8 ms·

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prev

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Government is not as stupid as we'd like to think. Government doesn't believe that "terrorists" will stop using encryption. These laws are not for "terrorists". They're for us. Take away somebody's ability to keep secrets, and you've gained a pretty good advantage over their position[1]. This is about only one thing: leverage; and leverage is power. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine#Breaking_Enigma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine#Breaking_Enigma

studentrob 11y ago
> We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained. > The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Personally I think the people who support this kind of law are the same ones who believe they have nothing to hide from the government. So the privacy argument is lost on them. When you point out the law is harmful to their security and impossible to enforce, then there's a chance you'll be able to convince them. This is a great opportunity for technologists to chat up their friends and family, start campaigns, or perhaps even run for office. This issue is an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the facts.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  > privacy argument is lost on them The point I'm making is that I don't think it's lost at all. I think these people didn't all get to be in positions of power by being bumbling idiots. They know that they can convince some portion of the masses that they are in danger and need help. And that's all it takes to get a leg up on everyone; a portion of the masses.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Okay, agree to disagree. I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields. As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law. We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers are simple which others don't understand. That is why we get paid.
    - mangeletti 11y ago
      We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1]. It isn't a massive conspiracy. I wouldn't say Feinstein is well-informed. Watch some of the hearings where she interacts with other members. It's awkward and clear they don't enjoy working with her. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s
        mangeletti 11y ago
        Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"? It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion. The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists".
        studentrob 11y ago
        > Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"? It doesn't. You were saying some government officials are saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true: >> We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues. That implies some sort of secret plot that would harm the integrity of our government and country. > It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion. I agree entirely. > The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists". Nobody said this. Claiming that there is a concerted effort by officials to lie, however, is accusing them of conspiracy. This vibe of distrust hurts the ability of technologists to come together and be as effective as they're capable of being within government. Ultimately, society and its elected government is formed around trust. You have to believe that most of the people who enter into elected positions did so with the aim of improving our society before you can be effective within it yourself.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  > the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Better: this law would effectively grant criminals infinitely more protection than law-abiding citizens.
Aelinsaar 11y ago
You have to love this, especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Meanwhile, losing their ability to keep a secret from the government they think they're getting ready to revolt against doesn't faze them. grips forehead and moans
- privong 11y ago
  > especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Senator Feinstein, who co-released this draft bill, is also the senator who introduced the assault weapons ban which was law from 1994 to 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_positions_and_votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_pos... On the opposite side of things, Senator Paul opposes gun control but supports strong encryption. https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/issues/second-amendment https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/issues/second-amendme... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/rand-paul-supports-google-apple-encryption-at-sxsw http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/rand-paul-sup...
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.
    - privong 11y ago
      > Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious. It depends what is meant by "assault weapon". If you mean fully automatic weapons, then no, but those were essentially banned (with minor exceptions) for private ownership in 1986[0]. Ownership of those had been regulated since 1934[1]. The 1994–2004 "assault weapons" ban covered specific features[2] on guns. Since 2004, purchase of guns with (2 or more of) those features is once again legal. Note that some opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban claim many of the features are cosmetic, rather than functional. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Cr...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jmedwards 11y ago
> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Is that you, Bush Jnr?
jmedwards 11y ago
> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Is that you, Bush Jnr?
mc32 11y ago
While it's convenient to paint this as "the government," many people, the ones who elect most officials, are also of the opinion that if authorized (by some manner) that encrypted data should be made available in plaintext. For the common people this comes in the form "I believe my dead relative's phone has information which will expose their killer, I want the carrier or manufacturer to make that data available, it's legally my phone, not Apple's or Samsung's, I want that data." You may disagree with a perhaps naive perspective like that, but that interpretation does not make it any less real. There are plenty of common folk who would agree in the above scenario data in plain text should be made available upon lawful request by either carrier or mfg. That's not "the government" and to think so kind of misses the mark.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Yes, exactly, it's the same thinking that lets the government search people's houses when authorized, or detail and question them when authorized. We already have this concept of "the government can go through your stuff" in the form of search warrants. It's not a leap at all to apply that to encryption, too, even if some specific law gets it wrong at first. I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around when these laws were first being put to parchment, there'd have been something in there about encryption from the start.
  - WhoBeI 11y ago
    This is not the same thing. The problem is that your government wants to break all forms of encryption regardless of where or how they are used. Either they want something like a skeleton key or a method of bypassing the security altogether. So they're not requesting a search warrant. They are requiring that you hand over the keys to your home or install a special door for them that is always kept unlocked.
  - zipwitch 11y ago
    >I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around They were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk
- 11y ago
gopher2 11y ago
> These laws are not for "terrorists". They're for us. Yes. This is a great way of saying this.
rayiner 11y ago
> Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity. We can debate about what the law should be, but for the last several hundred years, the law has not really contemplated people keeping secrets from the Government. "Privacy" as it has been understood to date means protection from the government fishing for evidence without probable cause, not an absolute right to keep secrets. Pervasive, unbreakable encryption is a game-changer that requires rethinking the existing framework. We're not just talking about not being able to get data from a terrorist's phone. We're talking about the bread-and-butter of many sorts of criminal prosecutions being opaque to the government. Good luck convicting someone on insider trading when all the relevant communications are opaque to the government. I happen to think that the benefits of encryption outweigh the challenges to law enforcement. But its disingenuous to pretend that the government is trying to "take away" a right to "keep secrets" that you already had. Our whole legal system is built on being able to get whatever evidence is relevant wherever it may be found, with extremely narrow exceptions.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  With a subpoena or warrant, yes. But not pervasively. And while we're at it, why is the existing state of affairs not good enough? Why the attempts to subvert the message pipe? After all, the govt can still compel people to talk, and its people receiving those secret messages. The reason is, to my cynical mind, that they're interested to avoiding the work of warrants etc. They'd like to sidestep privacy entirely, and just record everything in the pipe. Not entirely cynical; its exactly what they've done with the tools they already have. In my mind there's an enormous gulf between subpoenas of a person for information, and the ability to get that information secretely and continuously.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You make a good point, which is that if companies have to weaken their encryption in order to be able to comply with this law, that opens up the possibility for easier surveillance without a warrant. I think that's a huge concern, because in my opinion the 4th amendment only provides limited protections to bits travelling over third-party pipes on the Internet, so effective end-to-end encryption is essential for privacy. That being said, the ostensible purpose of this bill is to govern what happens in response to a valid court order.
koryteg 11y ago
I think the american voter has started to lose it's way, or at least feel hopeless to change what is put in place. but I dont care if the nominee is a republican or democrat, we need to pass laws that keep the government at bay and stop letting them push us around. the media and politics pit us, the people, against each other in order to swayed us and get laws passed that control us. I am tired of it. most people on one side of an issue or another could come together and be friends. but the media pushes hate and fear till both sides are so defensive they think the other is the enemy instead of the guy saying "he said she said" and throwing the knife in the middle.
empath75 11y ago
I think probably the right way to go after this bill is not to tell people that they need to protect their secrets from the government, but that they need to protect their secrets from 'criminals'. Point out all the times that government databases have been hacked, and that if their secrets are swept up in government dragnets, it's only a matter of time before blackmailers and identity thieves get hold of them.
- KMag 11y ago
  Right. The anti-privacy lobby has their big 3 boogey men: "terrorists", "drug dealers", and "child molesters". The pro-privacy lobby has 2 big boogey men: "criminals" and "the Chinese". What's our third boogeyman? We must close the boogeyman gap! I suppose "crooked LEOs" doesn't have enough of a ring to it.
  - mangeletti 11y ago
    > third boogeyman? Um... how about Government. I'm not suggesting that Government is intrinsically a boogeyman (and I'm not an anarchist), but first and foremost on the list of entities that privacy and weapons protect citizens from is Government.
    - Floegipoky 11y ago
      I'd argue that the US Constitution was written with the implicit assertion that government is a boogeyman. Why else would we need the bill of rights?
rpgmaker 11y ago
> Government is not as stupid as we'd like to think. Government doesn't believe that "terrorists" will stop using encryption. These laws are not for "terrorists". They're for us. This is one of the things that the Snowden leaks should have made clear to everyone but sadly that isn't the case.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
Remember folks, the Government you get in the future is unwritten and unknowable. Sure, I don't think Obama is going to throw me in jail and I have nothing to hide now...but that doesn't mean in 20 years there won't be some Nationalist/Authoritarian type in control of the country like we saw with countless fallen democracies in the 20th century. Similarly, the Government has shown it incapable of keeping a secret with the sheer number of security failures they've experienced. So anything they have, we can assume is both public and indefensible. They use this capability and they might as well hand the information to criminals on a silver platter.
seanwilson 11y ago
> The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. A huge amount of my social and work communication is via IM, text, email etc. What is the justification this should all be recorded and reviewable but things I say in person are not? I don't see a huge difference at this stage given how much communication happens online now.
trunnell 11y ago
A question for the more politically inclined: Feinstein's seat is up in 2018, and she'll probably retire. How do we ensure our next Senator has a more technically literate position on encryption? Who are the plausible candidates? In the 2012 open primary, the next highest Democratic candidate only got 2 percent of the vote compared to Feinstein's 49.5. So who is waiting in the wings?

studentrob 11y ago

> We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained. > The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Personally I think the people who support this kind of law are the same ones who believe they have nothing to hide from the government. So the privacy argument is lost on them. When you point out the law is harmful to their security and impossible to enforce, then there's a chance you'll be able to convince them. This is a great opportunity for technologists to chat up their friends and family, start campaigns, or perhaps even run for office. This issue is an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the facts.

mangeletti 11y ago
> privacy argument is lost on them The point I'm making is that I don't think it's lost at all. I think these people didn't all get to be in positions of power by being bumbling idiots. They know that they can convince some portion of the masses that they are in danger and need help. And that's all it takes to get a leg up on everyone; a portion of the masses.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Okay, agree to disagree. I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields. As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law. We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers are simple which others don't understand. That is why we get paid.
  - mangeletti 11y ago
    We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1]. It isn't a massive conspiracy. I wouldn't say Feinstein is well-informed. Watch some of the hearings where she interacts with other members. It's awkward and clear they don't enjoy working with her. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s
      - mangeletti 11y ago
        Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"? It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion. The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists".
        studentrob 11y ago
        > Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"? It doesn't. You were saying some government officials are saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true: >> We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues. That implies some sort of secret plot that would harm the integrity of our government and country. > It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion. I agree entirely. > The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists". Nobody said this. Claiming that there is a concerted effort by officials to lie, however, is accusing them of conspiracy. This vibe of distrust hurts the ability of technologists to come together and be as effective as they're capable of being within government. Ultimately, society and its elected government is formed around trust. You have to believe that most of the people who enter into elected positions did so with the aim of improving our society before you can be effective within it yourself.
niels_olson 11y ago
> the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Better: this law would effectively grant criminals infinitely more protection than law-abiding citizens.

Aelinsaar 11y ago

You have to love this, especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Meanwhile, losing their ability to keep a secret from the government they think they're getting ready to revolt against doesn't faze them. grips forehead and moans

privong 11y ago
> especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Senator Feinstein, who co-released this draft bill, is also the senator who introduced the assault weapons ban which was law from 1994 to 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_positions_and_votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_pos... On the opposite side of things, Senator Paul opposes gun control but supports strong encryption. https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/issues/second-amendment https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/issues/second-amendme... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/rand-paul-supports-google-apple-encryption-at-sxsw http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/rand-paul-sup...
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.
  - privong 11y ago
    > Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious. It depends what is meant by "assault weapon". If you mean fully automatic weapons, then no, but those were essentially banned (with minor exceptions) for private ownership in 1986[0]. Ownership of those had been regulated since 1934[1]. The 1994–2004 "assault weapons" ban covered specific features[2] on guns. Since 2004, purchase of guns with (2 or more of) those features is once again legal. Note that some opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban claim many of the features are cosmetic, rather than functional. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Cr...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jmedwards 11y ago

> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Is that you, Bush Jnr?

jmedwards 11y ago

> this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. Is that you, Bush Jnr?

mc32 11y ago

While it's convenient to paint this as "the government," many people, the ones who elect most officials, are also of the opinion that if authorized (by some manner) that encrypted data should be made available in plaintext. For the common people this comes in the form "I believe my dead relative's phone has information which will expose their killer, I want the carrier or manufacturer to make that data available, it's legally my phone, not Apple's or Samsung's, I want that data." You may disagree with a perhaps naive perspective like that, but that interpretation does not make it any less real. There are plenty of common folk who would agree in the above scenario data in plain text should be made available upon lawful request by either carrier or mfg. That's not "the government" and to think so kind of misses the mark.

Frondo 11y ago
Yes, exactly, it's the same thinking that lets the government search people's houses when authorized, or detail and question them when authorized. We already have this concept of "the government can go through your stuff" in the form of search warrants. It's not a leap at all to apply that to encryption, too, even if some specific law gets it wrong at first. I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around when these laws were first being put to parchment, there'd have been something in there about encryption from the start.
- WhoBeI 11y ago
  This is not the same thing. The problem is that your government wants to break all forms of encryption regardless of where or how they are used. Either they want something like a skeleton key or a method of bypassing the security altogether. So they're not requesting a search warrant. They are requiring that you hand over the keys to your home or install a special door for them that is always kept unlocked.
- zipwitch 11y ago
  >I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around They were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk
11y ago

gopher2 11y ago

> These laws are not for "terrorists". They're for us. Yes. This is a great way of saying this.

rayiner 11y ago

> Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity. We can debate about what the law should be, but for the last several hundred years, the law has not really contemplated people keeping secrets from the Government. "Privacy" as it has been understood to date means protection from the government fishing for evidence without probable cause, not an absolute right to keep secrets. Pervasive, unbreakable encryption is a game-changer that requires rethinking the existing framework. We're not just talking about not being able to get data from a terrorist's phone. We're talking about the bread-and-butter of many sorts of criminal prosecutions being opaque to the government. Good luck convicting someone on insider trading when all the relevant communications are opaque to the government. I happen to think that the benefits of encryption outweigh the challenges to law enforcement. But its disingenuous to pretend that the government is trying to "take away" a right to "keep secrets" that you already had. Our whole legal system is built on being able to get whatever evidence is relevant wherever it may be found, with extremely narrow exceptions.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
With a subpoena or warrant, yes. But not pervasively. And while we're at it, why is the existing state of affairs not good enough? Why the attempts to subvert the message pipe? After all, the govt can still compel people to talk, and its people receiving those secret messages. The reason is, to my cynical mind, that they're interested to avoiding the work of warrants etc. They'd like to sidestep privacy entirely, and just record everything in the pipe. Not entirely cynical; its exactly what they've done with the tools they already have. In my mind there's an enormous gulf between subpoenas of a person for information, and the ability to get that information secretely and continuously.
- rayiner 11y ago
  You make a good point, which is that if companies have to weaken their encryption in order to be able to comply with this law, that opens up the possibility for easier surveillance without a warrant. I think that's a huge concern, because in my opinion the 4th amendment only provides limited protections to bits travelling over third-party pipes on the Internet, so effective end-to-end encryption is essential for privacy. That being said, the ostensible purpose of this bill is to govern what happens in response to a valid court order.

koryteg 11y ago

I think the american voter has started to lose it's way, or at least feel hopeless to change what is put in place. but I dont care if the nominee is a republican or democrat, we need to pass laws that keep the government at bay and stop letting them push us around. the media and politics pit us, the people, against each other in order to swayed us and get laws passed that control us. I am tired of it. most people on one side of an issue or another could come together and be friends. but the media pushes hate and fear till both sides are so defensive they think the other is the enemy instead of the guy saying "he said she said" and throwing the knife in the middle.

empath75 11y ago

I think probably the right way to go after this bill is not to tell people that they need to protect their secrets from the government, but that they need to protect their secrets from 'criminals'. Point out all the times that government databases have been hacked, and that if their secrets are swept up in government dragnets, it's only a matter of time before blackmailers and identity thieves get hold of them.

KMag 11y ago
Right. The anti-privacy lobby has their big 3 boogey men: "terrorists", "drug dealers", and "child molesters". The pro-privacy lobby has 2 big boogey men: "criminals" and "the Chinese". What's our third boogeyman? We must close the boogeyman gap! I suppose "crooked LEOs" doesn't have enough of a ring to it.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  > third boogeyman? Um... how about Government. I'm not suggesting that Government is intrinsically a boogeyman (and I'm not an anarchist), but first and foremost on the list of entities that privacy and weapons protect citizens from is Government.
  - Floegipoky 11y ago
    I'd argue that the US Constitution was written with the implicit assertion that government is a boogeyman. Why else would we need the bill of rights?

rpgmaker 11y ago

> Government is not as stupid as we'd like to think. Government doesn't believe that "terrorists" will stop using encryption. These laws are not for "terrorists". They're for us. This is one of the things that the Snowden leaks should have made clear to everyone but sadly that isn't the case.

fweespee_ch 11y ago

Remember folks, the Government you get in the future is unwritten and unknowable. Sure, I don't think Obama is going to throw me in jail and I have nothing to hide now...but that doesn't mean in 20 years there won't be some Nationalist/Authoritarian type in control of the country like we saw with countless fallen democracies in the 20th century. Similarly, the Government has shown it incapable of keeping a secret with the sheer number of security failures they've experienced. So anything they have, we can assume is both public and indefensible. They use this capability and they might as well hand the information to criminals on a silver platter.

seanwilson 11y ago

> The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other. A huge amount of my social and work communication is via IM, text, email etc. What is the justification this should all be recorded and reviewable but things I say in person are not? I don't see a huge difference at this stage given how much communication happens online now.

trunnell 11y ago

A question for the more politically inclined: Feinstein's seat is up in 2018, and she'll probably retire. How do we ensure our next Senator has a more technically literate position on encryption? Who are the plausible candidates? In the 2012 open primary, the next highest Democratic candidate only got 2 percent of the vote compared to Feinstein's 49.5. So who is waiting in the wings?