Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'
Jason Koebler writes: Leslie Caldwell, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
It is not just security, it is privacy. It is the freedom from governments and others snooping through my life.
Well, if it worked for Cardinal Richelieu...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Has anyone considered looking at this from a Second amendment perspective? If we are not to pass laws prohibiting the right to bear arms in order to establish a proper militia, has it not been considered that the command and control of said militia would also be as equally important? If so, then would it not be fair to assume that military grade encryption standards (read: non-exportable encryption) would by nature also be protected weapons systems? Granted, I know that arms exports has a litany of laws and the average Joe American can't just walk down the street buy an over the shoulder rocket launcher, but one would think that the ability to communicate securely for defensive purposes would in and of itself constitute protection under the Second Amendment? Or am I just reaching here?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Yep. We have so many byzantine laws and regulations (which, by the way, WE are expected to know them all, ignorance is no defense, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't, ignorance is a defense for THEM violating our rights) that no one person can possibly know, THOUSANDS MORE a year are added.
Everyone probably commits at least one felony a week without knowing it.
The solution is that EVERY LAW AND REGULATION should have a SUNSET DATE. To keep them active they should have to be re-authorized at least every 4 years. If the government had to do that only the most NECESSARY laws would remain on the books. Inherent government laziness would then work on the side of Liberty.
Corporatism != Free Market
You joke, but take a look at the 2002 Millenium Challenge navy exercise.
The Red team, using old school tactics, dealt a staggering blow to the Blue team. (The exercise was then reset, with the Red team required to "follow the rules"). Quoting: