4 ms·

At the end of the day, when the police can't get into a room, they can break the door down. Same with guns. The police are okay with gun ownership because they

by unabst 9y ago

At the end of the day, when the police can't get into a room, they can break the door down. Same with guns. The police are okay with gun ownership because they have the right to gun citizens down. Not to judge, but that's the balance. Same with why we tortured. It counterbalances their vulnerability to secrets. If torture didn't work, Kiefer Sutherland would never have gotten anywhere. But if everyone were against torture, the show wouldn't have existed. They have an answer to locked doors, suspects with guns, and terrorists with secrets that -- at minimum -- make sense to them regardless of their effectiveness or consequences to society or our ethical reputation. The main problem with encryption is there is no workaround. There is no counterbalance. The lock is unbreakable, and there is no one to shoot or torture when all they have is the device itself (and no one to torture always, if they're abiding by the law). This scares law enforcement. This whole campaign is driven by fear, but they cannot admit fear, so it's all rationalizations and confabulations -- which work by the way -- hence they're keeping at it. And when those with power empathize with this fear in between the lines, they will sign off on these lies.

BlackFly 9y ago
Of course there is an answer to unbreakable encryption, the same answer to in person conversations at a private location: bug the location where the communication takes place. You don't need a back door on communications if you are "looking over the shoulder" of someone as they type it in. If the person is a suspect, then they can get a warrant to plant a bug.
- unabst 9y ago
  There are plenty of options outside torture also. But the fear of unbreakableness is persistent, just as is those who believe torture to work or to be okay. The fundamental underpinnings of any related correct and incorrect behavior is still emotional though. And that is also why loaded words such as "terrorism" get the ball rolling fast, regardless of which way that ball is rolling...
- nine_k 9y ago
  You can say that taking a preventive action helps against anything. (Cue "Minority Report" by Philip K Dick.) The problem is that a preventive action usually hasn't been taken, but now, when a problem exists, they have something to do with it, and they can't. They want a built-in backdoor exactly as a preventive measure, a bug. The problem, of course, is that those breaking the law would still use the unbreakable version, the same way they use other illegal means, and the law-abiding majority will stay safely vulnerable.
- LordKano 9y ago
  Their complaint about this is that it's hard to do that. Well, that's good. I think that law enforcement SHOULD be hard. It should be hard and complicated and time consuming. One of the worst things I can imagine is idle law enforcement officers. Bored cops will find something to do. Whether it's going from car to car and ticketing anyone who is 12.1 or more inches from the curb or ticketing people for spitting on the sidewalk, no good can come from idle police. Idle prosecutors are every bit as much of a potential nightmare. We see District Attorneys being used as political weapons now. Just imagine if they had the power to go fishing through the electronic communications of every political rival. If the work is difficult, they'll only do it when they have reason to believe a serious crime has been or soon will be committed. It's easy to justify overtime for surveillance on a suspected drug kingpin, organized crime figure, rapist or murderer. It's not so easy to justify it to monitor some guy from a TEA Party Group, BLM or Occupy just so find out what they're doing.
  - ironmagma 9y ago
    > Whether it's going from car to car and ticketing anyone who is 12.1 or more inches from the curb or ticketing people for spitting on the sidewalk, no good can come from idle police. So... enforcing our existing laws? What's the point of having those laws if they're never enforced?
    - LordKano 9y ago
      Reinforcing their role as revenue generators instead of peace officers.
That-one-thing 9y ago
Well it's sort of true. If you find a bad person and get someone to follow them with a really good camera you'll likely get the code (especially for a phone ). If you are at a mall in a high tech country I was told that you can read what they write on their phones ( No source, and if not think about the future ). So you will need some police work but that's actually how it has been used for most part of the last hundred years, where you can't just look stuff up on a computer. So yes there is no real guarantee that you can crack a phone. But if we learned anything from the dark markets it's that it's very hard to never makes mistakes.
sandworm101 9y ago
>>> Same with why we tortured. It counterbalances their vulnerability to secrets. If you study history and interrogation techniques you quickly realize that torture has nothing to do with information. It doesn't work that way. The 24 situation of a terrorist with a secret code in his head that will prevent a nuke going off is so circumscribed that if you think you are entering that situation you should assume that you are mistaken. Torture is about confession. It's about getting someone to say something that you want him to say regardless of whether it is true or not. That's the difference between actual intelligence and "actionable intelligence", the actionable stuff need not be true. If it is enough to justify a warrant or a raid accuracy doesn't matter. This is also why torture is so closely linked to religion. Only a puritan need torture out a confession. It's far easier to forge a signature. Go through the history. Be it the English rack or American Gitmo, they didn't care about accurate information. What they wanted and got was signatures on documents written almost entirely by the interrogators. (I'll leave aside the other use of torture, as simple punishment, because that's a totally different debate.)
throwaway613834 9y ago
Way to present a nuanced issue as a seemingly clear-cut case of governmental oppression. It's pretty solidly ingrained in America that a properly-issued warrant should be enough to get law enforcement whatever evidence it needs. Encryption also breaks this fundamental principle, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone who is against government surveillance is necessarily cool with this implication of law enforcement being unable to do its job through the properly established legal means.
jogjayr 9y ago
> If torture didn't work, Kiefer Sutherland would never have gotten anywhere. But if everyone were against torture, the show wouldn't have existed. If you want to see a fictional counterpoint to the "torture works" argument, I'd encourage you to watch Burn Notice. It has a blacklisted CIA operative who fights crime in Miami and one of his mottoes is "Torture doesn't always get you the truth. It gets you the quickest lie that will stop the torture" (he does a voiceover narration). Instead of torture he uses deception, misdirection, and other tradecraft to extract secrets. For example, he kidnaps his target and holds him in a dark warehouse, then has himself beaten up by an associate and put in the warehouse as a "fellow" captive, thus gaining his confidence (it's much better on-screen, I've probably forgotten some details).
senectus1 9y ago
that's daft.. you might as well ban writing on burnable materials and while you're at it burn fire...

by unabst 9y ago

BlackFly 9y ago

Of course there is an answer to unbreakable encryption, the same answer to in person conversations at a private location: bug the location where the communication takes place. You don't need a back door on communications if you are "looking over the shoulder" of someone as they type it in. If the person is a suspect, then they can get a warrant to plant a bug.

unabst 9y ago
There are plenty of options outside torture also. But the fear of unbreakableness is persistent, just as is those who believe torture to work or to be okay. The fundamental underpinnings of any related correct and incorrect behavior is still emotional though. And that is also why loaded words such as "terrorism" get the ball rolling fast, regardless of which way that ball is rolling...
nine_k 9y ago
You can say that taking a preventive action helps against anything. (Cue "Minority Report" by Philip K Dick.) The problem is that a preventive action usually hasn't been taken, but now, when a problem exists, they have something to do with it, and they can't. They want a built-in backdoor exactly as a preventive measure, a bug. The problem, of course, is that those breaking the law would still use the unbreakable version, the same way they use other illegal means, and the law-abiding majority will stay safely vulnerable.
LordKano 9y ago
Their complaint about this is that it's hard to do that. Well, that's good. I think that law enforcement SHOULD be hard. It should be hard and complicated and time consuming. One of the worst things I can imagine is idle law enforcement officers. Bored cops will find something to do. Whether it's going from car to car and ticketing anyone who is 12.1 or more inches from the curb or ticketing people for spitting on the sidewalk, no good can come from idle police. Idle prosecutors are every bit as much of a potential nightmare. We see District Attorneys being used as political weapons now. Just imagine if they had the power to go fishing through the electronic communications of every political rival. If the work is difficult, they'll only do it when they have reason to believe a serious crime has been or soon will be committed. It's easy to justify overtime for surveillance on a suspected drug kingpin, organized crime figure, rapist or murderer. It's not so easy to justify it to monitor some guy from a TEA Party Group, BLM or Occupy just so find out what they're doing.
- ironmagma 9y ago
  > Whether it's going from car to car and ticketing anyone who is 12.1 or more inches from the curb or ticketing people for spitting on the sidewalk, no good can come from idle police. So... enforcing our existing laws? What's the point of having those laws if they're never enforced?
  - LordKano 9y ago
    Reinforcing their role as revenue generators instead of peace officers.

That-one-thing 9y ago

Well it's sort of true. If you find a bad person and get someone to follow them with a really good camera you'll likely get the code (especially for a phone ). If you are at a mall in a high tech country I was told that you can read what they write on their phones ( No source, and if not think about the future ). So you will need some police work but that's actually how it has been used for most part of the last hundred years, where you can't just look stuff up on a computer. So yes there is no real guarantee that you can crack a phone. But if we learned anything from the dark markets it's that it's very hard to never makes mistakes.

sandworm101 9y ago

>>> Same with why we tortured. It counterbalances their vulnerability to secrets. If you study history and interrogation techniques you quickly realize that torture has nothing to do with information. It doesn't work that way. The 24 situation of a terrorist with a secret code in his head that will prevent a nuke going off is so circumscribed that if you think you are entering that situation you should assume that you are mistaken. Torture is about confession. It's about getting someone to say something that you want him to say regardless of whether it is true or not. That's the difference between actual intelligence and "actionable intelligence", the actionable stuff need not be true. If it is enough to justify a warrant or a raid accuracy doesn't matter. This is also why torture is so closely linked to religion. Only a puritan need torture out a confession. It's far easier to forge a signature. Go through the history. Be it the English rack or American Gitmo, they didn't care about accurate information. What they wanted and got was signatures on documents written almost entirely by the interrogators. (I'll leave aside the other use of torture, as simple punishment, because that's a totally different debate.)

throwaway613834 9y ago

Way to present a nuanced issue as a seemingly clear-cut case of governmental oppression. It's pretty solidly ingrained in America that a properly-issued warrant should be enough to get law enforcement whatever evidence it needs. Encryption also breaks this fundamental principle, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone who is against government surveillance is necessarily cool with this implication of law enforcement being unable to do its job through the properly established legal means.

jogjayr 9y ago

> If torture didn't work, Kiefer Sutherland would never have gotten anywhere. But if everyone were against torture, the show wouldn't have existed. If you want to see a fictional counterpoint to the "torture works" argument, I'd encourage you to watch Burn Notice. It has a blacklisted CIA operative who fights crime in Miami and one of his mottoes is "Torture doesn't always get you the truth. It gets you the quickest lie that will stop the torture" (he does a voiceover narration). Instead of torture he uses deception, misdirection, and other tradecraft to extract secrets. For example, he kidnaps his target and holds him in a dark warehouse, then has himself beaten up by an associate and put in the warehouse as a "fellow" captive, thus gaining his confidence (it's much better on-screen, I've probably forgotten some details).

senectus1 9y ago

that's daft.. you might as well ban writing on burnable materials and while you're at it burn fire...