4 ms·

NYT should be ashamed for publishing such claptrap. Police and "justice" authorities should be ashamed of their tacit admission that they are too incompetent t

by bcg1 11y ago

NYT should be ashamed for publishing such claptrap. Police and "justice" authorities should be ashamed of their tacit admission that they are too incompetent to do their jobs without trampling on peoples' civil rights and/or neutering technology. And I should be ashamed of myself for falling for the psy-op and believing that there aren't actually backdoors built into these systems and for forgetting that this could very likely be propaganda to make me think that all I need to do to protect my privacy is buy the latest device and/or make sure I always install the latest updates.

bowlofstew 11y ago
Agreed, FUD post there. There is no mention of them trying to track down the phones to the original owners, etc.
ikeboy 11y ago
>NYT should be ashamed for publishing such claptrap. Would you rather they only print things you agree with? Would rejecting op-eds by some general rule sufficient to exclude this one improve things? I think I'd rather live in a world in which both sides of every issue get to have their say than in which the losing side is excluded if they're sufficiently "bad". Edit: that last part isn't quite my position, poorly worded; I'm fine with excluding e.g. neo-nazis and the like, my problem is when "sufficiently bad" includes things like arguing for less encryption.
- commentzorro 11y ago
  > Would you rather they only print things you agree with? No, I just don't want them printing things that are wrong ;-)
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    If there are factual inaccuracies, they should have an editor's note or something correcting that. (I expect they fact check op-eds as well and won't print one with outright falsehoods).
- Xorlev 11y ago
  Agreed. Doesn't make it any less crap, but it's good to see the opinion of the other side. I can sympathize with the position, even if I disagree. Investigations are hard enough to conduct as it is without having a potential treasure trove of information locked away. iMessage logs between users must be fairly hard to get. In yesteryear you could rely on SMS transcripts from the carriers.
- probablyfiction 11y ago
  > I think I'd rather live in a world in which both sides of every issue get to have their say than in which the losing side is excluded if they're sufficiently "bad". The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions. Global warming is a prime example of this. Virtually every scientist who is familiar with the data is convinced that global warming is happening right now and that drastic action is needed in order to stave off catastrophe. Only a tiny minority disagree. For decades, people on both sides of the issue have been interviewed as though this is something that is genuinely controversial when the truth of the matter is that scientific consensus exists that global warming is real and is happening right now. Full-disk encryption is one of the best ways to protect users from having their privacy invaded. Cell phones contain a wealth of personal information and can be the starting point for identity theft. The benefit to consumers...the vast majority of whom are lawful...outweighs the risk that law enforcement will be locked out of collecting potentially useful information in the course of an investigation. To say that full-disk encryption stymies the finest law enforcement minds in the world is ridiculous. There are other ways to collect information. They can serve the cell phone company with a warrant in order to get calling records and text messages. If they can find the e-mail address associated with the user's device, they can serve Google & Apple with a warrant to access GPS data and e-mail correspondence. I understand that it's a blow to law enforcement to have something like cell phones be suddenly off limits, but technology always enables people to commit crime in new ways. Eventually, the police always catch up.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I didn't say equal time. If most experts in a field think X, then if you get 20 op-eds from random members of the field, you should get most supporting X. This can be confounded by one side being more vocal than the other, but the problem isn't that both sides are allowed to speak. Let's say you're right, what decision rule do you propose for the NYT editors to decide when to exclude an opinion?
  - dTal 11y ago
    >The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions And here's the comedy sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ
- joesmo 11y ago
  I'd rather they hire a qualified person who understands the issue to prevent any side, including the side I don't agree with. They failed at that miserably in this case and the previous poster was right: they should be ashamed of publishing this garbage. More like shit, really.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    They generally do that as well, but not in their op-ed pages. Let me look: yeah http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us-and-british-government-access-to-encrypted-communication.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialist... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urge-obama-to-reject-policies-that-weaken-encryption-technology.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urg... The problem with doing just that is that you run the risk of misinterpreting or subconsciously strawmanning the opposition. That's what op-eds prevent; they're an unfiltered statement of a view. If everything runs through a rewriter, the reader misses whatever arguments the rewriter feels are too weak to be included.
    - joesmo 11y ago
      So you're defending their practice of using ill-informed opinions made by people who don't understand the facts? I'm sorry, but that is not too much to ask of a publication. I'm not talking about getting an expert, simply someone that understands the basics of encryption. Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles. It's like me writing an article about giving birth. I don't understand it because I'm not a woman. He doesn't understand encryption because he refuses to, didn't try, or is too stupid. Let's not pretend that stupidity rules the world when malice is a much more likely explanation.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        I just went through the article again slowly. I can't find anything that would support your conclusion of "Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles." If you see a specific factual mistake in that article, point it out.
- bcg1 11y ago
  I agree with what you are saying but this piece is of little value. It is a poorly written appeal to emotion in the form of a vague anecdote devoid of logical arguments, and frankly is an insult to the intelligence of the readers of the publication. It should not have been rejected by some general rule, it should have been rejected on its merits.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >in the form of a vague anecdote devoid of logical arguments "Between October and June, 74 iPhones running the iOS 8 operating system could not be accessed by investigators for the Manhattan district attorney’s office — despite judicial warrants to search the devices." is a bit more than an anecdote.
jayess 11y ago
The NYT has long been an apologist for the police state.
tootie 11y ago
"trampling on peoples' civil rights" Now who's posting claptrap? The judge issued a warrant with perfectly valid cause. He could have (and likely did) issue warrants to search their homes, cars, offices or even conduct autopsies. But heaven forbid they see your Instagram. Due process was not violated.
fweespeech 11y ago
The NYT is allowed to publish propaganda like anyone else and they shouldn't be "ashamed" for doing so. Every side has a right to publish their opinion. That said, it is pretty clear from the disclaimers, this is in fact propaganda and should be given as much weight as such [i.e. none]

by bcg1 11y ago

bowlofstew 11y ago

Agreed, FUD post there. There is no mention of them trying to track down the phones to the original owners, etc.

ikeboy 11y ago

>NYT should be ashamed for publishing such claptrap. Would you rather they only print things you agree with? Would rejecting op-eds by some general rule sufficient to exclude this one improve things? I think I'd rather live in a world in which both sides of every issue get to have their say than in which the losing side is excluded if they're sufficiently "bad". Edit: that last part isn't quite my position, poorly worded; I'm fine with excluding e.g. neo-nazis and the like, my problem is when "sufficiently bad" includes things like arguing for less encryption.

commentzorro 11y ago
> Would you rather they only print things you agree with? No, I just don't want them printing things that are wrong ;-)
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If there are factual inaccuracies, they should have an editor's note or something correcting that. (I expect they fact check op-eds as well and won't print one with outright falsehoods).
Xorlev 11y ago
Agreed. Doesn't make it any less crap, but it's good to see the opinion of the other side. I can sympathize with the position, even if I disagree. Investigations are hard enough to conduct as it is without having a potential treasure trove of information locked away. iMessage logs between users must be fairly hard to get. In yesteryear you could rely on SMS transcripts from the carriers.
probablyfiction 11y ago
> I think I'd rather live in a world in which both sides of every issue get to have their say than in which the losing side is excluded if they're sufficiently "bad". The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions. Global warming is a prime example of this. Virtually every scientist who is familiar with the data is convinced that global warming is happening right now and that drastic action is needed in order to stave off catastrophe. Only a tiny minority disagree. For decades, people on both sides of the issue have been interviewed as though this is something that is genuinely controversial when the truth of the matter is that scientific consensus exists that global warming is real and is happening right now. Full-disk encryption is one of the best ways to protect users from having their privacy invaded. Cell phones contain a wealth of personal information and can be the starting point for identity theft. The benefit to consumers...the vast majority of whom are lawful...outweighs the risk that law enforcement will be locked out of collecting potentially useful information in the course of an investigation. To say that full-disk encryption stymies the finest law enforcement minds in the world is ridiculous. There are other ways to collect information. They can serve the cell phone company with a warrant in order to get calling records and text messages. If they can find the e-mail address associated with the user's device, they can serve Google & Apple with a warrant to access GPS data and e-mail correspondence. I understand that it's a blow to law enforcement to have something like cell phones be suddenly off limits, but technology always enables people to commit crime in new ways. Eventually, the police always catch up.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I didn't say equal time. If most experts in a field think X, then if you get 20 op-eds from random members of the field, you should get most supporting X. This can be confounded by one side being more vocal than the other, but the problem isn't that both sides are allowed to speak. Let's say you're right, what decision rule do you propose for the NYT editors to decide when to exclude an opinion?
- dTal 11y ago
  >The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions And here's the comedy sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ
joesmo 11y ago
I'd rather they hire a qualified person who understands the issue to prevent any side, including the side I don't agree with. They failed at that miserably in this case and the previous poster was right: they should be ashamed of publishing this garbage. More like shit, really.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  They generally do that as well, but not in their op-ed pages. Let me look: yeah http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us-and-british-government-access-to-encrypted-communication.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialist... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urge-obama-to-reject-policies-that-weaken-encryption-technology.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urg... The problem with doing just that is that you run the risk of misinterpreting or subconsciously strawmanning the opposition. That's what op-eds prevent; they're an unfiltered statement of a view. If everything runs through a rewriter, the reader misses whatever arguments the rewriter feels are too weak to be included.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    So you're defending their practice of using ill-informed opinions made by people who don't understand the facts? I'm sorry, but that is not too much to ask of a publication. I'm not talking about getting an expert, simply someone that understands the basics of encryption. Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles. It's like me writing an article about giving birth. I don't understand it because I'm not a woman. He doesn't understand encryption because he refuses to, didn't try, or is too stupid. Let's not pretend that stupidity rules the world when malice is a much more likely explanation.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      I just went through the article again slowly. I can't find anything that would support your conclusion of "Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles." If you see a specific factual mistake in that article, point it out.
bcg1 11y ago
I agree with what you are saying but this piece is of little value. It is a poorly written appeal to emotion in the form of a vague anecdote devoid of logical arguments, and frankly is an insult to the intelligence of the readers of the publication. It should not have been rejected by some general rule, it should have been rejected on its merits.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >in the form of a vague anecdote devoid of logical arguments "Between October and June, 74 iPhones running the iOS 8 operating system could not be accessed by investigators for the Manhattan district attorney’s office — despite judicial warrants to search the devices." is a bit more than an anecdote.

jayess 11y ago

The NYT has long been an apologist for the police state.

tootie 11y ago

"trampling on peoples' civil rights" Now who's posting claptrap? The judge issued a warrant with perfectly valid cause. He could have (and likely did) issue warrants to search their homes, cars, offices or even conduct autopsies. But heaven forbid they see your Instagram. Due process was not violated.

fweespeech 11y ago

The NYT is allowed to publish propaganda like anyone else and they shouldn't be "ashamed" for doing so. Every side has a right to publish their opinion. That said, it is pretty clear from the disclaimers, this is in fact propaganda and should be given as much weight as such [i.e. none]