5 ms·

> I don't think that federal intelligence and law enforcement officials calling for backdoors have fully thought through the consequences I think assuming that

> I don't think that federal intelligence and law enforcement officials calling for backdoors have fully thought through the consequences I think assuming that level of incompetence is a big claim. It's simply much more likely that the actual plans/goals and the talking points and press releases about the plans/goals are mostly unrelated, as usual. You can infer that those calling for backdoors have decided that calling for backdoors is the best thing to say, inferring anything more requires more information.

TillE 11y ago
> I think assuming that level of incompetence is a big claim. Not really. Have you listened to the average member of Congress lately? Incompetence runs deep throughout all levels of government.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  I think largely politicians are very intelligent and competent. What they're not though, is open about their own thoughts. That's not their job. Their job is to reflect what their supporters (financially and votingly) want. If their supporters have wild nonsense ideas, they have to promote those ideas to keep their job. That's why they were elected. We don't choose politicians because they're smart and have good ideas. We choose them because they tell us our own foolish ideas back to us.
  - jbooth 11y ago
    The best salesman is someone who believes in the product. I'm willing to take them at their word.
  - odbol_ 11y ago
    They key point here though is that their "supporters" are NOT the American public. They are private corporations and banks with their own agendas, usually contrary to the public's well being.
snowwrestler 11y ago
It's not fair to say incompetent; I didn't say that. Instead, look at it this way: everyone has their area of responsibility. The head of the CIA is charged with providing the best possible situational awareness for the U.S. government. He's going to make proposals and requests that will help him do that. He's not charged with balancing all possible consequences from his requests, and he's not going to do so.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  > He's not charged with balancing all possible consequences from his requests, and he's not going to do so. But ... that seems like quite a level of incompetence for someone trusted with the position of Head of the CIA? By which I mean, not charging him with that responsibility is a mistake (in gov structure), but him actually not doing so is his own incompetence, is it not?
tripzilch 11y ago
> You can infer that those calling for backdoors have decided that calling for backdoors is the best thing to say, inferring anything more requires more information. How is calling for a really bad idea because it's the best thing to say different from the level of incompetence you say is too big to assume?
- hamburglar 11y ago
  It sounds like the implication is that the politicians are smart enough to know that the backdoors are ultimately not going to happen but that calling for them is a way to appease voters who haven't followed this through to its logical conclusion. edit: "not going to happen" could be read as "not going to be effective." I wouldn't actually be surprised if the US ended up passing some law restricting crypto to an approved list of backdoored schemes (surprised: no, dismayed: yes), forcing people into hiding their crypto in deniable ways. What some people don't seem to grasp is that no matter how much you outlaw certain math operations, whether or not the end users comply with those laws is ultimately up to them, and the terrorists simply won't comply.
dawnbreez 11y ago
I think assuming that level of _competence_, at least in fields other than diplomacy and public speaking, is a big claim. It's not reasonable to assume that every single ancient senator that's pushing for this is fully aware of the consequences, but it is reasonable to think they simply haven't thought any further than "I need to make it look like I'm doing something, or I'll look bad". To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man who only has words, everything looks like a soapbox.

TillE 11y ago

> I think assuming that level of incompetence is a big claim. Not really. Have you listened to the average member of Congress lately? Incompetence runs deep throughout all levels of government.

Asbostos 11y ago
I think largely politicians are very intelligent and competent. What they're not though, is open about their own thoughts. That's not their job. Their job is to reflect what their supporters (financially and votingly) want. If their supporters have wild nonsense ideas, they have to promote those ideas to keep their job. That's why they were elected. We don't choose politicians because they're smart and have good ideas. We choose them because they tell us our own foolish ideas back to us.
- jbooth 11y ago
  The best salesman is someone who believes in the product. I'm willing to take them at their word.
- odbol_ 11y ago
  They key point here though is that their "supporters" are NOT the American public. They are private corporations and banks with their own agendas, usually contrary to the public's well being.

snowwrestler 11y ago

It's not fair to say incompetent; I didn't say that. Instead, look at it this way: everyone has their area of responsibility. The head of the CIA is charged with providing the best possible situational awareness for the U.S. government. He's going to make proposals and requests that will help him do that. He's not charged with balancing all possible consequences from his requests, and he's not going to do so.

tripzilch 11y ago
> He's not charged with balancing all possible consequences from his requests, and he's not going to do so. But ... that seems like quite a level of incompetence for someone trusted with the position of Head of the CIA? By which I mean, not charging him with that responsibility is a mistake (in gov structure), but him actually not doing so is his own incompetence, is it not?

tripzilch 11y ago

> You can infer that those calling for backdoors have decided that calling for backdoors is the best thing to say, inferring anything more requires more information. How is calling for a really bad idea because it's the best thing to say different from the level of incompetence you say is too big to assume?

hamburglar 11y ago
It sounds like the implication is that the politicians are smart enough to know that the backdoors are ultimately not going to happen but that calling for them is a way to appease voters who haven't followed this through to its logical conclusion. edit: "not going to happen" could be read as "not going to be effective." I wouldn't actually be surprised if the US ended up passing some law restricting crypto to an approved list of backdoored schemes (surprised: no, dismayed: yes), forcing people into hiding their crypto in deniable ways. What some people don't seem to grasp is that no matter how much you outlaw certain math operations, whether or not the end users comply with those laws is ultimately up to them, and the terrorists simply won't comply.

dawnbreez 11y ago

I think assuming that level of _competence_, at least in fields other than diplomacy and public speaking, is a big claim. It's not reasonable to assume that every single ancient senator that's pushing for this is fully aware of the consequences, but it is reasonable to think they simply haven't thought any further than "I need to make it look like I'm doing something, or I'll look bad". To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man who only has words, everything looks like a soapbox.