Slashdot Mirror
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access To Is 'Unreasonable' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Just two days after the FBI said it could not get into the Sutherland Springs shooter's seized iPhone, Politico Pro published a lengthy interview with a top Department of Justice official who has become the "government's unexpected encryption warrior." According to the interview, which was summarized and published in transcript form on Thursday for subscribers of the website, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein indicated that the showdown between the DOJ and Silicon Valley is quietly intensifying. "We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption." "I want our prosecutors to know that, if there's a case where they believe they have an appropriate need for information and there is a legal avenue to get it, they should not be reluctant to pursue it," Rosenstein said. "I wouldn't say we're searching for a case. I''d say we're receptive, if a case arises, that we would litigate."
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
It's also pretty unreasonable that criminals can't just be forced to admit guilt. Think of all the wasted time giving criminals due process of law.
Why don't we all give you our front door keys as well? That will make things easier for you too!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained.
Let's just punch in random players here for the purpose of examining random outcomes: What if the governments are/become the criminals? It's not exactly unheard of.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
FFS words mean things!
Encryption that can be broken is not strong by definition, because we don't use strong to mean "breakable" in any context ever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
i know the fourth hangs by a thread, tattered and mostly extinguished, but it still chills me to hear the government speak so blatantly.
Government jobs attract thugs. Government is a coercive, violent institution that attracts people who have dictatorial personalities and who cannot compete properly on the open market. It is gangsterism on a grand scale.
They also do not understand that the more they push this ridiculous and mathematically-impossible idea about encryption that they alone have access to, they will push businesses and users into more and more secure technologies.
They fought Apple, and Apple hardened its systems. They get caught running PRISM, consumers ramp up their use of encryption and VPNs. Every time government does this, they push the world into more secure encryption.
Encryption either works for everyone, or no one.
You have access to the phone, you compel the person to unlock it by legal means. Oh, he's dead? Well then you can't prosecute him anyway. The people he talked to are a matter of record on the network, and you can compel them to decrypt if you think they're complicit.
Or you could backdoor the encryption, like the NSA did, get hacked, and as a result, open everyone's communications to hostile foreign powers to help them put a lying sack of needy whiny orange shit in power and undermine the complete country.
Yet another mass killing, yet another nutter allowed to have a weapon and zero guts in the Republican party to tackle the gun-funded NRA lobby.
I don't think Mr. Rosenstein is an idiot at all, I do think he is not being honest about what his end goal is.
I am also doubtful he understands what encryption really is and how it works, or that he can remember the US government fighting and losing a similar battle during the 1990's.
"Responsible" encryption lasted about 3 days before it was crucified by the EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
so lets see just how long "unreasonable" encryption goes. The fact of the matter is plain and simple. In any of these shootings, the ability to read the killers instagram posts and grindr chats isnt going to magically re-animate the dead. beating the motive horse for a killer just helps draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control and healthcare reform in the US that isnt hinged on Reagan era de-institutionalization.
Good people go to bed earlier.
He said there were companies who were cooperative.
I'd love to see that list published, so more companies can add them to blacklists.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
We have a problem that the FBI is controlled by political ebb and tides. How can democracy function if a politician has access to their competitors plans?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Authorities have no one to blame but themselves. They have proven beyond any doubt time and time again that they cannot be trusted to have such access without abusing it, so why would anyone ever trust them.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Stop trying to doublespeake the issue, you cannot treat things differently just because it's covenient to you.
Encryption is either strong, or weak and thus useless, there is no middleground, you cannot devise a way to make it weak for some case scenarios while being strong for others because this defeats it's ultimate purpose.
There is zero reason to pursue something like this because the moment US based companies start using a crippled encryption scheme like that is the moment hackers will find a way to exploit it, and criminals will switch to encryption systems made in a country that does not have such ignorant moronic people in the DOJ barking crap like that.
Or do these morons really thing that criminals will go "oh hey, these chat apps have US weakened and backdoored encryption and we are commiting crimes in the US, let's use it!". Fucking stupid.
You know what encryption is about? Reducing the rampant privacy erosion that has been happening in recent years because DOJ and other US governmental agencies cannot control their hunger for data. Crimes were solved well before this age of constant mass surveillance and privacy invasion at dystopic scales. Police should be able to do their jobs without having to step on the privacy of everyone they can reach, and arguably sometimes they can do a better job when they are not focusing so much on how to better collect data without anyone knowing about it.
So you can go suck a cock Rosenstein. No one wants to live in a totalitarian state where your half assed ideas comes to fruition. Fucking deal with the reality that there will always be methods for criminals to lock information down in ways that they become unaccessible.
"I don't understand how strong encryption works" - Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
#DeleteChrome
Headline: "The DOJ Supports Criminals"
There is no such thing as a safe backdoor.
If it's there, especially if knowledge of it is public, criminals will get access.
It will drive everyone who has any sense to use non US encryption products.
They get elected.
You are welcome on my lawn.
you have to stop voting the right wing "Tough on Crime" folks into office. I know that's not a popular thing to say, but this stuff all comes from the same folks (you'd not I said Right wing, nothing about "Ds" or "Rs", that's because right wing is a political ideology, not a party, and both sides have plenty of right wingers).
You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician.
Or you can keep reading these stories and hoping for the best. I guess that works too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With an example like: "People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out." It makes me think Mr. Rosenstein has gone off the deep end. Sure I want to secure my house. I also want to be the ONLY person who can get in. Should I run down to city hall every time I re-key my house or change the alarm code? Mr. Rosenstein, find a short pier and take a long walk. Opening up any back door is just defeating the security measure you are getting in the first place. I do not have good answers as to how you should collect your evidence, but I do know that you are trying to open up a nasty can of worms with that logic.
People want to secure their homes in such a way that they can get in and out. Not you, and not anyone else. So get your fucking paws off of our private information.
Rob
Never mind that whatever carrier he was using, probably has the following:
a) complete record of who he called, or texted, and at what times. LIkely content also, for texts.
b) data usage and likely all url's, both secure and unsecured he visited, and when
c) all likely phone applications he was using, and their connection endpoints.
The ONLY way the above, wouldn't be known, is if he used 'VPN connection' for all communications from his phone.
At that point, they only know who he was using as a VPN provider. That's good OpSec, if so. Guessing he learned something in the Air Force...
I find this all really just a distraction from the complete and utter failure on both the DOJ, and the US Military, for failing to abide by law by updating appropriately to the NICS database, on US Military personnel on Federal offenders who shouldn't be getting guns.
Nevertheless, here we are the DOJ banging the 'we can't crack his phone, encryption is the obstacle' drum. For all the good, it would likely do, even if they did break into it.
At this junction, I honestly don't see the point in getting it broken. What answers would you possibly, or hope to find? He's dead, and a lot of people, and a town, have had their lives turned upside down. And the DOJ must break encryption? The DOJ really needs a reality check.
What he should be asking is why this happened. Working backwards we know that Corporations rarely do things that aren't in the interest of profit which means there was a demand for this feature. Why was there a sudden demand for iron clad smartphone security? Well strong encryption didn't start showing up in smartphones until after the exposure of a massive surveillance apparatus.
Now, you can kill the messenger but it's the reality that is the real problem: people don't want to live in a surveillance state!
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Is that like a "warrant-proof shredder" or a "warrant-proof toilet"? I've heard that fire can be used to deny evidence to the authorities, is anyone looking into that?
Are you a fucking NSA goon whose job is to inject inflammatory partisan bullshit immediately at the start of a comment section to derail any intelligent discussion about a story where a government agent is saying that it is unreasonable for Americans to have any secrets from their government. If you arenâ(TM)t then you are a fucking fool.
ânuff said.
Somehow I don't think we should be limiting the world to the smartest that the DoJ can buy...
And yet he just shot his mouth off about it to the press where he claimed to want two mutually exclusive things. Isn't that pretty good evidence that he IS an idiot?
People with tattoos need to be cleaner than those without any. If they were unclean while the tattoo was still healing, it would get infected.
Actually, thousands of people take that deal every year. I was locked up with several of them. This is not a Grisham novel, this is real life.
In the Feds (states are different, so YMMV), prosecutors establish the highest possible charges they can indict (I think this was supposed to be the highest 'provable' charges but that's not what we got) and then get the indictments. They present you with these charges (e.g.: A, B, C, D, and E) and offer you a 'reduction' to an appropriate charge for your offense (e.g.: A and B) in exchange for a guilty plea. Then they tell you their conviction rate (high 90's%).
THEY have practically unlimited resources from the FBI, the DEA, the ATFE, and to a lesser extent from local law enforcement. They have a large annual budget for crime lab and forensic analysis, as well as expert testimony. Most guys with no money and guys with prior engagement with the Feds immediately accept the plea. This means the Feds get to concentrate all of their firepower on the stubborn nails that insist on sticking up.
YOU have a public defender whose compensation for your case is capped at (IIRC) $3,000. If you are fortunate, and financially secure, maybe you have a paid attorney, but how much can you afford? $25,000? $50,000? A SIMPLE trial in the Fed can easily go past $30,000.
Worse, the benches are stacked with Republican nominated justices. Some of these guys act like they are extensions of the prosecutor's offices.
If you go to trial there is a high probability you are going to prison, even if you are innocent. When you are found guilty, you will be sentenced for all of the charges they originally laid against you (A, B, C, D, and E). They call this 'sending a strong signal'.
Charges A and B may have a sentencing range of 34 to 42 months. If you're at the bottom of the range (34 months) you will serve about 29 months with good behavior, do a little probation, and move on with your life. With such a short sentence you will be sent to a Low Security facility, if you're nonviolent maybe even a camp.
Charges A through E may carry a range of 270 to 300 months. If you make them go all the way through a trial you will probably not be at the bottom of the range. At 300 months you will have to serve at least 261 months. That's almost 22 years. You will also have to begin your sentence in a Maximum Security prison (a 'Penitentiary'). You will not like most of the people you meet there. Worse, they won't like you.
Rational people have this choice thrust upon them all the time in this country and do the Expected Value Equation:
Plead: 100% times 29 months.
vs
Trial: 90% times 261 months.
Often this happens to people who are guilty of some of their charges but not all of them (this is what happened to me). Sometimes it happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
I apologize for the length of this post.
strong encryption would mean hard/em to break, not impossible.
a strong rope can break.
a strong safe is not indestructible.
a strong room is not impregnable.
a strong door can be broken down.
Learn your definitions.
There's crystal clear. There's clear. There's ambiguous. There's Chinese Calculus. And then there's you.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
>"You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician. "
"Tough on crime" is a perfectly valid goal and platform. But that doesn't and shouldn't necessarily mean:
1) Throwing out the Constitution
2) Mass surveillance
3) Broken encryption
...that tries to hide nearly everything it does from the public? FOIA requests are regularly ignored or tied up in the bureaucracy. Backroom deals are done all the time without any oversight. Money pours into campaigns while reporting laws are ignored. Top Secret information and State Department emails are stored on private servers and then wiped clean (and not with a cloth) so no one can see what was in them. Subpoenas are regularly ignored. Yet if they can't see everything that we do, that is somehow 'unreasonable'????
I agree that it should not include those things, but you are horribly naive if you don't realize that it always does mean those things.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
No, that's evidence that he is a two-faced scumbag; otherwise known as a typical politician.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
But you trust government to "competently" control guns and healthcare?
If government can't trust the public with a mathematical algorithm what makes you think the government will not trample all over the rights of a disarmed populace? The most recent Texas church shooting might have been prevented if the government followed its own damn rules.
Is this the same government you want running healthcare?
Exactly.
They try to make everyone think it is easy to impeach a president. Obviously, the Russians do not want to be found out because that would blow their cover. Putin is throwing everything he has at foiling the investigation. Unfortunately, that will make it very difficult to reinstall Hillary as our true leader.
But Not Impossible.
His contempt for our privacy makes him unfit for any position of authority whatsoever. He should be dismissed and disbarred.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
if not mentally ill.
Very few people in jail or prison claim to be innocent. Most freely admit their guilt*. This makes it more interesting when someone claims to be either innocent, guilty of only part of their charges, or not guilty of any of their charges (although often guilty of some other uncharged offense).
After you talk to 15 or 20 of these people (and read their documentation) you start to get a feel for who is bullshitting and who got fucked. Talking to members of either group will make you angry, but in very different ways.
*: Before a plea or trial your lawyer will tell you to STFU and plead innocent at your arraignment. This gives your lawyer a little leverage ion the plea negotiations (although in the Feds they're not allowed to call it 'negotiation' anymore).
PS. If you get arrested, say "I want to speak to a lawyer," and then stop talking. Seriously. Make your mouth be still. It's your life, don't screw around.
Something is only a "reasonable" request if can be fulfilled. The very idea of encryption is based on an unsolvable math problem (so that a solution can only be guessed by trying a significant percentage of possibilities). They want to draw parallels to physical locks, but demanding that such a parallel must be drawn is not reasonable. It may be that it can be, but if it can't be, it's not reasonable to demand that something impossible becomes possible.
Having said that, I am sure it's no surprise that they are both full of it. The crypto is broken. It's broken in ways NSA won't reveal. And tech companies will voluntarily cooperate with the NSA to handicap encryption while going so far as to sue the government to demand that they are not forced to handicap it. Yes, that means occasional hacks by Chinese and Russian credit card thieves. That's the price of doing business. Tech relies on free flow of capital. And capital flows through investment banks which are distribution centers for the FED. The tech companies do know this and they know that at any time the government can step on that hose and choke the free money. So everyone goes through the charade.
"Oh, please, monsieur. It is a little game we play. They put it on the bill, I tear up the bill. It is very convenient." -- Captain Renault, Casablanca, 1942.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Oh, that's already done. There is any number of mathematical operations which are illegal to perform if the result of the operations is something "harmful to the children". For example, decoding a JPEG is a bunch mathematical operations. But they are illegal to perform for certain input values into those operations.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The US has attempted to regulate cryptography as a "munition".
I therefore assert my Second Amendment right to use strong encryption.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." - No it's not. I want to secure my house so that I can get in but others can't. Others in this case being the government. There are countless cases where abuses of power have taken place by corrupt law enforcement or overly ambitious attorneys. Add to that the fact that the government has basically unlimited funds to go after someone they want to make an example of.
Sorry I just don't trust these pricks.
No matter what you say folks, it's interesting to hear how the world looks from another perspective.
And I can understand the guy. Yes we want strong encryption (it helps us) but we need backdoors (it sometimes stops us as well).
This is not so unusual. The policy have operated like this for decades, if not centuries. We all want secure phone lines and taping them should be a crime, but the police needs a way to tap them when they're trying to save your daughter from the guy who asks for money or else...
Just that encryption doesn't work that way. Phone lines are still physical items. Encryption algorithms are not. The second your backdoor gets leaked to China, we are all completely fucked.
We need more dialog with these people instead of just calling them idiots. We need to understand their needs, and explain them why the old ways don't work in this case.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
multiple studies have shown that it doesn't do any good. Throwing people in jail and doing nothing to address the root causes of crime doesn't solve anything. It's just being punitive for it's own sake. Tough on crime basically means revenge. If you're not trying to rehabilitate and you're not locking up a mentally deranged person to keep them from harming others you're just committing an act of revenge out of anger and fear. Rather than a reasoned, scientific approach to crime it's an emotional one. One that does it's best to ignore that criminals are human beings in order to maintain the goal of revenge.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A decent locksmith can open any lock consumers use in a minute or two.* Yet the lock DOES generally work - if you lock up your bike with a decent lock, a thief probably isn't going to walk off with it.
So the physical lock serves it's protective purpose, yet when you lock yourself out Pop-A-Lock can get you in for $25, and with a warrant police can enter an apartment. That's really not a bad situation. Compare if you lose your encryption key - you're permanently fucked; you can't call a digital locksmith if you're encryption is "good".
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a non-technical person to say "I like the idea of a security system or lock that protects things from the bad guys, but with enough effort can be bypassed in an emergency or by an expert with a warrant". Again, it works well for physical locks, so CONCEPTUALLY it's reasonable.
However, in today's digital world everything is connected to the internet and computer accessible, so a bad guy 5,000 miles away can have his computer working around the clock to try to break everybody's encryption. He doesn't have to hire a locksmith to work each lock. As computers get faster, it gets easier and easier to break a given level encryption, too. Therefore as a PRACTICAL matter, encryption needs to be super strong to be very useful. That's a practical fact for internet-connected devices.
So I think the person is either a) unfamiliar with the practical realities of computer encryption or b) expressing a desire of what they'd want if they could have whatever they want, not proposing that it's actually available in a practical way today. Possibly both.
It's not unreasonable to desire that digital locks worked like physical locks, secure from ordinary bad guys but locksmiths can open them. We just don't have any practical implementation that works that way, and probably never will.
We actually DO have a technical implementation that *would* work if the government could be trusted to a) keep the keys secret and b) not abuse the keys, using them without a properly executed warrant.
* Medeco locks used by some businesses and $5,000 safes take a few minutes longer.
Sometimes [choosing to plead to an offence for reduced sentence] happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
A friend since my college days became a public defender. He is rabidly against the death penalty. According to him, the main effect is to cause totally innocent people to plead guilty to lower-grades of murder rather than risk their lives by demanding a trial.
It's something like the argument against torture: Hurt someone enough and you can get him to say whatever he thinks you want him to say in the hope you'll stop hurting him. So information extracted by torture is unreliable.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
unless the concept becomes so far out there they can't even get people to begin to take them seriously. And even then in a few decades? Who knows. If you asked me 8 years ago if we'd have a President who'd say about Neo-Nazis and their counter protestors that both sides were bad I'd have told you you were nuts...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
You 'think logically', eh? Well, I guess that settles the matter.
Now, there's a grease fire I need to put out, and this handy bucket of water nearby...
" if you lock up your bike with a decent lock, a thief probably isn't going to walk off with it."
Actually, bike locks are often better than the ones that protect your home. I don't even know if a locksmith can get into a good one, you'd probably have to cut it off.
On the other hand, typical home locks really are crap. I watched a couple of YouTube videos and was able to bypass them.
Bike locks can't be opened by the pros. Home locks can be opened by every man and his dog who wants to have a go.
Well, they tried to do this with the Clipper Chip and the Skipjack algorithm back in the old days. Essentially, there was a second public key use to encrypt the data, for which the government owned the private key.
It's trivially simple to implement this scheme on today's smartphones and computers. All it takes is legislation.
Whether this is good or bad depends on your feelings on whether absolute privacy is compatible with a safe and civil society.
Kriston
Darn! They'll never convict him now.
I aim to misbehave.
Wrong.
We have corroboration that the Russians did send girls for Trump's amusement
THEREFORE: The likelihood of the pee tape is now much higher.
From an unimpeachable source to an impeachable pResident is not a long throw now
A Safe society has no freedom
Just ask the NRA!!!
Give up your guns
UNLESS you are willling to submit to the discipline of the Militia per Article 1 Section 8
I'm probably going to annoy some people by saying this, but his frustration with the current situation on encryption is completely understandable.
There are completely legitimate cases where law enforcement should be able to access the contents of devices and communication s between individuals and like any investigative technique, it can be abused. However the fact that something can and is being abused does not make the legitimate use cases for something go away. Don't get me wrong, the fact that weakening encryption and installing backdoors into devices, applications and protocols is not lost on me and I fully understand that this can lead to the additions being exploited by unscrupulous members of law enforcement and other parties. However I can understand why someone in law enforcement and government would ask for them and I don't consider these people to be morons for doing so.
The way I see it, encryption is one of those "peace in the middle east" type topics that are incredibly complicated and nobody has anything that even resembles a good answer...
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Most bike locks are absolute crap, and even I can pick them. Most of the expensive ones take a few minutes for most of the competent people in my local lockpicking group. Some have quite astonishing weaknesses: the older Axa locks could all be unlocked with a key blank, for example. I'd challenge you to name one brand of bike lock that's unpickable - most of the good ones are used in competitions and only take a minute or two for the winner.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You should become familiar with a concept called "Signal-to-Noise Ratio" before speaking any similar bullshit regarding the shit circus that you dare to call "intelligence gathering" on your side of the Atlantic pond.
Technically, torture works fine if you torture several persons
By inflicting torture to more people, you'll just end up with even more unreliable bullshit that all spat to you just to make you stop.
Just a bigger pile of more random stuff they all hoped will make you stop, and that is.
and cross reference the statements.
You have such a huge pile of random bullshit, that you won't generate anything significant by cross-referencing.
You're most likely to get random match (some people happen to have randomly uttered the same thing in the middle of their ordeal) or thing that match due to shared common beliefs rather than actual truth (basically the poor victims will shout anything that they think will make you stop. Lots of them might think that you want to hear that it's the "evil foreign pedo-terrorist pirates with a a slightly different skin shade who did it, I swear !" So you're going to hear that a lot, even if none of the poor victim you've caught has the faintest clue of whatever you're speaking about).
You might not even have a single person in your pool of human playthings for sadists which has any information relevant to this.
Thus, it can be used for intelligence gathering but not in the justice system.
"Intelligence gathering" means the gathering of actual intelligence. Not hoarding as much noise as possible and hoping for some miracle by the data analyst guys which will suddenly make a small signal shine in the middle of the pile.
You don't find needles by stacking more hay on top of the haystack.
This is valid both regarding human-rights violating practice such as torture : you're basically just adding noise, you're not helping anything, except maybe your disgusting sadistic tendencies.
And it is valid regarding privacy violating practice such as NSA-levels mass-spying.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why innocent people plead guilty
Or even encryption.
If the government can break it, so can criminals. (not to say that the government aren't criminals)
With Eric Schmidt have so close ties to the DoJ, what does this effectively mean for Google? Will Eric Schmidt make sure that Google's encrypted data can be read by law enforcement?
Rights and freedoms cost not just on the battlefields of our wars but in our daily lives. And if we cannot accept the daily costs of those rights and freedoms we cannot have them. There will always be those who argue that the costs of rights and freedoms are unacceptable and that they must be curtailed and eliminated. We must be strong enough to say no and mean it.
E Proelio Veritas.
They can't even keep their OWN secrets.
What makes them think that a secret backdoor only THEY have been entrusted with will be safe?
Sorry, but if a weakness exists, it'll be found.
What's more, if it's a DELIBERATE weakness, it will likely be found FASTER, as what CAN be done to compromise such a thing is predictable.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Personally I think any personal property should be accessible when your accused of committing a capital crime. If the FBI can obtain a search warrant that should not exclude encrypted devices. Otherwise the obvious choice for a criminal is just to encrypt everything. Even in cases such as a high profile case like a Hillary Clinton email server. You basically eliminate being found guilty if you can prevent the electronic evidence from ever being examined. If we are going to continue to convict people based on evidence collected, then finding a way to examine encrypted data is going to be required to prove guilt. Otherwise we will be forced to accept that this encrypted data will always be excluded from evidence which in my opinion is a form of destroying evidence since it cannot be examined.
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
But we do not leave our doors unlocked, nor instead give the police (or basically anyone else who does not reside there) a key to use when they deem fit (abusively or not).
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
Sines of Impending Sines
Actually crime is at historic lows right now and a major reason for it is most of the criminals are locked up. When they get out, they're older and don't want to commit so many crimes. Aging criminals works, criminality decreases with age.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Before 2001, I might have agreed. Now, they are known liars.
I don't trust the govt. They have violated our rights over and over without public comment and due process.
I don't trust them, so if they want access to data, too bad. That horse is gone, over the hill already. Give it up.
Why do they need access to a dead man's data? Seriously. Why? It isn't like he can be punished more.
If the police can break encryption without the owner's consent, then criminals and foreign powers can break it just as easily. There is no magic encryption that opens only for the "good" guys.
you can't have one without the other. Anything good can be abused for bad purposes.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Keep in mind that if the government legislates this, China, Russia and other foreign powers will have that private key in a week. And ordinary criminals will have it in a month.
Any encrypted message that is long enough can be decrypted. But you'll need the most powerful computer in the world and it'll take a few million years.
...Dr. Mai-Lin Cha in Quantico. She cracks everything that Jerry Cotton gives her. Joke aside...maybe the FBI should hire some better people. If the government apparently has money for new nukes and pointless border walls then there should be a some cash left for hiring better experts.
I used to work as a locksmith. A long time ago, tools and techniques for tubular locks weren't common, so bike locks with a tubular cylinder WERE considered difficult. Tubular locks are the kind you see on soda machines, and have a circular key. Picks for tubular locks are now common, so they are no longer difficult. I've never seen any model of bike that would be considered difficult.
You might not BOTHER to pick a $12 lock since it's so easy to replace. It's not difficult, just not worth spending more than 3 minutes on if you happen to randomly get one with shallowing bitting at the key tip, and deep cuts near the bow. That's random to specific instances of the lock, though - in general they are slightly easier than home locks because they frequently have only four pins rather than five.
I mentioned bitting. If your key happens to have deep cuts near the "handle" and a very shallow cut near the top, that's more difficult. Especially if there is also a shallow cut right before the deep cut.
Well, if they had any marketable skills they could do some honest work...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, opening your mouth to talk about something publicly when you very obviously have NO idea what you're talking about does qualify someone as an idiot, to be blunt.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This comes right before the mini brains article on Slashdot. Ironic.
...to see what sticks.
I think they're seeing the end of John Q Public never questioning a person of any 'authority' and they don't like it.
Your sig here!
Then reject both and find someone who is sane? Believe it or not, they exist. They just don't get a lot of media attention because their agendas are sane and don't really offer too much of a sensationalist "OMG HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!111" angle.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The difference is that US officials first talk about the elimination of rights they have in mind, to see whether the outcry is still bad enough that it has to be postponed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No. A message encrypted by a one time pad that is also only used once is by definition unbreakable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
An encrypted volume or file is not a house, it never was a house, and it never will be a fucking house. The analogy is fucking stupid, stop using it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Math says that "absolutist" encryption is the only kind that actually works. Deal with it.
I wonder if some of these idiots honestly believe that it's mathematically possible to have encryption that can be cracked by law enforcement but not criminals. I still think it's more likely an "Ask for a pony to get a dog" tactic: they ask for magical encryption to prod tech companies into providing other, actually possible forms of cooperation.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're feeding them again. Have you not learned to avoid that yet? Distraction is the tool of the common enemy.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
*whoosh*
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Are you a fucking NSA goon whose job is to inject inflammatory partisan bullshit immediately at the start of a comment section to derail any intelligent discussion about a story where a government agent is saying that it is unreasonable for Americans to have any secrets from their government. If you arenâ(TM)t then you are a fucking fool.
I wish you dumbshits with these new iphones would post using a regular computer instead of your phones with that apostrophe bug. Drives me crazy try to figure out what was written.
"what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? "
Don't put anything important on electronic media. If it's that sensitive, do it the old fashioned way. That way encryption is a non-issue. It's the only way to go forward.
Encryption can be impossible to break at times, or fall apart completely in other times. It is not completely reliable, so you shouldn't rely on it for something crucial. Don't use electronic media or transfer methods for anything important. That way, anything important won't be on electronic media waiting for criminals to take advantage of it.
Twinstiq, game news
These would be the same tech companies that bend over backwards to China, Iran, and host of other truly authoritarian regimes.Seems a lot more posturing than stances on principles.
Except that in the 1770's forming a militia was roughly similar to a Sheriff gathering a posse in the 1870's to hunt down a dangerous outlaw or how modern law enforcement may enlist the help of civilian volunteers to find someone lost in a wilderness area.
Something more or less done on a few hours/days notice in order to achieve a specific goal.
Just because there has not been a recent need for well armed groups of civilians to be enlisted by government officers in many parts of the US, does not mean that having that resource available is a bad thing. (Search parties in areas with dangerous wild animals where parties are instructed to be armed would count as modern militias, but most of the people asking for tighter gun controls are not living in areas where that is an issue)
Note: The 'Wolverines' from "Red Dawn" would be a militia, as would most armed and organized groups of 'preppers' or 'survivalists'. A militia need not be government sanctioned.
NO, it is evidence that he believes those who will hear what he says are idiots and not know that he just said two mutually exclusive things...actually, he said it as part of an effort to convince people that strong encryption and a backdoor for the government to that encryption are not mutually exclusive.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It is nothing but an uninformed doj, an uneducated doj, an ignorant doj that is pushing this dangerous agenda.
When the doj outlaws certain levels of encryption, which is what this will disintegrate into, this will both put everyone at risk (no one can truthfully say otherwise) as well as drive criminals to use encryption outside of the control of the manufacturer.
They will begin regulating our computer operating systems while all along the criminals will just use software tailored to bypass the government regulation.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here.
Not exactly, people want to secure their home so they put a lock on the door and don't give the police or anyone else the key and if the police want in they force the door open.
Are you a fucking NSA goon
s/NSA/FSB/g
always so damned ignorant ?
Why do we have to keep explaining the same things over and over to the same people ?
Encryption is doing its job if it prevents unauthorized folks from obtaining the data it's protecting. This includes the government. ( Whom no one fully trusts with anything ) Especially the government in some instances.
As leaky as the government is with their own networks and the data that rides them, it would only be a matter of time before any mandated backdoor became semi-public knowledge. At which point the damage that can be done would be epic.
What's " unreasonable " is the government demanding levels of transparency on the people while doing their damndest to hide everything they do under veils of secrecy, NSL's and secret courts. ( All under the guise of 'protecting' us of course. )
Tell you what, we'll give you access to our data, when you give us full access to yours.
Until then, you all can go fuck yourselves.
Hugs and kisses from all of us.
We can't predict the consequences of our policy choices in many cases, historical data is just as bad as models. And foremost, a lot of policy decisions ultimately come down to values and tradeoffs: economic growth vs air quality, inequality vs property rights, individual liberties vs average health outcomes, etc.
For example, leftists like to debate whether free market economies are economically "better" than socialism. This isn't even an issue to classical liberals: free market economies are the only system that respects individual liberties; even if socialism produced faster growth or less inequality, it would be morally wrong to classical liberals.
Exactly.
They try to make everyone think it is easy to impeach a president. Obviously, the Russians do not want to be found out because that would blow their cover. Putin is throwing everything he has at foiling the investigation. Unfortunately, that will make it very difficult to reinstall Hillary as our true leader.
But Not Impossible.
Hate to be the one to point it out, but Ms. Clinton is not in government at all. The line of succession for POTUS does not include Ms. Clinton. The best we can hope for should Trump resign or be impeached is President Pence. The worst is of course if Pence is caught up as well, and then we'll have President Ryan.
None of those prospects sound any better than Trump, and in fact, could be worse, Pence and Ryan know what the fuck they're doing, while Trump doesn't. Trump's ignorance is kind of a boon right now.
No amount of impeachments or resignations will put the next POTUS in the hands of the voters, not until 2020. Our system doesn't work like that. And Clinton? Not even in the picture, sorry.
Did you even read my post? You lock people up who are an active danger to society or themselves. You then rehabilitate them. If you find you can't rehabilitate them you declare them criminally insane and keep them locked up. You do not torture them while they're locked up, nor do you turn a blind eye while their fellow inmates torture them. If you can't rehabilitate them you give them the best life you can while they're locked up because they're criminally insane.
This also means you can't abandon those you rehabilitate after rehabilitation. You don't get to send them out the door with a cheap suit, a bus ticket and $20 bucks. If you invest in them it will pay back for society. But you are right about one thing. It's cheaper to put a bullet in their heads. It's always cheaper to murder undesirables. So long as you're willing to accept that as the right thing to do it'll work. But if you don't have the balls to shoot them dead then just about anything else you do with them costs more and only serves to line the pockets of folks running private prisons and give you that warm feeling of vengeance you so crave.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I suppose if something really damning came out, like the russians actually tampering in a provable way with our vote totals, then clinton could appeal to the supreme court to overturn the election result.
It's probably hypothetically possible but I can't see any real route to all that falling into place perfectly.
Crime is at lows because we took lead out of gasoline. Google it. If you account for all other statistical anomalies that's the only one left. That's the trouble with "Trough on Crime", it passes the gut test. But like so many simple solutions to complex problems it's wrong and makes things worse.
As the saying goes, For every sufficiently complex problem there is a solution that is solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I guess nobody at the FBI or DOJ has ever heard of Moore's Law... compute power gets cheaper every day... so encryption methods of today will be useless tomorrow.
Whether this is good or bad depends on your feelings on whether absolute privacy is compatible with a safe and civil society.
The real question is whether mandatory backdoors are compatible with a safe and civil society. And since backdoors render people unsafe, and mandating them would be uncivil, the answer to that question is "no". You cannot have a safe and civil society with mandatory encryption backdoors. The very means employed would preclude the ends.
On the other hand, a society where no one could be forced to do anything against their will would be exceedingly safe and civil. Crime would be impossible, and government would be nonexistent. We don't have that option in the physical world, unfortunately, but strong encryption can get us very close to that ideal when it comes to our data.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I've read comments suggesting this might be "pickable" though other means but the principle here is pretty interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why not just ban ALL forms of encryption for all of us proletariat/serfs/slaves/whatever you want to call us who are not the Police, the Rich, Policitians, and others who have actual power in this world, and be done with it? It's clearly and objectively what these people want: complete and total access to our lives, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, from cradle to grave, and if you protest then you must be a criminal of some sort and your life will be sifted through orders of magnitude more than everyone else's -- and naturally they'll find some heinous crime to prosecute you for, very publicly of course, by way of making an example out of you to the rest of the peasants: do not cross us, we hold the power of life and death over all of you, so watch your step or perhaps your life will be taken away from you in the most spectacular and horrifying ways possible. So how about all you so-called 'police', who were supposed to protect and serve us, and all you so-called 'legislators', who were supposedly elected by us poor pathetic peasants to do our will, just stop gaslighting us, and admit what you really, really want: You want total and complete control of our lives, access to 100% of everything about us, ad infinitum, non-revokable, and if we complain then we get labeled 'terrorist' or 'pedophile' or 'criminal', and you destroy us. JUST FUCKING ADMIT IT SO WE HAVE ALL THE GODDAMNED CARDS ON THE TABLE ALREADY. I'm sick an tired of this fucking game. Just show your hand. It's not like enough of us are going to be able to do anything to stop you anymore; the Bread and Circuses have seen to that.
Even George Orwell would be shocked at what this country has become, it is so much more sublime than the crude, brutal images he created.
"Overturning an election result" would never happen... it opens too many potential cans of worms. Even judicially-invalidating an election's results & holding a new one sets the stage for future abuse of the process.
The best we can do if an election gets pwn3d is to start impeaching from the top down until the only officials left are those who didn't participate in the pwnag3, then follow the established procedures to fill the vacancies created. And revise election procedures to try and make sure it can't happen again. Anything else just sets us up for BIGGER problems later.
Less government = more snooping ?
You are thoroughly mixed up.
The PEOPLE should know what the GOVERNMENT is doing.
Government should only know what is public domain, what their detective work reveals, or what a Judge gives a narrow warrant to be divulged.
The fact that WE are PAYING for these people to spy on us while we are obeying the law is spectacularly unreasonable.
I totally agree with you. It's not something I'd like to see happen because the repercussions are too broad.
Arguably we opened that can of worms a bit with the Bush v Gore judgement. We've shown the court can intervene in a very narrow sense, but realistically i think it's far to late for any kind of challenge to be in the national interest.
I'm curious what will end up happening if it's shown that Russia rigged the election but the president was too distracted to even really be aware it was done in his favor. He's clearly not a "details" person and it'd be easier (for the russians) to keep him in the dark than to actually make him complicit.
As long as its insecure and useless. That sounds great. It would be nice if these politicians would get a clue about how math works before making stupid claims like this.
I mean yes you can bake a "back door" into basically any encryption scheme. But if that back door ever gets compromised (which it almost certainly will, sooner or later,) there is no way to fix or change it, and adding a way to fix or change it would itself be yet another attack vector and probably even harder to keep closed than trusting the FBI or whoever to keep a secret universal key secret.
If DOJ has access, then its too weak and only matter of time before whole world has access.. Maybe DOJ can demonstrate this and start using weakened encryption and lets see how fast secrets starts to leak...
Sadly, no, I do not have evidence of this. I'm not even sure what such evidence would look like. All I can do is recount my experiences, this is why I titled the post For What It's Worth (FWIW).
If you were around lots of people who claimed innocence I would suspect you were around a lot of people in pretrial detention. If they have not yet pleaded, or if they are going to trial, people in pretrial need to keep their case details secret (to stop others from jumping on their case as informants) and they need to project an aura of innocence.
Beyond that I have no insight into why your experience was so different from my own. I was 4 months in a county jail run by the Sheriff's office, 6 months in a county jail run by private contractor (CCA), and about 8 years in a Low Security Correctional Institution. With the exception of the pretrial guys, my experience was extremely consistent throughout.
Almost everyone in pretrial detention (in my experience) claims innocence. If you admit guilt to a fellow inmate while in pretrial, he may cut a deal with your prosecutor to testify against you in order to get a sentence reduction for himself. I personally saw this happen in both State cases and Federal cases.
Except that in the 1770's forming a militia was roughly similar to a Sheriff gathering a posse in the 1870's to hunt down a dangerous outlaw
Nope
Membership and drill were MANDATORY throughout the 13 states AND failure to report for drill or discipline could result in flogging and the stocks
EVERY male citizen was required to be available at all times and to maintain appropriate weapons
Therefore, the Constitution enmerates the powers of Congress to "Set the discipline of the Militias, reserving only the power to appoint officers to the states"
give the cell phone business to the Chinese or the French.
just that simple.
No one wants blue thugs looking at their lives,no one
No one will pay for products with enfeebled encryption IF better can be had.
Soon there will be black and gray market clip on encryption devices, making cell phone data worthless from an LE standpoint
Too many backshooting thugs on your payroll, states, the people no longer trust you
He's clearly not a "details" person and it'd be easier (for the russians) to keep him in the dark than to actually make him complicit.
Plus if the Russians *did* do anything, and he knew about it, it would be on Twitter within 72 hours.
or trolling. Or being paid to spout this nonsense. It really doesn't matter which. And yes, you can still find information using google. Information on studies that are fully sourced.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you'll have more snooping. See, you're never really going to get less government because the ruling elite, the billionaires, want it. Your only real hope is to take control of it from them using democracy. If you just try to cut it back all that really happens is they seize control of it while you're busy not participating.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The election has been held, by electors selected according to the processes set by their state governments. The results have been accepted by Congress. It's legal. Any exposure of corruption in the process won't affect the constitutional reality.
There are no legal grounds to challenge the election now. There's grounds to complain about it, of course, and it's possible that people could be imprisoned for their activities during it, but that doesn't invalidate it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House. It's likely that the Democrats will take the house in 2018, so that's a possibility. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office, and that's exceedingly unlikely. If the Democrats sweep all Senate races in 2018, they will not control nearly two-thirds of the Senate. Removing Trump from office would require a lot of Republican cooperation.
The GOP has basically fallen in line behind Trump. There's a solid core of maybe a fourth or a third of the electorate that's behind him, and they will not be swayed by any rational means. They're not enough to get a candidate elected, except in particular spots, but they are enough to sway a Republican primary. Any Republican senator who votes to convict Trump is in great danger of losing the Republican nomination to a Trump-supporting Republican.
Therefore, impeachment and conviction is extremely unlikely to happen.
Trump could be temporarily removed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment process, but that process says that, if the removed President claims to be fit for duty again, that person is reinstated unless two-thirds of both the House and the Senate disagree.
Unless President Trump dies or is legitimately incapacitated, or decides to resign, we're stuck with him until January 21, 2021.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Nope. There isn't enough energy in the Solar System from now until its heat death to brute-force a 128-bit key using theoretically ideal computers. It's possible that quantum computers could be used to halve the effective length of the key, which means that AES-256 cannot be brute-forced by a Kardashev Type II civilization. I consider such a key length adequate.
You're not going to break the cipher in a paltry few million years.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why is it disturbing or embarrassing? Why kink shame? It's really unsettling and crass. Some like same sex anal intercourse, some need to convert their genitals, some need watersports, people need many things to feel fulfillment and we should not shame them because if it.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Deliberately weakening encryption will mean that anyone with anything to hide, whether for legitimate reasons or not, will simply not use the technology, which just means they'll use something from somewhere where they don't have such rules deliberately weakening encryption.
ALSO, there is such a thing as unbreakable encryption. A properly used one-time-pad cypher is unbreakable per the rules of algebra. This begs the question, are they going to outlaw algebra? I'm sure there are kids who would be happy, but... yeah, they can't really do that.
For anyone who doesn't understand, look up one-time-pads.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
1) Large Corporations that are too big to fail.
2) Governments that are safe with your secrets because they're never go corrupt - or collapse.
You can't put back what comes out of Pandora's box, be it nukes, widespread guns, or the ability to decrypt anything ever.
The tools you have today can become your enemy's tools tomorrow.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
That's a clever idea. Certainly someone will find a way to bypass the lock if it ever gets popular, but it's an interesting idea.
For anyone else still reading thread, here's the gist:
With this lock, the cylinder is hidden away under a chunk of aluminium. The key isn't interested directly into the cylinder by the user. Instead, it's placed in a chamber, which is then rotated to bring the key to the inaccessible cylinder. Therefore the cylinder is not exposed to picks - you can't even see the "keyway".
Thanks for proving my point
Girls were offered to Trump by Russians
Which russians is irrelevant
Now that we have confirmed there was an effort, all that is needed is a video and case proved
bla bla bla... That's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of failed attempts to impeach Obama.
Really? That's news to me. There was exactly - ZERO - attempts to impeach obama, even though he had at least 20 impeachable offenses. They came so fast and furious we couldn't even react.
Remember that U lock from the 1980s that had pin tumblers that was supposed to be so secure and it turns out a bic pen top can be used to bypass it.
SCOTUSH won't accept any non-governmental agency as a source for data. Don't get your pants soiled.
Technology, not just Encryption That We Don't Have Domination, not Access To Is 'Unreasonable'
Casteism
They use a crow bar, bolt cutter or angle grinder
It's worth repeating this, because that's the standard for bike locks. They're not intended to be unpickable, they're intended to make the tools and time required to pick them more expensive / heavier / harder than simply cutting the chain. A lot of bike chains can be cut with a pair of bold cutters, the more expensive ones with a hand-held battery-powered disc cutter. With the exception of the cheapest, worst, bike locks, no one will bother to pick them because if they want to steal bikes then they'll just cut the chain.
Or they'll do something a bit more organised. Around here there was a group that came through the city a couple of years back with a low loader and a forklift. They'd go to bike parks where bikes were attached to metal hoops held in the ground with a few metal bolts and lift the whole thing up onto the low loader with the forklift. They could get 40 or so bikes in about 5 minutes, and by the time anyone had reported them they'd be long gone.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Medeco's are almost unpickable. I'm a locksmith so I know that one. Safes are made to take hours to open as well. The govt really does need to be kept out though. At this point, they are too corrupt and not trustworthy to have the digital keys to open anything they find is worthy opening.
>"Wayne Lapierre, is that you?"
Nope. I am a real person, a regular citizen, using my real name. Who are you but an "Anonymous Coward"?? Argue all you want about your feelings, theories, and what might work in other countries, and I can produce verified, repeated, accepted study after study supporting everything I said in my posting as it applies in the USA, which is the topic at hand.