5 ms·
>The Justice Department and FBI insist the encryption debate is critical to national security, and they’re right. The problem is that—amid another terror attack
by rz2k 11y ago
>The Justice Department and FBI insist the encryption debate is critical to national security, and they’re right. The problem is that—amid another terror attack in the West—they continue to supply more reasons to doubt their credibility and even basic competence.
Which way is this about to go? Does this justify more funding and more legal power?
>Instead, Justice rushed to legal war with dubious theories. As it escalated its rhetoric, it even threatened to confiscate Apple’s source code and electronic signature: “The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.”
>Even Justice concedes that the source code and signature are the “keys to the kingdom,” that, if stolen, would let hackers and spies enter millions of devices world-wide. So the same pros who can’t defend Office of Personnel Management records should get custody of Silicon Valley’s most dangerous intellectual property.
Ideally, the signature is far more dangerous to security than the source code, but anyway it is reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid regardless of consensus opinion among experts in the relevant fields.
- woodman 11y ago> ...but anyway it is reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid regardless of consensus opinion among experts in the relevant fields. What are you trying to say here? Arguing for compromise in the intentionally weakening of cryptographically secured systems is like arguing for compromise in how much rat poison people should be forced to eat.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- girvo 11y ago> reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid I'm not passing judgement on this particular case; but that's a complete fallacy. "All sides" of every given debate are _not_ equally valid in all cases, and in certain cases it is disingenuous to imply that they are. > regardless of consensus opinion among experts in the relevant fields I can't understand this opinion? Could you clarify what you mean, because from what I'm reading, it seems you're implying that someone who is uneducated in a given topic's "side" in a debate is as equally valid as someone who is? That seems incorrect to me on the face of it, but I'd love some clarification, because it's likely I've missed some nuance here
- rz2k 11y agoI wasn't clear. Instead: >reassuring to see more writing that refuses to see all sides of every debate as equally valid Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I don't think there are many, if any, industry experts who believe that a policy mandating weaker encryption wouldn't cause far, far more harm than good. And yet, it seems like most of the time we see these trainwrecks proceed, with coverage portraying both sides as equally valid and advocates for both as acting in good faith.
- girvo 11y ago> Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I completely agree, and thanks so much for clarifying; I hope I didn't come across as snarky!
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago> it seems you're implying that someone who is uneducated in a given topic's "side" in a debate is as equally valid as someone who is? That seems incorrect to me on the face of it That's a pretty good argument against democracy.
- jakub_h 11y ago> That's a pretty good argument against democracy. If you pardon a certain amount of sarcasm, it may seem like one to uneducated people. But I don't think democracy should be equated to dictatorship of optimality. Likewise, personal freedoms are also not about only being allowed to do those things that have the best outcomes.
- 11y ago