Wow, this has come a long way since the 80s/90s. Perhaps a haiku competition that only uses these words. The winner is judged by the amount of trigger word density which is then sent as spam to everyone.
ohhh the innocent days of the internet are long gone.
I am sorry, but you are severely lacking in the technical knowledge of how these things work. AND you got modded a +5-Interesting on Slashdot of all places?
See here for my qualifications. Perhaps they knew more than you and who ever modded you up.
Clearly there are a lot of folks that think in a similar vein... else I guess this would have been a open&shut case.
I know you haven't made a conscious misrepresentation of the argument, however it is a mis-representation of the argument all the same. The myth is that this entire fiasco is about access to your encrypted phone, but it's also about the unencrypted data products it produces.
I will try to dumb it down for you in non-IT. Sorry if I am coming off mean, but that is my emotion right now on your "technical solution" to a human problem.
Well, I'm not a cryptographer however I have enough experience in the field to know that I prefer creating something and that security work is as boring as bat shit. My mea culpa is that I didn't explain that these type of bills were presented in the UK and Australia 18 months ago. I wasn't 100% sure where it was headed for the US scenario, however having read the discussion draft of the American version, I can see it is exactly what I thought it was.
Comparitively though, the UK and Australian versions have better protections for metadata storage than the US Version which is also a metadata retention act. So the US act makes no provisions for encrypting stored metadata, which makes it available to organized crime. We had no prior warning about what these laws would do when they were being debated almost 18months ago now so when I saw your ones coming I thought it would be fair to try to warn you not to fall into the same trap we did. After analyzing the infrastructure effects of the bill and writing to over 50 politicians about this issue, yeah, I would say I have a pretty good understanding of it. The Us version has much less verbage.
Imagine home builders started making very secure homes. They aren't impossible to break into, just very very difficult.
It would seem you started to dumb it down for yourself.
Whether you have a warrant, "reasonable suspicion", or just a criminal is irrelevant and a separate topic.
No, it is EXACTLY the topic. The TOPIC IS:Law Enforcement's Access To Citizen's Data Products And A Bill That Will Define That. In your ignorance you are arguing against a return to due process.
The house is really really hard to break into. So the city council says that all builders that build in their district must provide a master key to be kept in a safe in city hall. So they have a set of master keys to every house in the city.
First thing, your locks are *irrelevant* to the state as your rsa, gpg or any other key. You can never overpower the state, only the will of the people can when they vote or voice a strong public opinion. If the *state* HAS A WARRANT they will access property by any appropriate means that is accessible. If a warrant isn't required, they will do *whatever they want* and you have no legal protection, this is the current scenario. You will be compelled to reveal or you are in contempt of court and will rot in jail.
This is a discussion about the states right to *access* encrypted communications, not it's right to *backdoor* encrypted communications. Since the guy is dead the state is SOL but it is the perfect opportunity to manuver the discussion into breaking encryption instead of what the state is doing looking at the data phones produce in the first place.
Assume the perfect legal framework as your described.
There is no need to assume. In the American context, which we ar
The first half deals with encryption. The second half is a metadata retention bill. It is very specific about the communication endpoints (IP addresses), routing information, ports, duration, mac address of equipment. The bill makes no requirement that once your metadata is collected it is encrypted when stored. A tempting target for organized crime.
That seems like a pretty big deal as well, but I think the ploy is to not draw attention to this part of the bill and just drop the 'intelligible' anti-encryption clause in the bill so that this bit can get through.
Reading that part of the bill make it look like they are also interested in peoples associations. Who talks to who, when and for how long.
It was introduced in Australia in pretty much the same way with bi-partesan support and people objecting to things that were irrelevant in the long run. We didn't know what they were doing when it happened to us, don't fall for it. It is a trap.
*FACEPALM* But that is EXACTLY the goddammed point! That there is a warrant to access it is IRRELEVANT, you are by definition CREATING A VULNERABILITY by creating that third party access point TO BEGIN WITH. Holy shit, how fucking hard is this for you to understand?
It is RELEVANT because it makes anything other than warranted access to you information inadmissable as evidence in a case against you. I've read the actual proposed bill, I know what it will do.
Everything is in plain text now and the proposed bill doesn't change that. If you made government recognise encryption then it increases the scope to use encryption for all of your government interactions. Access to your communications would be via a warrant - which is better than what we have now, and you would have encryption an officially recognized system for doing business. You would also create a premise for business to encrypt and imply penalties for data leaks, whose impacts would be greatly reduced. This bill forces telecommunications providers to store *all* your meta data un-encrypted for anyone to access, even organized crime.
How fucking hard is it for you to understand that?
They must be thinking, "the company will provide a back door and keep it secret." What a great concept. Unfortunately that idea belongs to a world where it took a whole government and a bevy of codebreakers to crack a simple substitution code - the Enigma codes.
It's not about that. If you read the discussion draft of the proposed bill you will find the salient part is Sec. 2.4 which puts the onus of data decryption onto the service provider. There is nothing about how to implement it, just that if you encrypt it, it better be intelligible when we ask for it.
There is a discussion about privacy of the individual, but it's secondary to access by the state. I uncertain if a judicial order is the same as a warrant for telecommunications intercepts however I still don't see any time limits imposed either.
And lest we think that this is a good thing, so that governments can go after terrorists, let me pose a question on a personal level: "How big is your bank account? Would you mind if you woke up some morning and found it empty?"
This is the whole point about these types of laws. It's not about "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" it's more like "If you have nothing to loose, then you have nothing to hide".
With which we come to the hidden kicker in this proposed bill, the unmentioned meta-data retention clauses. Has anyone noticed that?
Section 4. 1. puts the onus on a license to collect all IP address, port number, routing, endpoints, protocols, both sides of a NAT, unique device identifiers (MAC address), the time, quantity and QOS information all time stamped to UTC, and more. These are targeted at Telecommunications companies, they require a warrant, but imply that the data is to be collected.
That's probably the elephant right there, it's a much larger scope than saying - hey tell us what this says. I'm unsure if it is a 4th amnd violation 'reasonable' to have a third party record your communications endpoints, it's probably happening anyway and that could be the 'reasonable' justification. Again the duration is not mentioned and I'd suggest any service provider who offers a service that only maintains meta data for your last billing cycle may be a feature of providers worth having.
Hell, no. Any competent programmer can come up with an encryption scheme not known to the government, perhaps with vulnerabiilities which are also unknown to the government.
Nope, they have that covered too in Sec 3.A.2 the orders can be issued against people providing the software. Surely this is a 5th Amnd violation. How can you be compelled to information that may incriminate you.
The good guys (Us!) have opened our bank accounts to the script kiddies, and the bad guys will go right on using strong encryption.
No, the point here is that your metadata will be stored in unencrypted form. The same demands were made of Australians because it is wasn't mandatory to encrypt the data, however it was mentioned in the bill that it should be encrypted.
The US bill doesn't even mention encrypting citizen meta data that is being recorded. This is an obvious honeypot for organized crime and as I have constantly repeated, fraud against citizens has no impact on the state, so they have little incentive to protect you from it in their quest to know everything about you.
The government will be right back where they are now, having to hire a hacker to break that encryption.
If the bad guys have their own encryption software then there is simply no access to their communications. The demands are on providers to decode communications when they receive a judicial order and the endpoints, volume and duration when issued a warrant.
We will have given up the keys to our doors without putting a small dent in terrorism.
Parallel construction is far from orthogonal to privacy. It's basically permission to violate your privacy any way they wish, pretend it didn't happen and after the fact come up with an alternate story that doesn't violate your rights. They can just read your emails, listen to your phone calls, open your letters, bug your house, attach a GPS tracker to your car and if they get caught, too bad it's inadmissable.
Exactly, thank you for pointing it out, especially considering there is no *time limit* for the monitoring of a citizen via intelligence sharing arrangements with other nation states. I have to admit that I'm still stinging a bit from being called a facist and a hater for pointing that out to people who didn't understand the issue so I hope people do develop a better understanding of what is going on when it come to the reality of their "freedom". Modern western democracies have access to more powers that made East Germany and the USSR police states and people recoil with horror when you suggest the TLAs of the world to follow an appropriate means to control their access to a citizen's meta data products because they assume their freedoms are more than what they actually are.
NEWSFLASH, we already are in a police state and all the freedoms western democracies have struggled to establish have been under attack as the TLAs struggle to find relevance after the Cold War for at least 15 years. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do their job but ffs what is the point of a democracy if it is just a name for a police state, while everyone laughs nervously at the reality and calls you a hater for doing so.
Telecommunication warrants *used* to exist and were a requirement for monitoring a citizen's communications. This is a common construct for other western democracies. The sad sad sad thing about this Act is that it is a poor substitute for the constitutional controls that already existed in many western countries that were designed to protect us from the very scenario that we find ourselves in now.
It's not just that we're on a slippery slope, we are already sliding and we don't just need to defend democracy we actually have to work pretty hard to get back *what we had*. Laws like this are good and should be celebrated, but they are not a substitute for the constitution that most nations anti-terrorism acts are violating, that make them a requirement in the first place. We shouldn't need a law that tells government departments that they should behave constitutionally, that they should respect the citizens whose duty it is for them to protect.
All of the Terrorism laws need to be brought into line with the expectations of the citizens of western democracies that the constitution of their country is the ultimate authority they are governed under. Whilst you won't find a shred of sympathy from me from human rights abusing religious fundamentalists, it's plain to see that they are being used as the excuse *every time* to take more freedom from citizens.
As a citizen of a western democracy I expect to not be spied on if I am abiding by the law.
Because encryption alone won't stop the state, who will find a way to get in somehow. Especially considering they have access to all the other data products a telecommunications device like a phone produces, without needing one.
To your closing sentiment, I'd say, "You can't even imagine..." Except, you probably can - you might be worse than I. I got *HUGE* for a while - muscular. That didn't last. I've always been really tight and generally remained fit but I didn't *maintain* a whole lot of physical fitness. I doubt I have as much scar tissue - far less sparring, far less time in a gym, and more time with the "right" kind of exercise - sort of. That ended.;-)
I love doing weight training, I'm constantly trying to evolve my mind, physique, so I plan on weights after the last of the scar tissue. I started at 68Kg got to 96kg(unfit after surgery), then dropped to 85kg which is my ideal fight weight. When I am there I am a weapon.
Some of our trainers were also Marine trainers for the for knife, stick and machette. Respect, but you guys smash yourselves, so maybe learning some of the healing side of martial arts would be useful. I think you should try it, it will hurt, but it's probably nothing you haven't already experienced when bulking up.
Also, yes, a tens unit.
I like the ones that have the big vacuum pump driven suction pumps with a big stainless steel contact in them -aaaaaaahhhhhh, joy!!!
The thing is, I start with the therapy and I feel pretty good. So, I'm retarded. I stop. I feel fine, why continue? I know that I should continue but I don't. I did mention that I'm retarded, yes? So, even if it's just by me demonstrating what not to do, if you're ever in doubt - stick with the therapy EVEN if you have to do it as best as possible at home or with the aid of a loved one. But keep it up.
Thank you. I don't think your experiences are any different from many, but I had to decide for myself, 'NO MORE'. I felt fine too, but I still could feel stuff. So I set myself a mission of completing *everything*.
A release event happened on the weekend. It came on exactly as I described and I captured the data. It started at 1pm and ended a 6pm, non-stop stretch, cavitation, rest. I was sweating and feeling sick, my wife saw it and was laughing and stirring me at first - but then after the third hour she saw, yeah this is real as she could see the distress on my face. That's because it's really confronting and you can feel the scar tissue collapsing, if you don't stretch it and get rid of it, the cold numb goes on. It's weird but it feels like the body takes over and I'm a passenger for a while.
That was Sunday, and I just confirmed the 25th injury. My left big toe has been twisted maybe 10-20 degrees for at least a decade. Well that untwisted, and fuuuuccckkk me did it hurt. I wanted to vomit and when it was done, I slept 12 hours. It was kind of numb for a couple of days and now I can clearly see that my toe no longer fits in the wear patterns of my shoes. I know it will hurt for a few more days however walking is easier, the joint is smoother and there is no longer a sensation to try to cavitate the joint all the time.
Be VERY aware that fat comes quick, as does atrophy.
Yeah, I was prepared for that. It's pretty uncomfortable I'm about 5kg over fight weight. I don't know how people can just pile it on - I can't stand the feeling of it just sitting there. I went back to training for a week mid treatment because I missed it so much - I injured my lower back because the body was still out of balance, however, even then I noticed my movement was much smoother, faster and I could pull holds I haven't been able to do for 20 years. That was about 10 months ago.
Listen to your body and then listen to your doctor and therapists. If they're good, they'll give you good advice and help.
They seem to be learning as well, however you are right and I do.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "sedentary period."
This is the problem with the whole discussion. Law enforcement should not have access to the contents of your phone without a warrant. The focus on encryption it makes the emphasis on this discussion whether or not law enforcement should be able to crack your phone instead of what business they have examining your phone without a warrant in the first place.
Would you let someone search your house without a warrant, even if they had a key? Why should your phone, which is your property, also be subject to illegal unreasonable search? Why should the data products that your phone produce that are not contained on the phone be subject to ongoing monitoring without a warrant?
Record the phone number, get a warrant and ask the telecommunications companies for the *times* of your text messages and phone calls that day. No phone access required.
You are arguing for establishing fascism slowly instead of faster. I will never get behind something as evil as that.
OK, there is a massive disconnect going on then because that is the opposite of my intention. There is no way I support fascism either. Protecting Human Rights is my number one concern.
As to them getting unfettered access, that is rather unlikely without a full, catastrophic abolishment of civil rights. The economic, political and legal ramifications would be extreme. It is one thing for an intelligence agency to have access, at high cost and effort, and quite another thing for law enforcement to have it on the cheap.
This is probably it, I see I did mention police in my OP. Damn posting tired. I am referring to TLAs accessing this data with a warrant. There is no way I would want ordinary police access to this data.
You are mistaken on both counts. The arguments why this will not and cannot work are good enough that "I am over it" does not constitute a valid counter-argument.
I've secured the largest banks in the world to ISO 17799, designed and implemented AP audits as well as designed security for some very large corporations. I have seen some people, mostly very old, be defrauded from their life saving and have their lives destroyed. One case was a man and his wife who got defrauded $800K and he wound up with 4 years jail after he retired, it was heartbreaking to see and I am over it. So I support policing and investigation into this form of fraud along with adequate power to investigate and disassemble organized crime, white collar crime and, preventing human rights violations.
I spent some time analysing the various meta-data retention acts being introduced and found it is not *mandatory* for the databases containing citizen's data to be encrypted. When writing to object to that data being collected at all, I proposed that act be modified so it is mandatory they were encrypted against illicit access. They still aren't.
I also analysed various *proposed* data sharing and consolidation acts that dictate the way inter-agency communication will work and found no warrants were required to access the data. Nor were time limits imposed. This includes activities such as, tracking citizen movements and association, their current where-abouts, extended data collection on citizens banking and transaction records, telecommunications records, contents of voicemail, sms, email, forum posts, online identities all without a warrant.
Of course that completely bypasses the constitutionality of even collecting citizen data which varies from country to country. Governments maneuver around this with intelligence sharing arrangements so whether we like it or not this data is being collected. I would prefer that it isn't.
Since they do my proposal is all departments encrypt their data and access to it is controlled by an Office of Encryption who maintains a key escrow system *of some kind* who issue revocable keys to TLAs (nothing *below* a *federal* policing level) and their agents produce a court issued warrant to access encryption between these government systems. The OoE would revoke the encryption keys when the warrant concludes and the agent would have to apply to maintain that inter-departmental access.
Far from unfettered access, I am proposing an end to unfettered access until the populous finally wakes up to the fact of how bad this 1984 style collection of data is and demands it stops.
I am not proposing back doors in encryption at all nor am I even suggesting access to peoples phones. What I am suggesting is that if government is going to collect the data footprint that people generate when they interact with society then access to that data is via a warrant. I would prefer that all data collection and monitoring end.
Please let me know if that clears things up, I hope it does, I am horrified I have given that impression and I'm not surprised people think I am being a jerk. If you have any specific criticisms, let me know and thank you for persisting civilly.
The second is the road to hell.
You certainly won't get any argument from me there.
The right way is to have an office of the judicature maintain a set of third party keys that law enforcement can request *with a warrant*.
No, that's complete and total bullshit, and you're demonstrating that you, just like apparently politicians, either don't understand the technology involved, or just don't give a damn whether it actually works or not.
You guys keep missing the point which is *A WARRANT* should be the first requirement to even access the encrypted information.
You cannot have a 'backdoor' into an encryption algorithm, not in any way, shape, or form, without rendering that algorithm completely and totally compromised. There is NO EXCEPTION to this. ANY so-called 'backdoor' can and will be exploited, sooner than anyone would think.
I know, did I say it was your encryption keys. I am not suggesting backdoors, I am suggesting that they get a warrant and adhere to due process.
Even if it wasn't somehow exploited by criminals and/or terrorists,it would inevitably be misused by the powers-that-be to violate the privacy of citizens who have neither broken any laws nor intend to break any laws.
Explain that to the telecommunication companies that have to maintain an unencrypted database of your online activities. How will you protect access to that data?
Why do you hate America so much that you would want this, then?
I don't hate America at all, Americans are my friends. I love freedom and democracy so I want you to be free. That is why I prepared to defend it not only for American but British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, French and any other CITIZENS who take the time to understand the issues. Tell me, if you love America and you pledged to protect her from enemies foreign and domestic, did you write to the president or your congressman back in 2002 and express your objection to the constitutional violations that allowed this intelligence machinery to be constructed in the first place? Did you even read the Patriot act and protest that, do you even know what unconstitutional actions it allows and how we got to a conversation that has the mere mention of TLAs accessing personal communications in the first place? None of which would be happening if you had defended your own constitution when you had a chance. What letters did you write?
Did you do anything to demonstrate that you even care for America and the idea of democracy and freedom for all peoples? No disrespect intended, but if you did, tell me what it was otherwise you are being hypocritical and have no right to pull the 'hater' card out on me, because I have defended democracy.
You're a moron, and an example of how we got into this mess. You've never participated in democracy other than to vote and you don't even know much about that.
No, I am not. First, a "legal frameworks" cannot fix this.
Yes you are and yes they can. They can because it is those laws that define how these organisations behave. If you weren't you would have already written to your president and demand that the wartime powers granted to Bush and Obama after 911 be wound back because they were countersigned by Bush's lawyer instead of the Attorney General. You would demand that these agencies behave constitutionally. Intelligence agencies are ignoring the constitution because you didn't defend your constitution at the right moment. If you're so smart how do you propose to fix that? What's your idea?
You people talk about how dumb Bush is, but he played every single American citizen. Cunning doesn't have to be smart, just smarter than the masses.
Or have you forgotten that hacking is already illegal?
Not if you have investigatory powers under existing law. You have not considered how that stops all the TLAs from monitoring your GPS position in real time, reading your email, your voice mail, what relationships you maintain, when and where you see them, gisting live phone calls, text messages, any forums you visit, including this one - UNDER EXISTING LAW WITHOUT A WARRANT.
And second, have you actually bothered to find out what the actual experts (and basically _all_ of them) are saying?
I have done enough work in that area to be over it. I'm not suggesting the technology is perfect or even exists. What I am saying is that if you do not define a *legal* mechanism for policing to do their work they will continue to lobby for unfettered access to everyone's communication. Based on their record of success so far, they will get their way.
Looks like you have not, because what you say is clueless bullshit.
Alternatively, you haven't read the various anti-terrorism acts that have been put in place and are speaking from a place of ignorance of those matters. Additionally I would say you have not read the proposed Bills that will connect all of these agencies so all of them can access everything about you without a warrant. This is the impending police state nightmare that is coming *before* we start talking about encryption, which won't protect you. So before you start calling bullshit on me I suggest you get your head around the way these laws work because yes, I have significant expertise in the technological areas, enough to research it's relationship to law.
BTW notice that I have remained polite to you, it's because we're on the same fucking side. Your vitriol is misdirected.
That's you, being "on the record" as advocating they COMPLETELY fuck it up.
Intelligence agencies are going to suck up every bit of intelligence they can until they are forced to comply with a process to get it. Doesn't the fact that they are ignoring the constitution tell you where things are right now?
The Clipper Chip.
DIDN'T REQUIRE A WARRANT
Know your history. Poking a hole in everyone's locks does NOT make anyone safer. As those holes will most assuredly be compromised, your reducing the security of a lot of people and giving out sensitive information to hackers and terrorists.
FFS, they don't need a warrant now.I AM NOT ARGUING FOR BACKDOORS, I AM ARGUING FOR THE USE OF A WARRANT - THAT IS THE POINT jeeez
You have advocated people no longer having the right to hard encryption, but instead only having access to SHIT encryption full of mandated holes.
No I'm not. I am arguing for a means to control these agencies accessing the data in the first place, encrypted or not. I know it is counter intuitive and my bad for thinking that people had the capacity for holding two ideas in their heads at once, that legally recognising that encryption as a means of free speech instead of...
But please, enlighten me. How does the US government control my access to GPG?
a controllable munition, where they simply control distribution. That won't stop you from using it, but it only be useable to a few (as great as it is). Tell me how PGP will protect your voicemail and GPS position that tracks your position constantly when there are no authorizations needed to collect it?
And if you recall, the source code for PGP is protected under copyright law and the first amendment as it was published in book form so as to specifically flip the finger to anyone trying to control access to it.
Right, so how do you encrypt a call to someone who does not know how to use encryption when it is illegal to teach them how to use it?
It's a handy dandy little tool that I can go get and verify and use to my hearts content. Legally.The one looking like a cunt here is you.
How does that help people who don't know how to compile software. Are you thinking of anyone else except yourself?
No. He is arguing that you can't have a backdoor without weakening security overall.
I am not arguing for a back door.
And the agencies already have more information than they could handle. They need to learn to work with their already collected data. They shouldn't even bother with after the fact information gathering.
Agree, imagine if they had to go through a warrant process to collect it at all, they would not collect it.
You might want to read up on the clipper chip and similar desastrous implementations of the past which are the main culprit why we had so many trouble with SSL so far. The solution is to crank up security and get the damn agencies to work instead of dreaming of the land where information flows to them like honey. The attacks on privacy will never stop as it is the easy way out for all information gatherer, governments (friendly and not so friendly) and everyone else.
I did, thank you. I'd suggest that you all have a read of your own Patriot act and understand how you email, sms, voicemail messages can be intercepted under that Act without a warrant whereas it was a requirement before. Powers of these kinds cross multiple bills.
Your mistake is expecting the government to have third-party keys, and not abuse them.
Various levels of government have already shown they abhor the minor inconvenience of requesting a warrant.
Good, then make it a major inconvenience. Should put a sizeable dent in what is going on now.
A 21st century Clipper chip is not happening.
The Clipper Chip did not require a warrant for access to the communications. I think that is the point many people are missing. I don't want communications to be accessed without a warrant as opposed to having access to telecommunications without one.
"I doubt you have spent as much time as I have defending civil rights of people such as yourself, "
Your posting as an AC and you expect us to believe you do anything of the sort. Get a fucking life. And I really doubt you have done more then many of us here. Plus the fact you are defending giving the government backdoor access to the modern day equivalent of our "papers and effects" shows just how much you really care about our constitutionally protected rights.
No, I posted as AC by mistake because I'm tired. Those are my words. I am not defending backdoor access to encryption.
(this is not directed at you Holi - I'm done with ACs for now) If everyone here wants to fix this problem and have unfettered free speech protected by unbreakable encryption without any monitoring then go back to George.WartimePresident's letters of authorizations for emergency powers to pass acts like the TSA and wind that back. In a showing of how bi-partisan this approach is Obama didn't repeal those powers either. Restore due process of law.
Can anyone else here can say they wrote to government protesting the power that enabled this whole security theatre back in 2002 when you could have nipped it in the bud and not made a mockery of your constitution. I did.
Did anyone else here stay awake all night trying to reword law and give politician recommendations that changed wordings so that children younger than 14 would not be subject to body cavity searches under these laws. I did.
Here is the uncomfortable truth for all the anonymous trolls that have been harassing me. You wouldn't have your government poking around in your affairs *at all* if you had gotten of your lazy apathetic asses and defended the fundamental democratic rights after 911. If you all had you wouldn't have the NSA poking around your affairs in the way the *can* today. You didn't defend your democracy and now big portions of it are gone.
I've read a good portion of these bills which amount to a few thousand pages, I gave you your best way out of the consequences of your inactions and now I'm being called the oppressor - thanks a fuking lot.
Go ahead, attack the person defending your rights, enjoy your police state.
How does making an even bigger hole in the technical solution in the form of third party keys make it any better?
I'm not saying make a hole, I'm saying build a proper legal framework. Telecommunication Intercepts *had* a warrant process attached to them *already*, now law enforcement *does not need a warrant* to intercept your communications, already.
A warrant process *forces* law enforcement *back* into a state where they have to get a warrant to access encrypted communications.
It's not like these institutions never break the law and perform illegal monitoring or anything.
That's exactly the type of behaviour this kind of law would protect people from. Any evidence captured without a warrant would not be admissible. Attempts at spying on people would also have to go through the same process that defines if it is legal to collect that information.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive but try to keep two concepts in your head because it is not a simple solution, nor is it an ideal one, but the alternative is much worse where they have unrestricted access to all of your communications.
Like it or not, these laws are coming. We either have a solution that protects civil rights or we do not.
No you don't you need it because you're a chicken shit. You won't stand up and be counted because you are a coward. No hope for you.
But seriously, you are a fucktard.
oww, such savage wit. I half sleep with boredom.
God.
spat you out because you're disgusting.
People like you should me marked and recorded by the very tools of oppression you use when the revolution comes.
I already am on the record for defending your rights for *access* to encryption technology and the last thing I want is anybody oppressed.
The state does not care if you are defrauded, that is a policing matter, there is no impact on the state if your life is destroyed. That is the main reason to use encryption. The second is to defend against state based terrorism. We should all be free and if we don't define the lawful way that law enforcement accesses this technology they will persist in efforts to control the way we can use it until they do.
If you had read and understood the law you would understand that most western countries *already* have means in which to control access to encryption. If you understood this you wouldn't be critcizing me, you would realize I am trying to ensure you have access to it. Don't underestimate the government's ability to make stupid knee jerk decisions.
When the revolution comes you'll be inside watching it on TV, vicariously avoiding any involvement. Perhaps it may be more appropriate to record apathetic assholes like you who become the tools of oppression because you're too lazy to do anything whilst standing on a platform of moral superiority and criticizing those who do.
I literally have a letter on my desk explaining that the government allowed my personal information which was entrusted to them to leak.
At least they disclosed that they fucked up - still very bad.
Before that, I received a mailed copy of tax filings with the cover letter indicating that I had requested them. I hadn't, and when I called the IRS office that sent it, they neither had any evidence of who had made the request, nor even any record that a copy had been sent out.
Don't attribute malice to incompetence.
And you expect me to trust them with maintaining confidentiality of encryption keys?
No, I'm expecting a legal framework that forces law enforcement to observe proper procedures so they can do their job and still protect freedom. If we were talking about trust we would not be talking about encryption at all.
(We already know what kind of idiot you are)
The kind who defends your right to anonymity and stays up most of the night trawling through legislation and writing letter to politicians.
What kind of idiot do you think I am?
The kind of idiot who criticizes someone for defending your right to anonymity and makes them wonder why they do it.
Slashdot Mirror
walk into the ISIS beer fund bar
The bartender looks up and says, "Whaaaat???? Is this some kind of joke????"
So everyone, add spook.lines to your outgoing money transfers.
^ https://github.com/emacs-mirro...
Wow, this has come a long way since the 80s/90s. Perhaps a haiku competition that only uses these words. The winner is judged by the amount of trigger word density which is then sent as spam to everyone.
ohhh the innocent days of the internet are long gone.
I am sorry, but you are severely lacking in the technical knowledge of how these things work. AND you got modded a +5-Interesting on Slashdot of all places?
See here for my qualifications. Perhaps they knew more than you and who ever modded you up.
Clearly there are a lot of folks that think in a similar vein... else I guess this would have been a open&shut case.
I know you haven't made a conscious misrepresentation of the argument, however it is a mis-representation of the argument all the same. The myth is that this entire fiasco is about access to your encrypted phone, but it's also about the unencrypted data products it produces.
I will try to dumb it down for you in non-IT. Sorry if I am coming off mean, but that is my emotion right now on your "technical solution" to a human problem.
Well, I'm not a cryptographer however I have enough experience in the field to know that I prefer creating something and that security work is as boring as bat shit. My mea culpa is that I didn't explain that these type of bills were presented in the UK and Australia 18 months ago. I wasn't 100% sure where it was headed for the US scenario, however having read the discussion draft of the American version, I can see it is exactly what I thought it was.
Comparitively though, the UK and Australian versions have better protections for metadata storage than the US Version which is also a metadata retention act. So the US act makes no provisions for encrypting stored metadata, which makes it available to organized crime. We had no prior warning about what these laws would do when they were being debated almost 18months ago now so when I saw your ones coming I thought it would be fair to try to warn you not to fall into the same trap we did. After analyzing the infrastructure effects of the bill and writing to over 50 politicians about this issue, yeah, I would say I have a pretty good understanding of it. The Us version has much less verbage.
Imagine home builders started making very secure homes. They aren't impossible to break into, just very very difficult.
It would seem you started to dumb it down for yourself.
Whether you have a warrant, "reasonable suspicion", or just a criminal is irrelevant and a separate topic.
No, it is EXACTLY the topic. The TOPIC IS :Law Enforcement's Access To Citizen's Data Products And A Bill That Will Define That. In your ignorance you are arguing against a return to due process.
The house is really really hard to break into. So the city council says that all builders that build in their district must provide a master key to be kept in a safe in city hall. So they have a set of master keys to every house in the city.
First thing, your locks are *irrelevant* to the state as your rsa, gpg or any other key. You can never overpower the state, only the will of the people can when they vote or voice a strong public opinion. If the *state* HAS A WARRANT they will access property by any appropriate means that is accessible. If a warrant isn't required, they will do *whatever they want* and you have no legal protection, this is the current scenario. You will be compelled to reveal or you are in contempt of court and will rot in jail.
This is a discussion about the states right to *access* encrypted communications, not it's right to *backdoor* encrypted communications. Since the guy is dead the state is SOL but it is the perfect opportunity to manuver the discussion into breaking encryption instead of what the state is doing looking at the data phones produce in the first place.
Assume the perfect legal framework as your described.
There is no need to assume. In the American context, which we ar
The first half deals with encryption. The second half is a metadata retention bill. It is very specific about the communication endpoints (IP addresses), routing information, ports, duration, mac address of equipment. The bill makes no requirement that once your metadata is collected it is encrypted when stored. A tempting target for organized crime.
That seems like a pretty big deal as well, but I think the ploy is to not draw attention to this part of the bill and just drop the 'intelligible' anti-encryption clause in the bill so that this bit can get through.
Reading that part of the bill make it look like they are also interested in peoples associations. Who talks to who, when and for how long.
It was introduced in Australia in pretty much the same way with bi-partesan support and people objecting to things that were irrelevant in the long run. We didn't know what they were doing when it happened to us, don't fall for it. It is a trap.
*FACEPALM* But that is EXACTLY the goddammed point! That there is a warrant to access it is IRRELEVANT, you are by definition CREATING A VULNERABILITY by creating that third party access point TO BEGIN WITH. Holy shit, how fucking hard is this for you to understand?
It is RELEVANT because it makes anything other than warranted access to you information inadmissable as evidence in a case against you. I've read the actual proposed bill, I know what it will do.
Everything is in plain text now and the proposed bill doesn't change that. If you made government recognise encryption then it increases the scope to use encryption for all of your government interactions. Access to your communications would be via a warrant - which is better than what we have now, and you would have encryption an officially recognized system for doing business. You would also create a premise for business to encrypt and imply penalties for data leaks, whose impacts would be greatly reduced. This bill forces telecommunications providers to store *all* your meta data un-encrypted for anyone to access, even organized crime.
How fucking hard is it for you to understand that?
They must be thinking, "the company will provide a back door and keep it secret." What a great concept. Unfortunately that idea belongs to a world where it took a whole government and a bevy of codebreakers to crack a simple substitution code - the Enigma codes.
It's not about that. If you read the discussion draft of the proposed bill you will find the salient part is Sec. 2.4 which puts the onus of data decryption onto the service provider. There is nothing about how to implement it, just that if you encrypt it, it better be intelligible when we ask for it. There is a discussion about privacy of the individual, but it's secondary to access by the state. I uncertain if a judicial order is the same as a warrant for telecommunications intercepts however I still don't see any time limits imposed either.
And lest we think that this is a good thing, so that governments can go after terrorists, let me pose a question on a personal level: "How big is your bank account? Would you mind if you woke up some morning and found it empty?"
This is the whole point about these types of laws. It's not about "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" it's more like "If you have nothing to loose, then you have nothing to hide".
With which we come to the hidden kicker in this proposed bill, the unmentioned meta-data retention clauses. Has anyone noticed that?
Section 4. 1. puts the onus on a license to collect all IP address, port number, routing, endpoints, protocols, both sides of a NAT, unique device identifiers (MAC address), the time, quantity and QOS information all time stamped to UTC, and more. These are targeted at Telecommunications companies, they require a warrant, but imply that the data is to be collected.
That's probably the elephant right there, it's a much larger scope than saying - hey tell us what this says. I'm unsure if it is a 4th amnd violation 'reasonable' to have a third party record your communications endpoints, it's probably happening anyway and that could be the 'reasonable' justification. Again the duration is not mentioned and I'd suggest any service provider who offers a service that only maintains meta data for your last billing cycle may be a feature of providers worth having.
Hell, no. Any competent programmer can come up with an encryption scheme not known to the government, perhaps with vulnerabiilities which are also unknown to the government.
Nope, they have that covered too in Sec 3.A.2 the orders can be issued against people providing the software. Surely this is a 5th Amnd violation. How can you be compelled to information that may incriminate you.
The good guys (Us!) have opened our bank accounts to the script kiddies, and the bad guys will go right on using strong encryption.
No, the point here is that your metadata will be stored in unencrypted form. The same demands were made of Australians because it is wasn't mandatory to encrypt the data, however it was mentioned in the bill that it should be encrypted.
The US bill doesn't even mention encrypting citizen meta data that is being recorded. This is an obvious honeypot for organized crime and as I have constantly repeated, fraud against citizens has no impact on the state, so they have little incentive to protect you from it in their quest to know everything about you.
The government will be right back where they are now, having to hire a hacker to break that encryption.
If the bad guys have their own encryption software then there is simply no access to their communications. The demands are on providers to decode communications when they receive a judicial order and the endpoints, volume and duration when issued a warrant.
We will have given up the keys to our doors without putting a small dent in terrorism.
Not a good choice, imo.
Parallel construction is far from orthogonal to privacy. It's basically permission to violate your privacy any way they wish, pretend it didn't happen and after the fact come up with an alternate story that doesn't violate your rights. They can just read your emails, listen to your phone calls, open your letters, bug your house, attach a GPS tracker to your car and if they get caught, too bad it's inadmissable.
Exactly, thank you for pointing it out, especially considering there is no *time limit* for the monitoring of a citizen via intelligence sharing arrangements with other nation states. I have to admit that I'm still stinging a bit from being called a facist and a hater for pointing that out to people who didn't understand the issue so I hope people do develop a better understanding of what is going on when it come to the reality of their "freedom". Modern western democracies have access to more powers that made East Germany and the USSR police states and people recoil with horror when you suggest the TLAs of the world to follow an appropriate means to control their access to a citizen's meta data products because they assume their freedoms are more than what they actually are.
NEWSFLASH, we already are in a police state and all the freedoms western democracies have struggled to establish have been under attack as the TLAs struggle to find relevance after the Cold War for at least 15 years. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do their job but ffs what is the point of a democracy if it is just a name for a police state, while everyone laughs nervously at the reality and calls you a hater for doing so.
Telecommunication warrants *used* to exist and were a requirement for monitoring a citizen's communications. This is a common construct for other western democracies. The sad sad sad thing about this Act is that it is a poor substitute for the constitutional controls that already existed in many western countries that were designed to protect us from the very scenario that we find ourselves in now.
It's not just that we're on a slippery slope, we are already sliding and we don't just need to defend democracy we actually have to work pretty hard to get back *what we had*. Laws like this are good and should be celebrated, but they are not a substitute for the constitution that most nations anti-terrorism acts are violating, that make them a requirement in the first place. We shouldn't need a law that tells government departments that they should behave constitutionally, that they should respect the citizens whose duty it is for them to protect.
All of the Terrorism laws need to be brought into line with the expectations of the citizens of western democracies that the constitution of their country is the ultimate authority they are governed under. Whilst you won't find a shred of sympathy from me from human rights abusing religious fundamentalists, it's plain to see that they are being used as the excuse *every time* to take more freedom from citizens.
As a citizen of a western democracy I expect to not be spied on if I am abiding by the law.
Because encryption alone won't stop the state, who will find a way to get in somehow. Especially considering they have access to all the other data products a telecommunications device like a phone produces, without needing one.
Sorry it took a bit to reply KGlll
To your closing sentiment, I'd say, "You can't even imagine..." Except, you probably can - you might be worse than I. I got *HUGE* for a while - muscular. That didn't last. I've always been really tight and generally remained fit but I didn't *maintain* a whole lot of physical fitness. I doubt I have as much scar tissue - far less sparring, far less time in a gym, and more time with the "right" kind of exercise - sort of. That ended. ;-)
I love doing weight training, I'm constantly trying to evolve my mind, physique, so I plan on weights after the last of the scar tissue. I started at 68Kg got to 96kg(unfit after surgery), then dropped to 85kg which is my ideal fight weight. When I am there I am a weapon.
Some of our trainers were also Marine trainers for the for knife, stick and machette. Respect, but you guys smash yourselves, so maybe learning some of the healing side of martial arts would be useful. I think you should try it, it will hurt, but it's probably nothing you haven't already experienced when bulking up.
Also, yes, a tens unit.
I like the ones that have the big vacuum pump driven suction pumps with a big stainless steel contact in them -aaaaaaahhhhhh, joy!!!
The thing is, I start with the therapy and I feel pretty good. So, I'm retarded. I stop. I feel fine, why continue? I know that I should continue but I don't. I did mention that I'm retarded, yes? So, even if it's just by me demonstrating what not to do, if you're ever in doubt - stick with the therapy EVEN if you have to do it as best as possible at home or with the aid of a loved one. But keep it up.
Thank you. I don't think your experiences are any different from many, but I had to decide for myself, 'NO MORE'. I felt fine too, but I still could feel stuff. So I set myself a mission of completing *everything*.
A release event happened on the weekend. It came on exactly as I described and I captured the data. It started at 1pm and ended a 6pm, non-stop stretch, cavitation, rest. I was sweating and feeling sick, my wife saw it and was laughing and stirring me at first - but then after the third hour she saw, yeah this is real as she could see the distress on my face. That's because it's really confronting and you can feel the scar tissue collapsing, if you don't stretch it and get rid of it, the cold numb goes on. It's weird but it feels like the body takes over and I'm a passenger for a while.
That was Sunday, and I just confirmed the 25th injury. My left big toe has been twisted maybe 10-20 degrees for at least a decade. Well that untwisted, and fuuuuccckkk me did it hurt. I wanted to vomit and when it was done, I slept 12 hours. It was kind of numb for a couple of days and now I can clearly see that my toe no longer fits in the wear patterns of my shoes. I know it will hurt for a few more days however walking is easier, the joint is smoother and there is no longer a sensation to try to cavitate the joint all the time.
Be VERY aware that fat comes quick, as does atrophy.
Yeah, I was prepared for that. It's pretty uncomfortable I'm about 5kg over fight weight. I don't know how people can just pile it on - I can't stand the feeling of it just sitting there. I went back to training for a week mid treatment because I missed it so much - I injured my lower back because the body was still out of balance, however, even then I noticed my movement was much smoother, faster and I could pull holds I haven't been able to do for 20 years. That was about 10 months ago.
Listen to your body and then listen to your doctor and therapists. If they're good, they'll give you good advice and help.
They seem to be learning as well, however you are right and I do.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "sedentary period."
Intentionally *de*conditioning the body s
Well then, Chinese well water is, well, pretty un-well.
This is the problem with the whole discussion. Law enforcement should not have access to the contents of your phone without a warrant. The focus on encryption it makes the emphasis on this discussion whether or not law enforcement should be able to crack your phone instead of what business they have examining your phone without a warrant in the first place.
Would you let someone search your house without a warrant, even if they had a key? Why should your phone, which is your property, also be subject to illegal unreasonable search? Why should the data products that your phone produce that are not contained on the phone be subject to ongoing monitoring without a warrant?
Record the phone number, get a warrant and ask the telecommunications companies for the *times* of your text messages and phone calls that day. No phone access required.
A Lythe Shaver perhaps.*
*Copyright (c) 2016 MrKaos Incorporated.
You are arguing for establishing fascism slowly instead of faster. I will never get behind something as evil as that.
OK, there is a massive disconnect going on then because that is the opposite of my intention. There is no way I support fascism either. Protecting Human Rights is my number one concern.
As to them getting unfettered access, that is rather unlikely without a full, catastrophic abolishment of civil rights. The economic, political and legal ramifications would be extreme. It is one thing for an intelligence agency to have access, at high cost and effort, and quite another thing for law enforcement to have it on the cheap.
This is probably it, I see I did mention police in my OP. Damn posting tired. I am referring to TLAs accessing this data with a warrant. There is no way I would want ordinary police access to this data.
You are mistaken on both counts. The arguments why this will not and cannot work are good enough that "I am over it" does not constitute a valid counter-argument.
I've secured the largest banks in the world to ISO 17799, designed and implemented AP audits as well as designed security for some very large corporations. I have seen some people, mostly very old, be defrauded from their life saving and have their lives destroyed. One case was a man and his wife who got defrauded $800K and he wound up with 4 years jail after he retired, it was heartbreaking to see and I am over it. So I support policing and investigation into this form of fraud along with adequate power to investigate and disassemble organized crime, white collar crime and, preventing human rights violations.
I spent some time analysing the various meta-data retention acts being introduced and found it is not *mandatory* for the databases containing citizen's data to be encrypted. When writing to object to that data being collected at all, I proposed that act be modified so it is mandatory they were encrypted against illicit access. They still aren't.
I also analysed various *proposed* data sharing and consolidation acts that dictate the way inter-agency communication will work and found no warrants were required to access the data. Nor were time limits imposed. This includes activities such as, tracking citizen movements and association, their current where-abouts, extended data collection on citizens banking and transaction records, telecommunications records, contents of voicemail, sms, email, forum posts, online identities all without a warrant.
Of course that completely bypasses the constitutionality of even collecting citizen data which varies from country to country. Governments maneuver around this with intelligence sharing arrangements so whether we like it or not this data is being collected. I would prefer that it isn't.
Since they do my proposal is all departments encrypt their data and access to it is controlled by an Office of Encryption who maintains a key escrow system *of some kind* who issue revocable keys to TLAs (nothing *below* a *federal* policing level) and their agents produce a court issued warrant to access encryption between these government systems. The OoE would revoke the encryption keys when the warrant concludes and the agent would have to apply to maintain that inter-departmental access.
Far from unfettered access, I am proposing an end to unfettered access until the populous finally wakes up to the fact of how bad this 1984 style collection of data is and demands it stops.
I am not proposing back doors in encryption at all nor am I even suggesting access to peoples phones. What I am suggesting is that if government is going to collect the data footprint that people generate when they interact with society then access to that data is via a warrant. I would prefer that all data collection and monitoring end.
Please let me know if that clears things up, I hope it does, I am horrified I have given that impression and I'm not surprised people think I am being a jerk. If you have any specific criticisms, let me know and thank you for persisting civilly.
The second is the road to hell.
You certainly won't get any argument from me there.
The right way is to have an office of the judicature maintain a set of third party keys that law enforcement can request *with a warrant*.
No, that's complete and total bullshit, and you're demonstrating that you, just like apparently politicians, either don't understand the technology involved, or just don't give a damn whether it actually works or not.
You guys keep missing the point which is *A WARRANT* should be the first requirement to even access the encrypted information.
You cannot have a 'backdoor' into an encryption algorithm, not in any way, shape, or form, without rendering that algorithm completely and totally compromised. There is NO EXCEPTION to this. ANY so-called 'backdoor' can and will be exploited, sooner than anyone would think.
I know, did I say it was your encryption keys. I am not suggesting backdoors, I am suggesting that they get a warrant and adhere to due process.
Even if it wasn't somehow exploited by criminals and/or terrorists,it would inevitably be misused by the powers-that-be to violate the privacy of citizens who have neither broken any laws nor intend to break any laws.
Explain that to the telecommunication companies that have to maintain an unencrypted database of your online activities. How will you protect access to that data?
Why do you hate America so much that you would want this, then?
I don't hate America at all, Americans are my friends. I love freedom and democracy so I want you to be free. That is why I prepared to defend it not only for American but British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, French and any other CITIZENS who take the time to understand the issues. Tell me, if you love America and you pledged to protect her from enemies foreign and domestic, did you write to the president or your congressman back in 2002 and express your objection to the constitutional violations that allowed this intelligence machinery to be constructed in the first place? Did you even read the Patriot act and protest that, do you even know what unconstitutional actions it allows and how we got to a conversation that has the mere mention of TLAs accessing personal communications in the first place? None of which would be happening if you had defended your own constitution when you had a chance. What letters did you write?
Did you do anything to demonstrate that you even care for America and the idea of democracy and freedom for all peoples? No disrespect intended, but if you did, tell me what it was otherwise you are being hypocritical and have no right to pull the 'hater' card out on me, because I have defended democracy.
The keys need only be leaked once, then they are leaked forever.
Revoke the keys
With defenders like you, who needs attackers?
You're a moron, and an example of how we got into this mess. You've never participated in democracy other than to vote and you don't even know much about that.
Requiring a warrant doesn't make the system that you're describing "not a backdoor".
I am crying with frustration over your stupidity, we are fucking doomed.
No, I am not. First, a "legal frameworks" cannot fix this.
Yes you are and yes they can. They can because it is those laws that define how these organisations behave. If you weren't you would have already written to your president and demand that the wartime powers granted to Bush and Obama after 911 be wound back because they were countersigned by Bush's lawyer instead of the Attorney General. You would demand that these agencies behave constitutionally. Intelligence agencies are ignoring the constitution because you didn't defend your constitution at the right moment. If you're so smart how do you propose to fix that? What's your idea?
You people talk about how dumb Bush is, but he played every single American citizen. Cunning doesn't have to be smart, just smarter than the masses.
Or have you forgotten that hacking is already illegal?
Not if you have investigatory powers under existing law. You have not considered how that stops all the TLAs from monitoring your GPS position in real time, reading your email, your voice mail, what relationships you maintain, when and where you see them, gisting live phone calls, text messages, any forums you visit, including this one - UNDER EXISTING LAW WITHOUT A WARRANT.
And second, have you actually bothered to find out what the actual experts (and basically _all_ of them) are saying?
I have done enough work in that area to be over it. I'm not suggesting the technology is perfect or even exists. What I am saying is that if you do not define a *legal* mechanism for policing to do their work they will continue to lobby for unfettered access to everyone's communication. Based on their record of success so far, they will get their way.
Looks like you have not, because what you say is clueless bullshit.
Alternatively, you haven't read the various anti-terrorism acts that have been put in place and are speaking from a place of ignorance of those matters. Additionally I would say you have not read the proposed Bills that will connect all of these agencies so all of them can access everything about you without a warrant. This is the impending police state nightmare that is coming *before* we start talking about encryption, which won't protect you. So before you start calling bullshit on me I suggest you get your head around the way these laws work because yes, I have significant expertise in the technological areas, enough to research it's relationship to law.
BTW notice that I have remained polite to you, it's because we're on the same fucking side. Your vitriol is misdirected.
That's you, being "on the record" as advocating they COMPLETELY fuck it up.
Intelligence agencies are going to suck up every bit of intelligence they can until they are forced to comply with a process to get it. Doesn't the fact that they are ignoring the constitution tell you where things are right now?
The Clipper Chip.
DIDN'T REQUIRE A WARRANT
Know your history. Poking a hole in everyone's locks does NOT make anyone safer. As those holes will most assuredly be compromised, your reducing the security of a lot of people and giving out sensitive information to hackers and terrorists.
FFS, they don't need a warrant now.I AM NOT ARGUING FOR BACKDOORS, I AM ARGUING FOR THE USE OF A WARRANT - THAT IS THE POINT jeeez
You have advocated people no longer having the right to hard encryption, but instead only having access to SHIT encryption full of mandated holes.
No I'm not. I am arguing for a means to control these agencies accessing the data in the first place, encrypted or not. I know it is counter intuitive and my bad for thinking that people had the capacity for holding two ideas in their heads at once, that legally recognising that encryption as a means of free speech instead of...
But please, enlighten me. How does the US government control my access to GPG?
a controllable munition, where they simply control distribution. That won't stop you from using it, but it only be useable to a few (as great as it is). Tell me how PGP will protect your voicemail and GPS position that tracks your position constantly when there are no authorizations needed to collect it?
And if you recall, the source code for PGP is protected under copyright law and the first amendment as it was published in book form so as to specifically flip the finger to anyone trying to control access to it.
Right, so how do you encrypt a call to someone who does not know how to use encryption when it is illegal to teach them how to use it?
It's a handy dandy little tool that I can go get and verify and use to my hearts content. Legally.The one looking like a cunt here is you.
How does that help people who don't know how to compile software. Are you thinking of anyone else except yourself?
No. He is arguing that you can't have a backdoor without weakening security overall.
I am not arguing for a back door.
And the agencies already have more information than they could handle. They need to learn to work with their already collected data. They shouldn't even bother with after the fact information gathering.
Agree, imagine if they had to go through a warrant process to collect it at all, they would not collect it.
You might want to read up on the clipper chip and similar desastrous implementations of the past which are the main culprit why we had so many trouble with SSL so far. The solution is to crank up security and get the damn agencies to work instead of dreaming of the land where information flows to them like honey. The attacks on privacy will never stop as it is the easy way out for all information gatherer, governments (friendly and not so friendly) and everyone else.
I did, thank you. I'd suggest that you all have a read of your own Patriot act and understand how you email, sms, voicemail messages can be intercepted under that Act without a warrant whereas it was a requirement before. Powers of these kinds cross multiple bills.
Your mistake is expecting the government to have third-party keys, and not abuse them.
Various levels of government have already shown they abhor the minor inconvenience of requesting a warrant.
Good, then make it a major inconvenience. Should put a sizeable dent in what is going on now.
A 21st century Clipper chip is not happening.
The Clipper Chip did not require a warrant for access to the communications. I think that is the point many people are missing. I don't want communications to be accessed without a warrant as opposed to having access to telecommunications without one.
"I doubt you have spent as much time as I have defending civil rights of people such as yourself, " Your posting as an AC and you expect us to believe you do anything of the sort. Get a fucking life. And I really doubt you have done more then many of us here. Plus the fact you are defending giving the government backdoor access to the modern day equivalent of our "papers and effects" shows just how much you really care about our constitutionally protected rights.
No, I posted as AC by mistake because I'm tired. Those are my words. I am not defending backdoor access to encryption.
(this is not directed at you Holi - I'm done with ACs for now) If everyone here wants to fix this problem and have unfettered free speech protected by unbreakable encryption without any monitoring then go back to George.WartimePresident's letters of authorizations for emergency powers to pass acts like the TSA and wind that back. In a showing of how bi-partisan this approach is Obama didn't repeal those powers either. Restore due process of law.
Can anyone else here can say they wrote to government protesting the power that enabled this whole security theatre back in 2002 when you could have nipped it in the bud and not made a mockery of your constitution. I did.
Did anyone else here stay awake all night trying to reword law and give politician recommendations that changed wordings so that children younger than 14 would not be subject to body cavity searches under these laws. I did.
Here is the uncomfortable truth for all the anonymous trolls that have been harassing me. You wouldn't have your government poking around in your affairs *at all* if you had gotten of your lazy apathetic asses and defended the fundamental democratic rights after 911. If you all had you wouldn't have the NSA poking around your affairs in the way the *can* today. You didn't defend your democracy and now big portions of it are gone.
I've read a good portion of these bills which amount to a few thousand pages, I gave you your best way out of the consequences of your inactions and now I'm being called the oppressor - thanks a fuking lot.
Go ahead, attack the person defending your rights, enjoy your police state.
How does making an even bigger hole in the technical solution in the form of third party keys make it any better?
I'm not saying make a hole, I'm saying build a proper legal framework. Telecommunication Intercepts *had* a warrant process attached to them *already*, now law enforcement *does not need a warrant* to intercept your communications, already.
A warrant process *forces* law enforcement *back* into a state where they have to get a warrant to access encrypted communications.
It's not like these institutions never break the law and perform illegal monitoring or anything.
That's exactly the type of behaviour this kind of law would protect people from. Any evidence captured without a warrant would not be admissible. Attempts at spying on people would also have to go through the same process that defines if it is legal to collect that information.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive but try to keep two concepts in your head because it is not a simple solution, nor is it an ideal one, but the alternative is much worse where they have unrestricted access to all of your communications.
Like it or not, these laws are coming. We either have a solution that protects civil rights or we do not.
I only need anonymymity because I'm lazy.
No you don't you need it because you're a chicken shit. You won't stand up and be counted because you are a coward. No hope for you.
But seriously, you are a fucktard.
oww, such savage wit. I half sleep with boredom.
God.
spat you out because you're disgusting.
People like you should me marked and recorded by the very tools of oppression you use when the revolution comes.
I already am on the record for defending your rights for *access* to encryption technology and the last thing I want is anybody oppressed. The state does not care if you are defrauded, that is a policing matter, there is no impact on the state if your life is destroyed. That is the main reason to use encryption. The second is to defend against state based terrorism. We should all be free and if we don't define the lawful way that law enforcement accesses this technology they will persist in efforts to control the way we can use it until they do.
If you had read and understood the law you would understand that most western countries *already* have means in which to control access to encryption. If you understood this you wouldn't be critcizing me, you would realize I am trying to ensure you have access to it. Don't underestimate the government's ability to make stupid knee jerk decisions.
When the revolution comes you'll be inside watching it on TV, vicariously avoiding any involvement. Perhaps it may be more appropriate to record apathetic assholes like you who become the tools of oppression because you're too lazy to do anything whilst standing on a platform of moral superiority and criticizing those who do.
Stop being a cunt.
I literally have a letter on my desk explaining that the government allowed my personal information which was entrusted to them to leak.
At least they disclosed that they fucked up - still very bad.
Before that, I received a mailed copy of tax filings with the cover letter indicating that I had requested them. I hadn't, and when I called the IRS office that sent it, they neither had any evidence of who had made the request, nor even any record that a copy had been sent out.
Don't attribute malice to incompetence.
And you expect me to trust them with maintaining confidentiality of encryption keys?
No, I'm expecting a legal framework that forces law enforcement to observe proper procedures so they can do their job and still protect freedom. If we were talking about trust we would not be talking about encryption at all.
(We already know what kind of idiot you are)
The kind who defends your right to anonymity and stays up most of the night trawling through legislation and writing letter to politicians.
What kind of idiot do you think I am?
The kind of idiot who criticizes someone for defending your right to anonymity and makes them wonder why they do it.