5 ms·

Pro: The government recognizes the value of a well-built encryption app and is using it. Con: The government does this while still insisting that encryption sh

Pro: The government recognizes the value of a well-built encryption app and is using it. Con: The government does this while still insisting that encryption should have a backdoor in it, thus creating the impression that Government officials deserve bulletproof encryption, but private citizens don't. It would be interesting to see what happens to Signal if encryption legislation is ever enacted, and/or if it would continue to be used.

trendia 9y ago
Congress regularly makes rules that apply to every other government employee except themselves. * Have to use a government email for official business? Everyone else does but Congress * Have to keep a record of all communications? Everyone else does but Congress At least they passed a law that banned insider trading by Congress... but then they repealed the most important parts just a year later! [0] So, I'm sure we'll see Congress enact a law that requires that all software have a backdoor, unless that software is used by a member of Congress, in which case the penalty for having a backdoor is life imprisonment. [0] http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496...
- koolba 9y ago
  The record keeping requirements are there on the executive branch because otherwise there may not be any paper trail at all. Contrast that to the legislative branch who's function is to explicitly create a written piece of legislation.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Congress is a different branch of government. This is basic separation of powers.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Yeah, the legislators should be as immune from legislation as the judiciary is from the judicial system and the executive is from executive action. Oh wait...
    - golergka 9y ago
      Nobody is saying anything of the sort. But it feels good to tear down ridiculous arguments of the "other side" that you come up with yourself, doesn't it?
      - fao_ 9y ago
        You must have misread the thread. Second poster up stated that Third poster up's note of "Congress does not have to abide by laws that they set", was separation of powers. Which is exactly what First poster up was talking about. That you say that nobody is saying anything of the sort, deliberately ignores the second post up, which does indeed claim that.
        golergka 9y ago
        Separation of powers is nowhere near the absurd strawman argument that I was replying to.
        nebabyte 9y ago
        Thanks for the backing, but I think you're using "Nth poster up" incorrectly - my understanding is that "first poster up" would be 1 place up - i.e. the comment you're directly replying to :P
- throwawya73434 9y ago
  Happens the world over, mate. Over on the other side of the planet in India, much fanfare and "nationalistic spirit" was expelled in banning funds from foreign nations to NGOs (which may or may not be a bad thing). Then they turned around and surreptitiously passed a law allowing foreign funding for political parties (!). Such "nationalism" this. Similar stories are to be found on things like corruption/transparency/Biometric ID laws. Frankly this is democracy in its true self; the self-righteous religion appears to share more and more in terms of theology with Communism and erstwhile utopian systems. I can't wait to see this whole (world) system go down the gutters, and when people open their eyes to this language game.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Frankly this is democracy in its true self; That I would agree with, but... > I can't wait to see this whole (world) system go down the gutters, and when people open their eyes to this language game. I do hope this is hyperbolic. I personally like our global technological civilization; with all its injustices it's still better than what we had in the past. Also, I don't like wars, and I definitely don't want to find myself in one.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      I don't think the parent commenter is referring to going back to what there was before; a Marxist who wants to hasten the revolution, for example, is not arguing for the stage of historical development before capitalism (feudalism), rather he is arguing for the abolishment of classes altogether. That is the charitable reading, anyway.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        No, I don't think the parent really wants to go back to the way things were. But I argue against something different - I argue against revolutions itself. The two points I made could be restated like this: our civilization is at a very fragile stage and a big enough revolution now could kick us back into pre-industrial level and keep us there, since all the easily available sources of energy have been already mined and used up. That, and revolutions are bloody, and frankly, I don't want to die yet.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  Don't forget how they allow themselves to trade stocks based on their foreknowledge of legislation that will directly impact specific businesses or industries.
- swasheck 9y ago
  ... to say nothing of their vote to retain the good parts of ACA for themselves alone.
pzh 9y ago
You have to wonder if the three-letter agencies have found some backdoor or a vulnerability in the app that they think only they have access to. It's very suspicious to see them voluntarily give up control over so much critical information by approving Signal.
- schoen 9y ago
  This approval was given by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, not exactly the government official most beholden to the opinions or preferences of spy agencies.
openasocket 9y ago
"the government" isn't a single unified entity. There are many congressmen and federal employees who strongly oppose backdoor-ing encryption. Please don't paint them all with the same brush.
snowwrestler 9y ago
If Congress was in favor of backdoors in encryption, we would have backdoors in encryption. When Congress agrees on something, it passes law. The reality right now is that most members of Congress either don't want backdoors, or don't hold a strong enough opinion to want to upset the status quo. That can change, of course, and we should all be taking steps to let Congress know that we don't want backdoors, that they are a bad idea. But it's not ideal to start from an incorrect sense of that everyone wants backdoors. You have to find out what your member of Congress thinks. Luckily it's easy--they have a form on their site for questions from their constituents.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  > When Congress agrees on something, it passes law proposes* law ftfy
ianai 9y ago
I think it's more situational and maybe a little revelatory. They state they would prefer a universe where they have backdoors into encryption. But, in a universe where encryption exists without backdoor(s), the strongest move is to go the route without a backdoor. This may also be them admitting to failing to crack this particular piece of encryption.
yebsido 9y ago
Well there is a case for having encryption and this isn't as first class of a parallel, but when GPS was young and primarily being used by the military they purposely skewed civilian readings. Eventually, they decided to not alter the civilian results; hopefully they can just get to this conclusion faster on encryption.

trendia 9y ago

Congress regularly makes rules that apply to every other government employee except themselves. * Have to use a government email for official business? Everyone else does but Congress * Have to keep a record of all communications? Everyone else does but Congress At least they passed a law that banned insider trading by Congress... but then they repealed the most important parts just a year later! [0] So, I'm sure we'll see Congress enact a law that requires that all software have a backdoor, unless that software is used by a member of Congress, in which case the penalty for having a backdoor is life imprisonment. [0] http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496...

koolba 9y ago
The record keeping requirements are there on the executive branch because otherwise there may not be any paper trail at all. Contrast that to the legislative branch who's function is to explicitly create a written piece of legislation.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Congress is a different branch of government. This is basic separation of powers.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  Yeah, the legislators should be as immune from legislation as the judiciary is from the judicial system and the executive is from executive action. Oh wait...
  - golergka 9y ago
    Nobody is saying anything of the sort. But it feels good to tear down ridiculous arguments of the "other side" that you come up with yourself, doesn't it?
    - fao_ 9y ago
      You must have misread the thread. Second poster up stated that Third poster up's note of "Congress does not have to abide by laws that they set", was separation of powers. Which is exactly what First poster up was talking about. That you say that nobody is saying anything of the sort, deliberately ignores the second post up, which does indeed claim that.
      - golergka 9y ago
        Separation of powers is nowhere near the absurd strawman argument that I was replying to.
      - nebabyte 9y ago
        Thanks for the backing, but I think you're using "Nth poster up" incorrectly - my understanding is that "first poster up" would be 1 place up - i.e. the comment you're directly replying to :P
throwawya73434 9y ago
Happens the world over, mate. Over on the other side of the planet in India, much fanfare and "nationalistic spirit" was expelled in banning funds from foreign nations to NGOs (which may or may not be a bad thing). Then they turned around and surreptitiously passed a law allowing foreign funding for political parties (!). Such "nationalism" this. Similar stories are to be found on things like corruption/transparency/Biometric ID laws. Frankly this is democracy in its true self; the self-righteous religion appears to share more and more in terms of theology with Communism and erstwhile utopian systems. I can't wait to see this whole (world) system go down the gutters, and when people open their eyes to this language game.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Frankly this is democracy in its true self; That I would agree with, but... > I can't wait to see this whole (world) system go down the gutters, and when people open their eyes to this language game. I do hope this is hyperbolic. I personally like our global technological civilization; with all its injustices it's still better than what we had in the past. Also, I don't like wars, and I definitely don't want to find myself in one.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    I don't think the parent commenter is referring to going back to what there was before; a Marxist who wants to hasten the revolution, for example, is not arguing for the stage of historical development before capitalism (feudalism), rather he is arguing for the abolishment of classes altogether. That is the charitable reading, anyway.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      No, I don't think the parent really wants to go back to the way things were. But I argue against something different - I argue against revolutions itself. The two points I made could be restated like this: our civilization is at a very fragile stage and a big enough revolution now could kick us back into pre-industrial level and keep us there, since all the easily available sources of energy have been already mined and used up. That, and revolutions are bloody, and frankly, I don't want to die yet.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
Don't forget how they allow themselves to trade stocks based on their foreknowledge of legislation that will directly impact specific businesses or industries.
swasheck 9y ago
... to say nothing of their vote to retain the good parts of ACA for themselves alone.

pzh 9y ago

You have to wonder if the three-letter agencies have found some backdoor or a vulnerability in the app that they think only they have access to. It's very suspicious to see them voluntarily give up control over so much critical information by approving Signal.

schoen 9y ago
This approval was given by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, not exactly the government official most beholden to the opinions or preferences of spy agencies.

openasocket 9y ago

"the government" isn't a single unified entity. There are many congressmen and federal employees who strongly oppose backdoor-ing encryption. Please don't paint them all with the same brush.

snowwrestler 9y ago

If Congress was in favor of backdoors in encryption, we would have backdoors in encryption. When Congress agrees on something, it passes law. The reality right now is that most members of Congress either don't want backdoors, or don't hold a strong enough opinion to want to upset the status quo. That can change, of course, and we should all be taking steps to let Congress know that we don't want backdoors, that they are a bad idea. But it's not ideal to start from an incorrect sense of that everyone wants backdoors. You have to find out what your member of Congress thinks. Luckily it's easy--they have a form on their site for questions from their constituents.

nebabyte 9y ago
> When Congress agrees on something, it passes law proposes* law ftfy

ianai 9y ago

I think it's more situational and maybe a little revelatory. They state they would prefer a universe where they have backdoors into encryption. But, in a universe where encryption exists without backdoor(s), the strongest move is to go the route without a backdoor. This may also be them admitting to failing to crack this particular piece of encryption.

yebsido 9y ago

Well there is a case for having encryption and this isn't as first class of a parallel, but when GPS was young and primarily being used by the military they purposely skewed civilian readings. Eventually, they decided to not alter the civilian results; hopefully they can just get to this conclusion faster on encryption.