48 ms·

Absolutely disagree. A) Even when the government has the data to stop someone, they don't: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-known-to

Absolutely disagree. A) Even when the government has the data to stop someone, they don't: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-known-to-authorities/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-... B) Outlawing crypto just doesn't work. You can't outlaw math. You can try all day long, but that only hurts the masses At some point, you have to realize that breaking encryption has nothing to do with safety, but is all about power.

ffwd 10y ago
a) I don't want to comment on that intercept piece because there is clear bias there and I don't have all the facts. b) I think actually the FBI is mainly talking about the defaults in software, like how Apple enabled strong encryption for any user. Defaults matter when you consider the 95% of people who would not otherwise use encryption, including all kinds of criminals. I think everyone realizes you can't remove encryption from the face of the earth, it's just not doable and not worthy of discussion and that's not what I'm talking about. The FBI is doing this because they try to reverse the Apple defaults and don't really have any other way. The next step is to "have the debate" but as we can see that is incredibly difficult. Regarding your last point. Sure, that's one way to talk about it, but if it is the case that it's all about power, then why do we even have governments? All the trust is broken and we are essentially asking to be left alone to solve crimes that happen in our neighborhoods. The government and the FBI / others are supposed to work FOR us, for society as a whole, based on the laws we vote for/lobby for. They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Only private corporations and individuals want power, that's what the whole point of this government thing was in the first place.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  B) The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. They have said that they don't want unbreakable encryption anywhere. > They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Yet they undeniably do. Pretending that they don't is sheer naivety. I'm not much of a political theorist, but we have government because we tend to trust them more than the average mob. They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place.
  - ffwd 10y ago
    > The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere, but as James Comey has himself said, this debate kicked into high gear late 2014 when Apple started with the default encryption, and law enforcement saw an increase in devices they couldn't get into. I think if strong encryption had been on the outliers as it was before that time, we wouldn't have seen this issues raised by the FBI in this manner. I think it is undoubtable that the default is a big reason for this because if many companies start to follow suit, it can have real consequences. Even though James Comey's proposal of wanting "both strong encryption AND government access" probably came from a place of ignorance of the technology, I do think there is a debate to be had there about securing servers with keys or whatever else just like Google and Facebook and Apple are expected to secure all their other data. Right now, it is completely out of the question when you ask a tech person, because of lack of trust. > They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place. Absolutely, the way I like to look at it is basic costs and benefits, pros and cons. There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.

ffwd 10y ago

a) I don't want to comment on that intercept piece because there is clear bias there and I don't have all the facts. b) I think actually the FBI is mainly talking about the defaults in software, like how Apple enabled strong encryption for any user. Defaults matter when you consider the 95% of people who would not otherwise use encryption, including all kinds of criminals. I think everyone realizes you can't remove encryption from the face of the earth, it's just not doable and not worthy of discussion and that's not what I'm talking about. The FBI is doing this because they try to reverse the Apple defaults and don't really have any other way. The next step is to "have the debate" but as we can see that is incredibly difficult. Regarding your last point. Sure, that's one way to talk about it, but if it is the case that it's all about power, then why do we even have governments? All the trust is broken and we are essentially asking to be left alone to solve crimes that happen in our neighborhoods. The government and the FBI / others are supposed to work FOR us, for society as a whole, based on the laws we vote for/lobby for. They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Only private corporations and individuals want power, that's what the whole point of this government thing was in the first place.

CaptSpify 10y ago
B) The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. They have said that they don't want unbreakable encryption anywhere. > They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Yet they undeniably do. Pretending that they don't is sheer naivety. I'm not much of a political theorist, but we have government because we tend to trust them more than the average mob. They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place.
- ffwd 10y ago
  > The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere, but as James Comey has himself said, this debate kicked into high gear late 2014 when Apple started with the default encryption, and law enforcement saw an increase in devices they couldn't get into. I think if strong encryption had been on the outliers as it was before that time, we wouldn't have seen this issues raised by the FBI in this manner. I think it is undoubtable that the default is a big reason for this because if many companies start to follow suit, it can have real consequences. Even though James Comey's proposal of wanting "both strong encryption AND government access" probably came from a place of ignorance of the technology, I do think there is a debate to be had there about securing servers with keys or whatever else just like Google and Facebook and Apple are expected to secure all their other data. Right now, it is completely out of the question when you ask a tech person, because of lack of trust. > They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place. Absolutely, the way I like to look at it is basic costs and benefits, pros and cons. There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.