4 ms·

> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, > citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access > e

> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, > citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access > evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and > punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect > privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate > law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval. > > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible > encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a > mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more > impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities > to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of > technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going > dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy. > > Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere > concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about > preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to > protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to > speak the truth. > > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and > enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity. > > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right > to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let > businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court > orders, it should be a fully-informed decision. I never thought about it like that. /s

Silhouette 9y ago
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger, 1783 (shortly before becoming Prime Minister of Great Britain)
djeikyb 9y ago
will you remove the initial spaces before the angle bracket? makes it hell to read on mobile
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Not OP, but: > If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval. > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy. > Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to speak the truth. > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity. > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
> Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security That is simply, and trivially proved to be, untrue.

Silhouette 9y ago

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger, 1783 (shortly before becoming Prime Minister of Great Britain)

djeikyb 9y ago

will you remove the initial spaces before the angle bracket? makes it hell to read on mobile

colejohnson66 9y ago
Not OP, but: > If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval. > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy. > Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to speak the truth. > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity. > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security That is simply, and trivially proved to be, untrue.