4 ms·

The title is a lie. Either Tech companies are required to install backdoors or the administration will incentivise private companies to create such backdoors.

by meric 11y ago

The title is a lie. Either Tech companies are required to install backdoors or the administration will incentivise private companies to create such backdoors. In the best case scenario, it's up the management of the company to refuse to create such backdoors. There's no America's choice here. "Baker said today that it’s important to balance all the different concerns. " This is bad phrasing. Do we decide if it's important to balance all different concerns between a robber and a victim? Police to Robber: "Don't take everything. You only need $200, so take only $100 as a compromise and leave the wallet."

nickff 11y ago
I can imagine an FBI official going to a tech or communications company and saying "either give us access to your users' data, or we will spend our time looking very closely at you". This is especially likely and frightening given the (recent) Yates memo.[1] [1] http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download
- meric 11y ago
  Yes, and in this scenario, the best we can hope for, is a defiant management saying "go ahead, look very closely at us", and publish the communications sent by the FBI in a press release. I can see it's possible something like that will happen but the company would be in serious trouble soon after.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  I don't really get the objections to the Yates memo.. People were outraged that nobody went to jail post-GFC, now the FBI puts together a framework to ensure jailtime for criminals and people are outraged that they're going to cooperate with the businesses to get convictions?
rayiner 11y ago
The difference is that a robber has no legitimate claim to money, while government exists partly (according to some primarily) to provide security from internal and external threats. In fact, the Constitution enshrines that balancing between security and privacy in the 4th amendment. Not all searches are prohibited, only "unreasonable ones." The government has the power to search, without restriction, provided it exercises that power through the check of getting a warrant.
- meric 11y ago
  Agreed, and I am pointing out the bad phrasing. Just because there's different concerns by different people does not automatically imply it's important to balance them. Perhaps they should be weighted to more to one side and less to the other, which is usually the case. Is it more important for citizens to have a modicum of privacy or is it more important for authorities to have pervasive surveillance?
- nickff 11y ago
  I suppose that this is one of the rare cases where I must disagree with you. The constitution presupposed a very limited and disciplined Federal Government. The Federal Government which now exists is a wide-ranging administrative state that ignores the 10th Amendment, does not limit itself to enumerated powers, and employs discretionary enforcement of almost all of its regulations and many criminal laws. We should also remember that 3rd party doctrine was much less powerful in the era before the internet, and I cannot imagine that the founders would have endorsed it. In the face of this situation, it seems that no citizen would be foolish enough to ignore or deny even a request from any agent of the Federal Government.
  - Retric 11y ago
    The federal government has a lot of odd rules, but it mostly sticks to them. "4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal? First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant." Personally I would not have come up with that rule, but they follow it.

by meric 11y ago

nickff 11y ago

I can imagine an FBI official going to a tech or communications company and saying "either give us access to your users' data, or we will spend our time looking very closely at you". This is especially likely and frightening given the (recent) Yates memo.[1] [1] http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download

meric 11y ago
Yes, and in this scenario, the best we can hope for, is a defiant management saying "go ahead, look very closely at us", and publish the communications sent by the FBI in a press release. I can see it's possible something like that will happen but the company would be in serious trouble soon after.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mikeyouse 11y ago
I don't really get the objections to the Yates memo.. People were outraged that nobody went to jail post-GFC, now the FBI puts together a framework to ensure jailtime for criminals and people are outraged that they're going to cooperate with the businesses to get convictions?

rayiner 11y ago

The difference is that a robber has no legitimate claim to money, while government exists partly (according to some primarily) to provide security from internal and external threats. In fact, the Constitution enshrines that balancing between security and privacy in the 4th amendment. Not all searches are prohibited, only "unreasonable ones." The government has the power to search, without restriction, provided it exercises that power through the check of getting a warrant.

meric 11y ago
Agreed, and I am pointing out the bad phrasing. Just because there's different concerns by different people does not automatically imply it's important to balance them. Perhaps they should be weighted to more to one side and less to the other, which is usually the case. Is it more important for citizens to have a modicum of privacy or is it more important for authorities to have pervasive surveillance?
nickff 11y ago
I suppose that this is one of the rare cases where I must disagree with you. The constitution presupposed a very limited and disciplined Federal Government. The Federal Government which now exists is a wide-ranging administrative state that ignores the 10th Amendment, does not limit itself to enumerated powers, and employs discretionary enforcement of almost all of its regulations and many criminal laws. We should also remember that 3rd party doctrine was much less powerful in the era before the internet, and I cannot imagine that the founders would have endorsed it. In the face of this situation, it seems that no citizen would be foolish enough to ignore or deny even a request from any agent of the Federal Government.
- Retric 11y ago
  The federal government has a lot of odd rules, but it mostly sticks to them. "4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal? First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant." Personally I would not have come up with that rule, but they follow it.