Slashdot Mirror
Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance Argues 'Privacy is Not Absolute' in Push For Encryption Backdoors (itnews.com.au)
The Five Eyes, the intelligence alliance between the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, issued a statement warning they believe "privacy is not absolute" and tech companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions." Slashdot reader Bismillah shares a report: The governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have made the strongest statement yet that they intend to force technology providers to provide lawful access to users' encrypted communications. At the Five Country Ministerial meeting on the Gold Coast last week, security and immigration ministers put forward a range of proposals to combat terrorism and crime, with a particular emphasis on the internet. As part of that, the countries that share intelligence with each other under the Five-Eyes umbrella agreement, intend to "encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services." Such solutions will apply to products and services operated in the Five-Eyes countries which could legislate to compel their implementation. "Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions," the Five-Eyes joint statement on encryption said.
Without the internet, without computer based encryption the IRA was able to coordinate terrorist activities for decades.
There are still "Numbers stations" which publicly just broadcast a series of numbers
There are thousands of ways to transmit information, all undetectable.
For example if a child wears a red t-shirt it could mean the house is under surveillance, the child knows nothing, its just what he was given to wear that day.
A loaf of bead gets bought before mid day, or after , there is a different meaning
If someone posts on a message board saying their cat has run away, it could have another meaning to others
Those that want to hide in plain sight and transmit encrypted information will still be able to do so with impunity, this just puts honest people at risk.
As for the "nothing to hide" argument , of course people have something to hide.
A GP who likes to dress as a baby in nappies, a male lawyer who likes to dress as cinderella, a wife who is having an affair with the gardener, a Jew who likes bacon, someone being an atheist , being gay, ex member of a hate group, illegitimate child, paying off a porn star and playboy model. There are millions of things we keep to ourselves and the government wants to be trusted with that information.... "I don't think so Tim".
This was happening long before Snowden. Remember the objections to Clinton's Clipper chip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
Clinton proposed it in 1993, but by 1996 it was already dead. Even then the Internet reacted quickly to oppose this.
Do you have _any_ reason to think that Mr. Snowden's behavior was _anything_ other than an honest man trying to report criminal behavior by his employers? He reported it internally, he tried to escalate it through his own NSA superiors, and he was ignored repeatedly. Mr. Putin is a former KGB head, of course he's taking advantage of it. But Mr. Snowden has behaved cautiously, and as ethically as possible, at every stage.
> Except that the spooks have no legal authority to compel the tech firms to do that,
They can, and have, in the past. Remember when SSL keys were limited to 80-bits for export use? Remember when they've insisted that Cisco include backdoor keys in their hardware? Remember the design of the Clipper Chip, which was only discarded when it was found that people could generate their own private keys that passed the checks for the "Law Enforcement Agency Field" checks?
Or they'll just enjoy having a 5x lower murder rate than USA.
(By all means, keep your Saturday Night Specials, shotguns, and 22 and 30-06 rifles. "We" don't have a problem with people having those, with proper background checks.)
And whoever is perpetrating the myth the the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord had Gatling Guns? Knock that shit off. And the rest of you that believe it – because it fits your narrative – shame on you. They had muzzle loading flintlocks. That's it. The Gatling gun wasn't invented until the 1861, in time for the Civil war. If you don't know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War then it's back to eighth grade history for you.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the 2nd Amendment is about personal defense.
IT IS NOT
The Second Amendment was specifically written so that the people had the means and the ability to revolt and overthrow the government if it turned tyrannical.
This is not opinion. This is written fact. Given this, do you think the framers did not intend for us to keep up with the same advances that the government has access to?
We had just been through a long and bloody war that involved overthrowing an oppressive government.. The last thing the framers wanted was another oppressive government.
If you take a look at the Bill of Rights, almost every single item in it tells the government what it CANNOT do, with the exception of Amendment 6 which says to the people "If the government tries you, you get all of these rights" and Amendment 9 which says "We listed some of your rights, but not all of them, and you still retain those we didn't write down"
Everything else (1-5,7-10) tells the government it is specifically forbidden from doing things.. Congress shall make no law.....Shall not be infringed....No soldier shall....No warrants shall issue....No person shall be held to answer.....No fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined....Excessive bail shall not be required.....
#9 is one of my favorites and it's one that most people seem to have forgotten about...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In lay terms... Certain rights that the people possess have been listed here.. But they have other rights that we didn't write down...Because we didn't write them down doesn't mean they don't exist.. In fact...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The only powers that the federal government has are the ones we DID write down. If we didn't write them down, then the power belongs to the state or the people, NOT the Federal Government. This one is so ignored.... To get around this one, the Supreme Court has twisted every meaning of the other parts of the Constitution.
Regardless of how you may interpret the 2nd Amendment, the guy that helped to write it wrote down his thoughts.. It is his interpretation that matters, and this is what he had to say on the subject:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct th
That's easy.. Congress specifically exempted themselves from insider trading laws. That's one way they make so much money...
Yeah.. Seriously... They can decide they are going to give your company some huge government contract, run out an buy a shitload of your stock, and then announce you got the contract.. Then they can sell the stock and...PARTY TIME.
It was legal for a long time.. then there was a public outcry and they passed a law to make themselves subject to the same rules as everyone else (The STOCK act), and then when nobody was looking, they rolled it back and gave themselves their exemption back.. And yeah, Obama signed it..
It was fucking sneaky.. They didn't debate the bill.. The announcement was one sentence long (literally), and they didn't even fucking vote on it. They used "unanimous consent".
STOCK = Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge
Yep.. This is the government we have.. The rules don't apply to them.. Just to you fucking peons.