3 ms·

The thing I find funny is that they aren't acknowledging the fact that they used to solve crimes before cell phones existed. What did they do back then? Hell, e

The thing I find funny is that they aren't acknowledging the fact that they used to solve crimes before cell phones existed. What did they do back then? Hell, even phone calls could be made rather anonymously. They have way more metadata to pour over these days than they did in the past. Their truly sick desire to undermine the privacy and security of ordinary citizens is just that.... They won't solve more crimes by breaking encryption.

maltalex 9y ago
> The thing I find funny is that they aren't acknowledging the fact that they used to solve crimes before cell phones existed. What did they do back then? I'm not a big fan of government surveillance, but I find this argument problematic. Crime was different before the Internet and cell phones. Criminals learned to use the new tech with the rest of us. For example, not that long ago if the FBI had a person followed and his land line monitored, they could know who that person was in contact with. Today, that person might be exchanging messages over an encrypted app, on an encrypted phone, and there's no way of telling who with. I'm with you about the fact that privacy of ordinary citizens is being undermined, and that through technology, invasive surveillance became so cheap and easy to deploy, that it's everywhere. But let's not confuse state level surveillance of the whole population with targeted surveillance approved in a legitimate proceeding by an independent judge in an independent court against an actual criminal. Citizens typically want to allow the latter, while preventing the former. Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both. So "public safety" arguments might be used to promote anti-democratic surveillance of a population, but can also be legitimate concerns of a law enforcement agency trying to investigate actual crimes.
- lethargic_meat 9y ago
  Let's not forget that criminals can also exploit a backdoor, so creating them jeopardizes public safety. Furthermore, if IT vendors agreed to create those backdoors, criminals are not forced to use those products and can still rely on homebrew or foreign tools. Later, the situation might escalate where these tools utilization is prohibited (e.g. VPN, Tor), as we see in some countries, but that shouldn't stop criminals from using them while making the public vulnerable.
  - jochung 9y ago
    And the authorities are equally likely to commit a crime as the man on the street, a fact they generally don't acknowledge and certainly don't design their own systems for. You cannot create safety by concentrating power and authority, you create it by limiting the effects of those two.
- erric 9y ago
  >But let's not confuse state level surveillance of the whole population with targeted surveillance approved by an independent judge in an independent court against an actual criminal A judge and court who rarely, if ever, deny such requests. Innocent until proven guilty?
  - maltalex 9y ago
    You're right, the system is not fair, and it's FAR from being perfect. The "innocent until proven guilty" part bothers the heck out of me. But the story doesn't end with me or you. Recall that there are actual criminals in the world and "the system" is trying to balance public safety with the rights of the individual. It's tricky, and is just becoming trickier. I don't know how to solve it, but the answer can't be stripping our law enforcement officers completely of the right to investigate what a person did or is doing.
    - us0r 9y ago
      >can't be stripping our law enforcement officers completely of the right to investigate what a person did or is doing. Oh they are far from stripped. https://theintercept.com/series/the-fbis-secret-rules/ https://theintercept.com/series/the-fbis-secret-rules/
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  >Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both. Which is exactly why their powers need to be severely limited. In a fantasy world of rainbows and lollipops where the government are the "good guys" with only pure good in their hearts they could be trusted with limitless powers to pursue the "bad guys". In the actual world that exists, the government is made up of regular people - people who lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of things for their own purposes. If history has taught us anything, it should be that power corrupts. Far better that we live in a world where a small percentage of crimes go unsolved than a police state with ubiquitous tracking, surveillance and real-time monitoring where its an absolutely certainty that we all suffer the consequences.
  - maltalex 9y ago
    I agree. It's a matter of balance between the two. Especially when you don't know which "end" of the judicial system you might face, if any. You might be accused of a crime and then you'll be rooting for the rights of the accused or individual rights in general, or you might be the victim of a crime, in which case you might feel like supporting broader police powers.
- rakoo 9y ago
  > Today, that person might be exchanging messages over an encrypted app, on an encrypted phone, and there's no way of telling who with. Yes there is. That's the point of iamcasen: they have way more metadata to analyze. They can know who talked with who, when, for how long, etc.... All that information is present on the providers' servers, which is presumably available to the FBI in an investigation. Only the content remains unknown.

maltalex 9y ago

> The thing I find funny is that they aren't acknowledging the fact that they used to solve crimes before cell phones existed. What did they do back then? I'm not a big fan of government surveillance, but I find this argument problematic. Crime was different before the Internet and cell phones. Criminals learned to use the new tech with the rest of us. For example, not that long ago if the FBI had a person followed and his land line monitored, they could know who that person was in contact with. Today, that person might be exchanging messages over an encrypted app, on an encrypted phone, and there's no way of telling who with. I'm with you about the fact that privacy of ordinary citizens is being undermined, and that through technology, invasive surveillance became so cheap and easy to deploy, that it's everywhere. But let's not confuse state level surveillance of the whole population with targeted surveillance approved in a legitimate proceeding by an independent judge in an independent court against an actual criminal. Citizens typically want to allow the latter, while preventing the former. Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both. So "public safety" arguments might be used to promote anti-democratic surveillance of a population, but can also be legitimate concerns of a law enforcement agency trying to investigate actual crimes.

lethargic_meat 9y ago
Let's not forget that criminals can also exploit a backdoor, so creating them jeopardizes public safety. Furthermore, if IT vendors agreed to create those backdoors, criminals are not forced to use those products and can still rely on homebrew or foreign tools. Later, the situation might escalate where these tools utilization is prohibited (e.g. VPN, Tor), as we see in some countries, but that shouldn't stop criminals from using them while making the public vulnerable.
- jochung 9y ago
  And the authorities are equally likely to commit a crime as the man on the street, a fact they generally don't acknowledge and certainly don't design their own systems for. You cannot create safety by concentrating power and authority, you create it by limiting the effects of those two.
erric 9y ago
>But let's not confuse state level surveillance of the whole population with targeted surveillance approved by an independent judge in an independent court against an actual criminal A judge and court who rarely, if ever, deny such requests. Innocent until proven guilty?
- maltalex 9y ago
  You're right, the system is not fair, and it's FAR from being perfect. The "innocent until proven guilty" part bothers the heck out of me. But the story doesn't end with me or you. Recall that there are actual criminals in the world and "the system" is trying to balance public safety with the rights of the individual. It's tricky, and is just becoming trickier. I don't know how to solve it, but the answer can't be stripping our law enforcement officers completely of the right to investigate what a person did or is doing.
  - us0r 9y ago
    >can't be stripping our law enforcement officers completely of the right to investigate what a person did or is doing. Oh they are far from stripped. https://theintercept.com/series/the-fbis-secret-rules/ https://theintercept.com/series/the-fbis-secret-rules/
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
>Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both. Which is exactly why their powers need to be severely limited. In a fantasy world of rainbows and lollipops where the government are the "good guys" with only pure good in their hearts they could be trusted with limitless powers to pursue the "bad guys". In the actual world that exists, the government is made up of regular people - people who lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of things for their own purposes. If history has taught us anything, it should be that power corrupts. Far better that we live in a world where a small percentage of crimes go unsolved than a police state with ubiquitous tracking, surveillance and real-time monitoring where its an absolutely certainty that we all suffer the consequences.
- maltalex 9y ago
  I agree. It's a matter of balance between the two. Especially when you don't know which "end" of the judicial system you might face, if any. You might be accused of a crime and then you'll be rooting for the rights of the accused or individual rights in general, or you might be the victim of a crime, in which case you might feel like supporting broader police powers.
rakoo 9y ago
> Today, that person might be exchanging messages over an encrypted app, on an encrypted phone, and there's no way of telling who with. Yes there is. That's the point of iamcasen: they have way more metadata to analyze. They can know who talked with who, when, for how long, etc.... All that information is present on the providers' servers, which is presumably available to the FBI in an investigation. Only the content remains unknown.