2 ms·

Politians should be the first to worry about privacy. 1 - They are not guaranteed to always be in power. 2 - They will be the first to be targeted. 3

Politians should be the first to worry about privacy. 1 - They are not guaranteed to always be in power. 2 - They will be the first to be targeted. 3 - They have the most to lose. I just don't understand why they don't care about it.

3131s 9y ago
And we should worry about our politician's security too. What if they are blackmailed while in power? That creates a terrible national security situation. This line of argument would hopefully resonate with the constituencies of the politicians pushing hardest for these backdoors (although it's a fairly bipartisan effort).
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  With backdoors, which I'm not advocating for incidentally, the TLAs know they're being blackmailed and can intervene. Without that access politicians can still be blackmailed but it's harder for the TLAs to know about it.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    Is that necessarily true? With a scheme like key escrow, is there a sure-fire way to detect a hacker as opposed to an authorized user accessing data? At the very least it seems that if the NSA itself or some other agency were hacked (again) then this problem would still exist. The NSA has notably lacked this type of audit trail in their systems before, hence their inability to track Snowden.
white-flame 9y ago
Congress was absolutely aghast when they found out they were being spied on by the three letter agencies, whenever they met with foreign representatives. But they don't care at all when it's applied to the general public, because they assume they'll have clout or connections to keep that at bay. I've never heard anything come out of that above kerfuffle, presumably because there was some backroom dealing done to ensure it's not a problem for them specifically.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
They trust the rule of law? Surely politicians should only be more worried if they fear their actions being exposed - the only reason I see for that is if they're guilty of something. Otherwise they've only equal reason to be guilty of you're of the crowd that considers "I've nothing to hide" not to matter.

3131s 9y ago

And we should worry about our politician's security too. What if they are blackmailed while in power? That creates a terrible national security situation. This line of argument would hopefully resonate with the constituencies of the politicians pushing hardest for these backdoors (although it's a fairly bipartisan effort).

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
With backdoors, which I'm not advocating for incidentally, the TLAs know they're being blackmailed and can intervene. Without that access politicians can still be blackmailed but it's harder for the TLAs to know about it.
- 3131s 9y ago
  Is that necessarily true? With a scheme like key escrow, is there a sure-fire way to detect a hacker as opposed to an authorized user accessing data? At the very least it seems that if the NSA itself or some other agency were hacked (again) then this problem would still exist. The NSA has notably lacked this type of audit trail in their systems before, hence their inability to track Snowden.

white-flame 9y ago

Congress was absolutely aghast when they found out they were being spied on by the three letter agencies, whenever they met with foreign representatives. But they don't care at all when it's applied to the general public, because they assume they'll have clout or connections to keep that at bay. I've never heard anything come out of that above kerfuffle, presumably because there was some backroom dealing done to ensure it's not a problem for them specifically.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

They trust the rule of law? Surely politicians should only be more worried if they fear their actions being exposed - the only reason I see for that is if they're guilty of something. Otherwise they've only equal reason to be guilty of you're of the crowd that considers "I've nothing to hide" not to matter.