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.
"Give me 6 lines written by the purest of men, and I'll find wherewithal to hang him in them". /dev/random say what they want to believe.
The breakthough is not needing those 6 lines at all.
If they get the law they think they can get (by blackmailing the politicians? Dragnet had to include them, probably them first) - they can then demand you decrypt random bits - and bust you if you can't - or they can - make
It won't matter if you use effectively unbreakable crypto - the laws of math and all that. It'll only make it worse.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
The only difference between a white nationalist and a white supremacist is that the latter is at least openly honest about his racism. Racism is a real thing, whether it makes you feel bad or not.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
To get the gun nuts interested in the fourth amendment, you just need to package in language they can understand: The Deep State wants access to your cell phones so they can spy on your use of guns...and Hillary is behind this push so she can cover her tracks in Benghazi, where she'd jet off to for intimate lunches with al Qaeda. And she and Obama are planning for a Muslim America by accessing your phone and planting secret subliminal messages from the Koran.
You pretty much nailed it.
But then again, the second amendment isn't of any concern to the actual gun nuts.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems odd that these presumed adherents don't even want background checks. It's kind of difficult to imagine their well regulated militia - which well regulated militia is the very core of the second amendment - is open to any and all violent criminals.
Seems odd that these folks are not agitating for access to all of the weapons accorded to their enemies the government, to include planes, tanks and nuclear weapons.
I use and enjoy firearms, and own a number of different weapons. My favorite activity is target shooting, which provides incredible relaxation. The again, I don't have to worry about failing a background check. But I digress
The second amendment was written at a time when the farmers and the governments armaments were not all that different. A group of farmers would be lacking cannons, but the basic firearms were very similar, and in a few instances the farmers had better rifles.
Now my interpretation of the second amendment is based on the wording. There should be a well regulated civilian militia. This means that people who are trustworthy and willing to comply with regulations are welcome to join. And just like any military or paramilitary organization, that includes intense vetting.
The second thing is that citizens in general will understand and practice the responsibility of firearm use along with the right to own them. I've seen too many Youtube videos of irresponsible firearm use.
The gun nuts speak endlessly about their rights, yet so many document their irresponsibility. These aren't toys ,kids. These are devices designed specifically to kill.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.