Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Director Christopher Wray On Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement' (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the just-outta-reach dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Encryption should have limits. That's the message FBI Director Christopher Wray had for cybersecurity experts Tuesday. The technology that scrambles up information so only intended recipients can read it is useful, he said, but it shouldn't provide a playground for criminals where law enforcement can't reach them. "It can't be a sustainable end state for there to be an entirely unfettered space that's utterly beyond law enforcement for criminals to hide," Wray said during a live interview at the RSA Conference, a major cybersecurity gathering in San Francisco. His comments are part of a back-and-forth between government agencies and security experts over the role of encryption technology in public safety. Agencies like the FBI have repeatedly voiced concerns like Wray's, saying encryption technology locks them out of communications between criminals. Cybersecurity experts say the technology is crucial for keeping data and critical computer systems safe from hackers. Letting law enforcement access encrypted information just creates a backdoor hackers will ultimately exploit for evil deeds, they say.

Wray, a former assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice who counts among his biggest cases prosecutions against Enron officials, acknowledged Tuesday that encryption is "a provocative subject." As the leader of the nation's top law enforcement agency, though, he's focused on making sure the government can carry out criminal investigations. Hackers in other countries should expect more investigations and indictments, Wray said. "We're going to follow the facts wherever they lead, to whomever they lead, no matter who doesn't like it," he said. To applause, he added, "I don't really care what some foreign government has to say about it."

59 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    50+ years of voting for tough on crime politicians gets you thinking like this. That and the equally if not more-so ineffective "broken windows" policing.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FBI director isn't elected. In fact, he and the entire FBI and the rest of the intelligence community do not answer to the elected government. They have their own goals, and they simply do not feel safe from us. They feel we mean to harm them (although we can not say why); and to prevent this they must monitor our communications. Thus the Fourth and Fifth amendments have to go.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true. They are under the authority of the department of justice, which is a part of the executive branch. Their funding comes from congress as well, they must abide by laws created by congress, and the court system has oversight for criminal cases they bring. They absolutely and positively answer to elected officials no matter what your special youtube videos tell you. Just because an authoritarian president finds that he can't order them about is not the same thing as the FBI being unanswerable to elected officials. The FBI members have taken oaths to uphold the law, not oaths to an individual office holder.

    3. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All police departments try to achieve zero crime. They constantly look for ways to detect criminals. This means they are constantly pushing the boundary of legal law enforcement methods, and sometimes they cross that line. The "Average" living room is beyond the reach of law enforcement. Only special living rooms justify surveilance (special = they have a reason for a warrant), meaning average living rooms are not bugged just like encrypted messages are not read. For most of human history what happened in private stayed private, so again this isn't a new situation for police and they know how to deal with it (lean on a person who has access to what you want).

    4. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >We can either have privacy and terrorism, or no privacy and a government that can't prosecute.

      What makes you think the courts couldn't prosecute? People end up in prison all the time based on nothing more than eye-witness testimony - the least-reliable form of evidence, as any scientist can tell you.

      Not to mention that you forgot to add "and terrorism using unassailable encryption" to the second half of that. No terrorist organization worth half a damn would would be more than mildly inconvenienced by the deliberate compromising of "officially sanctioned / legal" encryption. Even if you don't have the chops to roll your own, you can download real, secure, encryption programs and libraries from open-source repositories around the world.

      There's no putting the genie back in the bottle - the most you can do is make sure that you can spy on every online action of law-abiding citizens and the most incompetent of criminals, and hopelessly compromise their security in the process. That's not much good for fighting crime, quite the opposite in fact. But it's of great value if your real target is to be able to blackmail or destroy political opposition before it can present a real challenge.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 5, Informative

      People end up in prison all the time based on nothing more than eye-witness testimony

      It is apparently even worse, people end up in prison all the time based on nothing more than a threat of longer sentence and a plea bargain offer.

    6. Re: This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by astrofurter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's stop calling it a "plea bargain". That's a misleading euphemism. Let's call it what it really is: coerced false confession.

    7. Re: This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's worse. People go to prison because the police tell them if they don't confess their spouse will be charged and children removed.

    8. Re: This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump won because there are a lot of people that had their futures taken away by outsourcing and Trump was the first presidential candidate that said they were going to do something about it. If you want to avoid this happening again, stop squealing about Putin and start looking at how to solve this issue. Trump may or may not be a dead man walking but the reason he's there won't go away once he's gone, it will be ripe for someone potentially more competent to tap into it.

    9. Re:This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by jittles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All police departments try to achieve zero crime. They constantly look for ways to detect criminals. This means they are constantly pushing the boundary of legal law enforcement methods, and sometimes they cross that line. The "Average" living room is beyond the reach of law enforcement. Only special living rooms justify surveilance (special = they have a reason for a warrant), meaning average living rooms are not bugged just like encrypted messages are not read. For most of human history what happened in private stayed private, so again this isn't a new situation for police and they know how to deal with it (lean on a person who has access to what you want).

      But surely this is the first time in human existence that law enforcement has waged a war on mathematics? Until the elite are willing to limit their personal finances to 2^32 pennies, I will not give up my 256 bit AES or 2048 bit RSA. If we are going to put limits on math, we need to limit it everywhere

    10. Re: This is what tough on crime gets ya folks by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      You must have been asleep then. Carry on as you are. I'm sure the nasty "racists" will evaporate after the 2020 election.

  2. Historically speaking by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    governments are the entities people most need to be able to keep secrets from.

    Just sayin.

    1. Re:Historically speaking by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you've never been married, eh?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Historically speaking by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well sure. But then what would be the motivation to spend vast amounts of money to become a government official?

      No. Seriously. Winning U.S. Senators spent an average of $10.4 million in the 2016 race, in order to secure a job that pay 174k/year for six years. Granted, a lot of that isn't their money - but when's the last time you spent 60 years salary in order to try to get a job?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. Does this mean they are working on mind reading? by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A free society's highest priority is not to service law enforcement.

  4. And if we give you the keys everyone will have ... by Proudrooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if we give you the keys Mr. Government everyone will have them in 3..2..1.. because we all know how well law enforcement can keep a secret.
    Yeah, I'm looking at you NSA, the most secure agency on planet earth that couldn't hang on to their toys, tools, and tactics.

    Fun Fact: If it wasn't for the NSA leaks, we most likely would not have had the WannaCry ransomware attacks.

  5. You can't legislate software out of existence. by dicobalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it becomes illegal in the US, there is still a whole world out there where it's not illegal. The software will still be there and still be accessible. You might as well let the good guys use it too. This man's argument is steeped in lazyness on the part of the FBI. They want to be able to issue a warrent to access the data and boom they have their case. The FBI don't want to do the leg work to get the information, they want a magic legal bullet. Sorry but that's pretty lame.

    1. Re: You can't legislate software out of existence. by dicobalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can legislate the good guys, but the bad guys. The bad guys dont give a flying f about the legality of a piece of software. Hell, lots of good guys don't either for that matter lol

    2. Re: You can't legislate software out of existence. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      They also can't legislate mathematics, which is the only way they could get this mythical secure encryption that allows in law enforcement but no one else.

    3. Re: You can't legislate software out of existence. by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      Who cares? It's already been ruled on by the 9th Circuit Court. Encryption is free speech and the 1st Amendment applies. The government cannot ban/regulate the export of the code. There are a few exceptions that are permitted. For example in regards to embargoed countries. But in general you can export the code. After this ruling the Feds got in a tiff and were still banning the export of complied code, on the grounds it's not human readable and thus not speech. Phil Zimmerman (of PGP) began printing the code out in books. The Feds eventually gave up when it became clear they were wasting their time.

      I always kinda viewed it like the Berlin Airlift.. Once the Soviets realized we'd keep flying those planes in, they, and the rest of the world, knew Stalin had lost. To continue their efforts would be viewed, by everyone, as them being petty. Similarly, once the Feds realized they had lost they just went home.

  6. let me translate it... by kiviQr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    4th Amendment is "a provocative subject."

    1. Re:let me translate it... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 2nd Amendment isn't too popular either on the Left. And the 1st as well.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:let me translate it... by Chrontius · · Score: 2

      Revolvers, as a whole, ARE semiautomatic.

      Given that during the average self-defense gunfight, the defending expends nine rounds, the average defensive shooter would need to reload at least once during a fight. Reloading revolvers is slow.

      Note, though, that there’s no parity: A party attempting to kill someone need only get close and fire one round, though they’re probably wise to use two to the chest and one to the head, just to be sure. (However, if someone’s sending trained hit-men, you’re right fucked, so let’s not bother planning for that contingency)

      A second, and more interesting point, if I may. Given that you say that “You can have revolvers, bolt action rifles, and pump action shotguns only. That’s plenty for hunting, farmer use, and self defense.” Assume I am properly licensed to carry a gun. Would you be comfortable with me swinging around a pump shotgun in public at all times? (Side note: I wouldn’t be — open carry is just an invitation to get shot first) How about I saw it off so it’s easier to conceal, per my license privileges? Would you be willing to repeal the NFA to achieve this goal?

      A more interesting point can be made, however. “Some reasonable restrictions” has been used to justify gun control over and over again. I call this phenomenon “serial compromise”; I’m not sure anyone else has ever put a name to it before. Some of the most well known include:

      • The National Firearms Act of 1934
      • The Gun Control Act of 1968
      • The (ironically named) Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
      • The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (better known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) of 1994

      Every single time it’s been described as a “just this once, just this gun” event, but in practice they come along every decade or two. Colion Noir explains it better than I do.

      https://youtu.be/zCZHMRhsjPk

    3. Re:let me translate it... by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      Tyrannical government would squash you like a bug with all your automatic rifles.

      I understand what you're sayin', but I don't think you're necessarily right. You're absolutely right that citizens can't match the firepower of the army.. No argument.. But footage of the government using tanks and rockets to kill citizens armed with deer rifles makes for some pretty emotional stuff. People understand the concept of abuse of might. It's quite possible that 300+ million citizens could simply overwhelm a rogue government.. And I'm not implying a 100% participation rate either.. Hundreds of thousands would be sufficient in most scenarios I can think of. There comes a point when the bodies are just too numerous.. You'd have a real hard time convincing an American army to mow down citizens by the tens of thousands.. Some psychos would go for it, no doubt... But the vast majority? No fucking way..

  7. Trump Supporter Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I donated, volunteered, and voted for Trump but I gotta say... fuck his FBI director on this.

    Both of my positions as a conservative (small government) and a hacker (individual software freedom) are against this.

    But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Democrats would be any better on this issue. Both parties are chock full of authoritarian fuckwits.

    Leave me alone with my guns and computers please. :(

    1. Re:Trump Supporter Here by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      Education I'm going to give a hard no to, I should be able to teach my children as I see fit and public education has been a massive money sink with poor results.

      I agree with a lot of what you listed.. But there are limits.. I have a real hard time with the idea that parents should be allowed to totally fuck up their kids. There has to be some sort of baseline... Like, I could care less what the parents do to themselves.. They're adults.. But it seems problematic that we'll allow two adults to do nutso shit to their kids that will last a lifetime.. Along the lines of education, and what parents should be permitted to teach as "fact" (creationism comes to mind), what about Health Care? It boggles my mind that we permit nutjobs, like Christian Scientists, to withhold medical care from their children. The idea that it's permissible that a child should die because his parents won't allow him to have a $2 shot of Penicillin is beyond me. If the parents want to practice their religion, fatally, upon themselves, that's fine.. But to kill a kid? Jeeze.... This religious right, generally supported by the politically conservative, afforded to Christian Scientists seems to be a type of retroactive abortion.. Something conservatives should be totally against.

  8. Papers, papers please.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Land of the free my ass.

  9. "Encryption should have limits" by markdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

    >"Encryption should have limits. That's the message FBI Director Christopher Wray had for cybersecurity experts Tuesday."

    No, it shouldn't. And it can't. We have been over this over and over again. It has been proven in the REAL WORLD over and over again. Either something is secure with encryption or it isn't. You can NOT have back doors or intentional weaknesses in encryption or, eventually, EVERYONE loses and suffers. It is either secure or not secure. Back doors and weaknesses will be found by the "bad doers"- bad governments, rogue elements in governments, corporate competitors, hackers with nothing better to do, terrorists, whatever.

    >"it shouldn't provide a playground for criminals where law enforcement can't reach them."

    We have ALWAYS had such playgrounds. Before the days of computers and text messages and Email and web logs and "security" cameras everywhere, the government couldn't just watch what everyone did/say/go/read/etc. We had privacy and security BY DEFAULT due to the fact that it was either impractical or impossible to collect such information and sift through it en-mass. And it would have been UNTHINKABLE that citizens would ever allow the government to do so in a free country.

    In an age where information is power, privacy and security are more important than ever. And just passing laws to "protect" this or that isn't going to cut it. Strong encryption is the only option we have. Mess that up, and we have no real protections left.

  10. But We Are The FBI! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FBI Director Christopher Wray just can't understand. "We're the good guys here! Why don't you believe us, we're the good guys!"

    J. Edgar Hoover? That's in the past! Patriot Act? You can't bake a cake without breaking a few eggs! The Panopticon such that even Grandma gets a working over due to too many internet searches for cross-stitch patterns? Well Grandma liked that Commie pinko Rudolph Valentino back in the day, that's reason enough to suspect her!!

  11. Damnit.. THIS IS A BINARY ISSUE! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a binary issue: you either have encryption, or you don't, damnit!
    Meanwhile criminals (and non-stupid people!) will use non-backdoored encryption and not give a fuck.
    Criminals will also find the backdoor and have access to everything!
    Why the ACTUAL FUCK can't these brainless idiots get this through their thick skulls!?

    1. Re:Damnit.. THIS IS A BINARY ISSUE! by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because. . . . if you keep repeating the lie, eventually people start to believe it.

    2. Re:Damnit.. THIS IS A BINARY ISSUE! by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      If the police think it's possible then let them spend their money building a prototype. Then offer prizes for hackers to find the holes in it. Once they have a working and proven secure system we'll talk.

  12. backdoors by l3v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only way to avoid leaking backdoor information is to not have one. Period. If there is one, it will unavoidably either leak out, or be found out, that's certain. I understand they'd wish their jobs would be easier, but wishes aren't horses.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  13. Re:Let me translate this for willfull morons. by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well as such a supporter of the constitution, I shouldn't need to remind you that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact an unalienable right, according to the constitution, the one you are a sworn defender of. In fact the second amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. It doesn't say 'unless the person is an idiot' or 'if I deem they are unsuitable for XYZ reasons'. That definitely clears up my misconceptions of 'the left', thank you..

  14. Re:People are often ignorant about computers. by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

    As long as fingers are breakable, so will be encryption.

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  15. Re:People are often ignorant about computers. by sgage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And many people over 40 invented your computers, punk.

    You're welcome.

  16. and yet another FBI fascist whines..... by Indy1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its because of jackasses like you, Hoover, etc, that we NEED and DEMAND bullet proof network security and encryption.

    If you need a refresher on the reasons why, try the following.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    And finally, go back and re-read this thoroughly. Shut your yap until such time you UNDERSTAND the material in question.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  17. Re: And if we give you the keys everyone will have by JaiWing · · Score: 2

    anything, and i do mean anything, that a person squirrels away for 'later' can and will be found and exploited by another.
    so offline is only good until the building/room/safe is breached.

  18. Other Countries by DarkFlite · · Score: 2

    So what he's saying is that other countries have an unfettered right to spy on the US with the same backdoors he'll put into the software. Because surely no one is beyond the lawful reach of (US/Russian/Chinese) right to investigate?

    --
    -In space, it is very hard to rig lights.
  19. Re:And if we give you the keys everyone will have by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

    With key escrow, the device manufacturer keeps the keys in offline storage. The key for your device is only retrieved when presented with a lawful warrant.

    And nobody with a brain will trust that device for anything important anyway.

  20. Post? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    So mail in the post should be opened and the contents scanned and looked at?
    East German style?
    Not just scan the envelope and keep text front and back?
    Yet on the internet that electronic mail and data should be opened all the time by the federal gov?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. This same conversation happened in 1440 by sandbagger · · Score: 2

    When Gutenberg's press went into production.

    The facts are that encryption is a byproduct of math and any computer science student can develop and encryption system as a school project. This is like trying to hold back the printing press. It's not going to happen.

    What did happen is that law and social values evolved to accommodate the printing press. Defamation was compartmentalized into libel versus slander and social and political conventions emerged to balance different interests.

    The same is happening here.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  22. Unsolved Elephant in the Room by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    What they don't really address is that crooks have been pretty good at finding back-doors. No known technology can make a practical back door for law enforcement that's not a potential and fairly likely access point for crooks.

    In fact, the crooks have proved smarter and faster than law enforcement, in part because 3rd-world labor is cheap and plentiful compared to law enforcement staff, and crooks are happy to outsource. The crooks have a much bigger eArmy. Law enforcement will lose a labor contest.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  23. Re:And if we give you the keys everyone will have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In layman's terms,
    "Law enforcement must have master keys to all homes/offices/safes. Every cop must be able to freely copy them."
    and "we promise we'll never lose them, pinky swear!"

    See how that goes over with the general public.

    captcha: "tyranny" - wow. First time I landed an apropos one.

  24. The important question they aren't answering by seoras · · Score: 2

    Pandora's box was opened a long time ago. Criminals can use open source encryption to avoid mainstream services.
    The question the FBI and others haven't answered is - how is this any benefit to crime control when all it does is relocate the dark users to their own platforms that they alone hold the keys to?
    Why therefore break it for the vast majority of law abiding citizens thus exposing us to not just bad actors in government but the criminals too?

  25. Points go to ze Kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have you? Don't even try to pretend your old lady doesn't run the show at your place. That's a defacto government if I've ever seen one. Points go to ze Kernel.

  26. Um... who exactly hires the FBI director by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny?

    Sorry to be flippant, but I really, really, really shouldn't have to point this out.

    And our current president has pretty clearly removed all semblance of impartiality from the appointment while our Republican lead Congress (well, half of it now) is letting him get away with it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... who exactly hires the FBI director by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never mind the unanimous recommendation of Wray by Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats also voted for him), and the 92-5 confirmation in the Senate. Nope, just Republicans here, pay no attention to the Democrats on that same side!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  27. current status by hdyoung · · Score: 2

    I like the way things are right now. It's a good balance. There's secure encryption out there that's *very* hard for the government to break. If someone wants to use that stuff, they can, but it takes motivation. Apple products don't cut it - those are easy to break. You need pgp and stuff like that. If the government wants access to strongly-encrypted data, they have to get a subpoena. It's not easy. Two separate branches of the government (executive and judicial) have to agree that there's a legit reason. If the government meets that high bar, then they have rights to it. At that point, the person can either a) unlock the info or b) head to jail.

    Some people in government feel that they should be able to poke into whatever, whenever, wherever they want. If we give these people control, we'll end up like China. No thanks. I like my western democracy. The executive branch+NSA has overstepped these bounds in the past and I don't approve at all. Suck it up, spooks! Spend the time, fill out the paperwork and get your frikkin subpeonas approved by a judge. Every. Single. Time. It's designed to be hard on purpose.

    Some people on the other side feel that they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Laws be damned. Some of these people call themselves libertarians, some call themselves anarchists, some are truly criminals, but a lot of them just don't like being told what to do. These people need to get a clue. If you want to live like that, find an uninhabited spot and live as a hermit. Rural Australia, Siberia and the Arctic are good candidates. You won't last long, but you'll be free according to your own terms. The second you want to live in a group with other people (aka a civilization) there are rules to follow.

  28. FBI Director attacks US Constitution by dweller_below · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not a technical issue.

    For the last 232 years, the supreme law of the land in the United States is the US Constitution. All government powers, whether Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, are subordinate to the limits defined in the Constitution.

    Claiming that the US Legal system must have unfettered access to all information is the same as saying that the US Legal system must not be fettered or subject to the US Constitution. That leads me to 3 important questions:

    1. Why is NOW a good time to abandon the US Constitution?
    2. What authority does Director Wray claim to be superior to the US Constitution?
    3. Shouldn't Director Wray be immediately fired for violating his Oath to "..Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States.."?
  29. Re: You can't legislate software out of existence by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Capone got busted on tax evasion. I'm not sure bringing him up is relevant here.

    And the FBI has never gotten over the fact that it was IRS accountants who got him..........

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  30. But you can make it a crime to use them by monkeyxpress · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No but what they will do is make it a crime to use robust encryption schemes. If you are caught using one then you go to prison for a long time on the basis of possession (regardless of whether you are actually involved in anything else illegal). Of course, criminals won't care, since they are already doing illegal stuff, but regular folk will basically have to make all their data discoverable to the authorities on demand. Similarly anyone in a position of authority, or with large amounts of wealth will be able to apply for an permit to use stronger encryption. As for data breaches, well, these seem to occur every few months at the moment, but unless it is panama paper stuff, very few seem to care (and even then...).

    This is the middle class' biggest weakness - they have enough invested in the 'system' that you can use the threat of loss of participation in the system to make them conform to silly rules. Unfortunately we have only had a middle class for about 60 years now out of thousands of years of recorded civilisation, and I'm not entirely convinced it has the political will to sustain itself in the face of oligarchic leadership that seems intent on bringing back feudalism.

  31. Re:retconning the 2A by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

    It also says "well regulated Militia": and where are those now? Are you part of a militia? If so, who is your commanding officer and your chain of command?

    Do we have to bring this up every fucking time? Well regulated, in the speech of 1789, does not mean the same thing it does now. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled that comma seperated the people from the militia part. The Federalist Papers back up this interpretation as being the only possible correct interpretation. That was the whole point of the Papers.. They were the Cliff Notes, of their time, to the Document.

    The people have the right to form militias.. and they have the right to bear arms.. They can bear those arms privately or they can bear them in a militia.. Their choice.. End of story..

    If there was any possibly chance the left could overturn or repeal the 2nd amendment with another amendment, they'd have tried by now.. Instead they are working on it by attrition.. Chip away a little bit here and a little bit there.

  32. "Unfettered"... a ghastly thought by Archtech · · Score: 2

    "It can't be a sustainable end state for there to be an entirely unfettered space that's utterly beyond law enforcement for criminals to hide..."

    Funny how often officials and policemen unintentionally reveal their inner thoughts when speaking in public.

    Can't have... "unfettered"...

    Fetters, of course, are chains. Apparently this Gestapo officer believes that all citizens belong in chains - at all times. Even their thoughts, ideas and words must be in chains.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  33. Re:Envelopes by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Opening envelopes takes work for every individual one. For encryption backdoors, it just takes a bit of electricity once the software is written. People like this one believe that they finally have victory in sight in their war on civil liberty and freedom. They want to make sure everybody is afraid to say what they think in any circumstances, because everything can be under surveillance all the time, no safe spots.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  34. Re:And if we give you the keys everyone will have by Musical_Joe · · Score: 2

    I'm sure the nuke crap would be far more sophisticated.

    You sure about that?

    The Nuclear Launch Code at US Minuteman Silos Was 00000000

  35. Re:Envelopes by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    Opening envelopes takes work for every individual one. For encryption backdoors, it just takes a bit of electricity once the software is written.

    I understand that they are doing something insidious by simply scanning the from and to address on every piece of mail and making a database of associations. All automated.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  36. Re:People are often ignorant about computers. by Miser · · Score: 2

    Careful with that generalization there bud.

    I am over 40, and started with VT220's, Apple //'s, and DOS.

    PGP was a thing in the DOS days.

    -Miser

  37. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You guys never do learn. You always think you are the smartest guys in the room and then you say something stupid-as-fuck. The deplorables comment hurt Hillary as much as anything else. Anyone in flyover country heard loud and clear just how much they could expect her to represent them. You guys prove over and over that you learned nothing.