3 ms·
It's very possible preventing encryption by default will help catch a couple of those. I doubt that. I agree with you that many use unencrypted products though
by chopin 10y ago
It's very possible preventing encryption by default will help catch a couple of those.
I doubt that. I agree with you that many use unencrypted products though, so you have a point. However in almost all events I can remember the people committing terrorist acts where already known to at least some agencies. The agencies already drown in false positives. There is no indication that this will change. This strengthens my point: it is not about terrorists.
- Bartweiss 10y agoNotably, the Orlando shooter was even more known to security agencies than usual. He had been investigated twice and 'cleared'. After that, he was turned away from a gun store before the shooting for suspicious requests, which led to a tip the FBI didn't follow up on! Somehow, James Comey spun that as "we did everything we could". If even that level of prior knowledge is being ignored to push for yet more data (and more false positives) it becomes really hard to believe that this request is being made on the level.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoDon't forget the time that the Russians(!) put the name of two brothers in the Boston area on a list of "people we think are up to no good" and sent that list to one of the three letter agencies.
- ikeboy 10y agoOnce you have an active lead, investigation is easier if they aren't using encryption. You're focusing on the successes, which necessarily are the cases where the agencies failed.