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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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?'

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.

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: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: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?

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: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: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.

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: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...

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.