4 ms·

Police and Tech Giants Wrangle Over Encryption on Capitol Hill

41 points by hvo 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago
Am I the only one concerned with the concept of billion-dollar publicly-traded corporations going to bat for individual civil liberties? These aren't public interest groups. Profit is always their primary motive. At the moment profit and civil liberties are aligned, but that could very quickly change.
- vkou 10y ago
  You should be! Fortunately, both the EFF and the ACLU have been going to bat for civil liberties for a long time. The fact that they don't get half as much coverage as, say, Apple butting heads with the FBI is an indictment of our media, more so than an indictment of our politics.
  - qq66 10y ago
    And while not Apple-sized, donors enable the ACLU to run a $100m annual budget, which has allowed it to have a substantial impact on civil liberties in the US over its history.
- arebop 10y ago
  I am not worried that there is too much support for civil liberties.
- zepto 10y ago
  Are you saying you'd rather they didn't go to bat for civil liberties?
  - codyb 10y ago
    He's saying what happens when there's a battle for civil liberties and the corporations aren't behind it? But another posted pointed out the EFF and ACLU which are at least a start in terms of organizations motivated by civil liberties as opposed to profit.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Am I the only one concerned with the concept of billion-dollar publicly-traded corporations going to bat for individual civil liberties? As opposed to the billion-dollar taxpayer-funded government agencies going to bat against individual civil liberties? Maybe the problem is the NSA's dual mandate. If there was a large government agency whose only job was to improve the security of American communications against criminals and foreign attackers then they would be fighting the fight, instead of the NSA's effective "no comment" because their mission is self-compromising.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    And if the FBI wanted to better prevent crime, they'd also come to the better conclusion. But any organization's mission is power first, then protection of those under their power. After all, without power how can they do the protecting? (or so the narrative goes). A backdoored cryptosystem is arbitrarily less secure for users, but only an epsilon less secure for whomever controls the keys. That epsilon can be engineered ever-lower, so the danger created by the existence of the backdoor remains invisible to the organizations pushing for it.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > And if the FBI wanted to better prevent crime, they'd also come to the better conclusion. But the FBI isn't rewarded for preventing crime. They're rewarded for putting people in jail. Hence the perverse incentives. The idea is to have an agency with different incentives, whose job is not to put anyone in jail but only to improve security. Then they would get blamed for security failures which means they would fight against things that cause them.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        Sure, but a backdoored cryptosystem would only be billed as a failure if the key were to leak, which can be made unlikely through engineering. And if it does leak, blame can be shrugged off as the next better system is implemented. The government simply cannot perceive itself as a threat, only individuals can. I'm certainly not in favor of backdoors. It's probably best if the public discourse maintains them as being "impossible" to securely implement. I wish that were the actual reality.
- themartorana 10y ago
  You should be sad that it's come to this - if these companies weren't looking out for civil liberties... Well, it's pretty certain the government of the people isn't looking out for them.
themartorana 10y ago
Every civil liberty is a roadblock to total information awareness for law enforcement. No searching/entering without a warrant. No self incrimination. Miranda rights. Speedy trial laws. Dismissal of evidence illegally obtained, even if it proves most heinous guilt. It is for law enforcement to work within these confines because of and in protection of those liberties. So yes... There are hundreds of intrusions that could be opened up that would allow law enforcement to have a better handle on criminals, potential criminals, and heck, anyone who might like to speak ill of such intrusions, up to and including having cameras in your bedrooms. But they're not allowed to do those things because America, and the escape from tyranny that made anyone fight for it to begin with. But have you no doubt - these intrusions are for you only. The second a lawmaker or law enforcement officer's liberty is threatened, suddenly they're on the side of civil liberties and God Bless America. Sorry. Bit of a rant there...

41 points by hvo 10y ago

Am I the only one concerned with the concept of billion-dollar publicly-traded corporations going to bat for individual civil liberties? These aren't public interest groups. Profit is always their primary motive. At the moment profit and civil liberties are aligned, but that could very quickly change.

vkou 10y ago
You should be! Fortunately, both the EFF and the ACLU have been going to bat for civil liberties for a long time. The fact that they don't get half as much coverage as, say, Apple butting heads with the FBI is an indictment of our media, more so than an indictment of our politics.
- qq66 10y ago
  And while not Apple-sized, donors enable the ACLU to run a $100m annual budget, which has allowed it to have a substantial impact on civil liberties in the US over its history.
arebop 10y ago
I am not worried that there is too much support for civil liberties.
zepto 10y ago
Are you saying you'd rather they didn't go to bat for civil liberties?
- codyb 10y ago
  He's saying what happens when there's a battle for civil liberties and the corporations aren't behind it? But another posted pointed out the EFF and ACLU which are at least a start in terms of organizations motivated by civil liberties as opposed to profit.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Am I the only one concerned with the concept of billion-dollar publicly-traded corporations going to bat for individual civil liberties? As opposed to the billion-dollar taxpayer-funded government agencies going to bat against individual civil liberties? Maybe the problem is the NSA's dual mandate. If there was a large government agency whose only job was to improve the security of American communications against criminals and foreign attackers then they would be fighting the fight, instead of the NSA's effective "no comment" because their mission is self-compromising.
- mindslight 10y ago
  And if the FBI wanted to better prevent crime, they'd also come to the better conclusion. But any organization's mission is power first, then protection of those under their power. After all, without power how can they do the protecting? (or so the narrative goes). A backdoored cryptosystem is arbitrarily less secure for users, but only an epsilon less secure for whomever controls the keys. That epsilon can be engineered ever-lower, so the danger created by the existence of the backdoor remains invisible to the organizations pushing for it.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > And if the FBI wanted to better prevent crime, they'd also come to the better conclusion. But the FBI isn't rewarded for preventing crime. They're rewarded for putting people in jail. Hence the perverse incentives. The idea is to have an agency with different incentives, whose job is not to put anyone in jail but only to improve security. Then they would get blamed for security failures which means they would fight against things that cause them.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      Sure, but a backdoored cryptosystem would only be billed as a failure if the key were to leak, which can be made unlikely through engineering. And if it does leak, blame can be shrugged off as the next better system is implemented. The government simply cannot perceive itself as a threat, only individuals can. I'm certainly not in favor of backdoors. It's probably best if the public discourse maintains them as being "impossible" to securely implement. I wish that were the actual reality.
themartorana 10y ago
You should be sad that it's come to this - if these companies weren't looking out for civil liberties... Well, it's pretty certain the government of the people isn't looking out for them.

themartorana 10y ago

Every civil liberty is a roadblock to total information awareness for law enforcement. No searching/entering without a warrant. No self incrimination. Miranda rights. Speedy trial laws. Dismissal of evidence illegally obtained, even if it proves most heinous guilt. It is for law enforcement to work within these confines because of and in protection of those liberties. So yes... There are hundreds of intrusions that could be opened up that would allow law enforcement to have a better handle on criminals, potential criminals, and heck, anyone who might like to speak ill of such intrusions, up to and including having cameras in your bedrooms. But they're not allowed to do those things because America, and the escape from tyranny that made anyone fight for it to begin with. But have you no doubt - these intrusions are for you only. The second a lawmaker or law enforcement officer's liberty is threatened, suddenly they're on the side of civil liberties and God Bless America. Sorry. Bit of a rant there...