarithm problem which is the hardness assumption thats being used in the first place.

Re:Could you hire an IT security person?

[Opportunist]

Great theory, the problem is the implementation. Can you say for SURE that the implementation of this system is error free? To the point where you put essentially your country's national security on the line of that implementation being without any chance of it being broken?

The problem is not the mathematics behind cryptography. That's been done and we're fairly sure that EC ciphers are airtight. At least there's no flaw in the math. The flaw is in the code.

And, again, remember you're going to have to deal with a government project here. In other words, you will have a contractor whose primary concern is to make as much money as possible with the least effort possible and a review crew checking it that is bound by governmental regulations. Now add a dash of politics and pork barrel and ponder what level of quality you may expect from this solution.

Re:Could you hire an IT security person?

[steveb3210]

Thats what I'm saying, in this case the backdoor is in the math itself.

Re:No right to privacy of self, is no rights at al

[meta-monkey]

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...

Re:Statism for the WIN

[TubeSteak]

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.

What Algorithms Will Be Made Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Voluntary key escrow

[DamnStupidElf]

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.

more garbage from Obama

[bloodhawk]

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.

They already have quick access to social media.

[DamnStupidElf]

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.

Crippled Encryption Is No Encryption

[Crypto Cavedweller]

(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.

Current path

[phorm]

If the government continues along the current path, your daughters WILL be growing up in a fascist dicatorship!

Re: Current path

[Slashjones]

Have you ever heard the term slippery slope?

Indeed. Many slippery slopes are, in fact, real. Or do you have the misconception that all slippery slopes are fallacies?

Re: Current path

[Slashjones]

Sabotaging encryption alone will not make the US a police state. But the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, making encryption worthless, and many other privacy-invading measures sure will help the US become a police state. And every single time something bad happens, politicians suggest we give the government more power to violate our privacy.

You honestly don't see where this is going? You are blind.

Obama vs. Bush: Who was more full of it?

[cyn1c77]

Now that we are approaching the end of his term, was Obama or Bush, Jr. was more full of shit?

Re:Statism for the WIN

[ElKry]

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.

A weakness is a weakness is a weakness

[monkeyzoo]

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.

Re: A weakness is a weakness is a weakness

[alva_edison]

You're aware of this, right?
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...

The big spike is obvious -- and so is the long decline.

There's a similar trend in the U.S.. I'm not sure it's related to gun legislation.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e8f57ckljv3

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[mark_reh]

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?

Two edged sword...

[kandresen]

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...

Vote Libertarian If You Want This To Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

It's stupid *and* barbaric. Even if it worked, I would reject it completely, as people who value morality and justice do.

Precisely, especially when considering that torture is just as likely to be used for punishment as it is for intelligence. Refusing to stoop to the use of torture of any kind is the only possible logical and moral outcome.

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

with the size of hard drives now, a traveling employee could comfortably take a 1TB or more OTP with them on a business trip, more than enough to last for a couple of weeks.

That's a really interesting idea. I wonder if it wouldn't last for a bit longer if the OTP data on the drive was an index for a routine that generated a unique hash? Would that give it enough mileage to be able to reduce the size of the OTP data needed? Or would doing so weaken (or ruin) the pad's effectiveness?

Please forgive the ignorance of my questions, I have little more than a layman's understanding of cryptography.

New encryption scheme

[Altrag]

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.

Patriots

[peppepz]

So, who are those "patriots" in Silicon Valley supposedly willing to give him, again, the keys to all the personal information that they collect?

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.

Ban any encryption in government

[TrueRecord]

Ban any encryption in government :-)

Re:Technically

[SuricouRaven]

What you describe is a stream cypher. It doesn't offer the mathematically-unbreakable security of a true OTP, but it's still pretty secure when implemented right.

Yes we can!

[ultranova]

we canâ(TM)t penetrate that

Yes we can! Just need some more silicon lube.

Re:Technically

[Hognoxious]

Some banks give you a dongle. You press a button and it gives you a passcode valid for a certain number of minutes. I assume they work like what you're proposing.

Re:well as every kid raised in the tv generation

[Hognoxious]

God to be a fly on the wall if anyone brought this type of thinking back to the 1960's congress.

It would have passed unanimously. We must use all means possible to oppose the red menace, etc.

Re:KarmaWhoring

[Karmashock]

I love that people posting as AC presume to question the posting history of anyone.

If you're too much of a coward to attack me under your assumed community handle then exactly what credibility do you have to question the character of anyone else?

You could be a rabid racist I slapped down for being a disgrace to humanity for all we know.

Likely as not, you're a political zealot who has so corrupted his name that he can't even use it credibility to attack anyone... even little old me.

You're garbage ;-)

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[sydbarrett74]

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.

When a court approves

[Loconut1389]

If they'd been adhering to that for even unencrypted communications we might not have gotten so paranoid about it lately...

Just hypothetically...

[gnasher719]

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?

Only make laws which can be enforced

[drolli]

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.

Re:Supposed to mean?

[Slashjones]

Supposed to mean? Says who?

Says anyone with a god damn brain. Being "held accountable" does not mean the government has to violate people's privacy ahead of time.

Re:You people are all fucking morons

[Slashjones]

Yeah, how dare they care about the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to aspire to. What morons! They should be walking around with one leg, which is totally relevant to the government violating people's liberties!

Unlawful intrusion of the privacy of the people

[Leofcwen]

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.

Lincoln was wrong

[NewYork]

Democracy is the Government of the Politicians, by the Politicians, for the Politicians;

I have a solution for this...

[Gunstick]

... 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

Meet the new boss...

[ToddInSF]

Same asshole as the old boss...

Go fuck yourself

[TCM]

Go fuck yourselves, you fascist pigs!

So that's why you gave me 13 months of AOL free!

[darkcrimson]

If you trade your liberties, you don't get safety. You just get fewer liberties.

Yes make it illegal to encrypt emails if ...

[morbingoodkid]

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 ....

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

Thanks, you've provided a keyphrase I can search on and educate myself with. :)

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

Ah, that makes sense. That is actually a very obvious implementation of a OTP, glad I didn't make any foolish statements of fact in my post!

secrets

[BadFroggy]

The only secrets are the ones you haven't shared

oh please

[bussdriver]

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.)

Governments, you can get this info already

[Meski]

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.

Re:Technically

[SuricouRaven]

Despite my misspelling of cipher.

Re:Give up

[BarbaraHudson]

You can't possible get what you want (absolutely no anthropomorphizing) because:

"Vacuum wants to be filled."

Really? "Nothing" has wants? Hardly :-)

Give us a backdoor into your communications.

[mr_mischief]

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.

Myopic

[Gliscameria]

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?

Re:It is a law: you have to STOP it moving.

[BarbaraHudson]

That is SO not right. Distributing information is work, and must overcome inertia. I have DVDs full of information that is never going to be distributed. I'm sure other devs are in the same position. Also, there is information that I am required by law not to divulge, ever (for example, here I can't talk to anyone about our deliberations as a jury), and other information that spreading will cause harm but has no upside, so I'll take that to my grave as well.

Maybe you can't keep a secret, but plenty of people can and do. No work involved to prevent it spreading. To the contrary, spreading it would require (at least a minimal level of) effort.

Also, you're now guilty of objectifying information. It's no more an object than it has "wants" :-)

They're just waiting...

[partofthepuzzle]

Statements like this from Obama are just preparing everyone: one more terrorist attack in the U.S., and we can kiss legal encryption goodbye.

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

Despite my misspelling of cipher.

At the risk of pedantry.. 'cypher' is apparently a legitimate alternative spelling of the word, possibly another example of the 'separated by a common language' phenomenon. :)

"Patriot"

[memnock]

That word stopped having any kind of positive connotation to me after the Sept. 11th attacks.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[rtb61]

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.

Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Technically

[gweihir]

I completely agree. The stupid was implied, but you are right to point it out.

The thing with torture is that it has been shown time and again to not give you any information that you cannot get as well in sane and at least equally efficient ways. Torture is completely ineffective and inferior to other means as an information gathering tool. The only thing it serves is some primitive desire to hurt and destroy a person. The torture-proponents usually claim that it has given them information, without ever showing that other methods would have been ineffective or prohibitively costly. All studies of torture that meet scientific standards just show that torture is about the least efficient way to get information and that is if you ignore all the side-effects.

My conclusion is that the proponents of torture are just sadists that get off on it. Torture is about as despicable and deplorable an action as is humanly possible. Decent human people do not systematically destroy others.

Re:Technically

[Sardaukar86]

Nicely said.

Re:Technically

[gweihir]

Thank you.