3 ms·
The FBI have a legitimate cause for concern: if strong cryptography ever becomes foolproof and widespread, it will make intercepting communications much, much h
by neilc 16y ago
The FBI have a legitimate cause for concern: if strong cryptography ever becomes foolproof and widespread, it will make intercepting communications much, much harder -- and there are legitimate reasons for why the FBI would want to intercept communications.
Obviously, the proposed legislation is pretty crazy, but I have at least a little sympathy for the FBI here.
- piguy314 16y agoGod forbid the police have to do real police work instead of just using their security letters and patriot act powers to coerce people into cooperation.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoThis didn't deserve a downvote, because it's obviously exemplary of the very sentiment that's driving the thing. However, that sentiment is assinine. The business of this nation isn't to make the interception of communications easier, it's to facilitate our affairs. The article says But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers. As if the powers of law enforcement are the overriding concern, rather than the freedom of the people.
- neilc 16y agoI don't think my sentiments are "assinine", thank you :) The FBI has legitimate reasons to want to intercept communications, e.g., to try to prevent organized crime and domestic terrorism. While most people would probably support the FBI's interest in doing that, they would also agree that infringing on privacy is bad. So we have a complicated tradeoff, and a system of checks and balances -- and that system might potentially be greatly effected by widespread crypto. The idea that only privacy rights have any value is just naive IMHO, and it is unsurprising that most people don't believe that.
- DennisP 16y agoI might be (very) slightly more sympathetic to that argument if the FBI were not currently raiding the homes of antiwar activists: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/24/fbi-launching-mass-raids-of-antiwar-activists-homes/ http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/24/fbi-launching-mass-raids-...
- CWuestefeld 16y agoOur security is important, but nothing is more important than our freedom. Thus, the powers of law enforcement must exist in the spaces between our freedoms, and not encroach, forcing us to alter our behavior for their convenience. Surely it would be more convenient to law enforcement if they had DNA samples and fingerprints from the entire population, but that's not going to happen. In some ways, demanding the "right" to eavesdrop is even more pernicious, because it's interfering with our freedom to speak and associate with those we choose -- one of our most cherished freedoms. And like at least one other commenter mentioned, the government has a clear track record of abusing such powers. I'll add another to that list, their abuse of the Echelon system. One of Echelon's primary roles has been to gather industrial espionage from European companies for US ones, say some intelligence experts. The French were said to have lost a $6bn contract for Airbus with the Saudi government to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, thanks to Echelon intercepts of faxes and telephone calls. ...The [British Parliament] report warned businesses and ordinary individuals that they are being spied on and that users should encrypt their e-mails. It said: "That a global system for intercepting communications exists ... is no longer in doubt. They do tap into private, civilian and corporate communications." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/secrecy-spy-satellites-and-a-conspiracy-of-silence-the-disturbing-truth-about-echelon-686389.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/secrecy-spy-s...
- joe_the_user 16y agoI upvoted you and downvoted the post. I'd expect that an intelligent, well reasoned and well documented argument for fascism would still get a serious downvote here. I normally down for quality on low karma posts and downvote for opinion on high karma posts. But when the opinion is assinine enough, even the most eloquent expression deserves a downvote. Downvoting in this context isn't suppression, its just a strong statement that this opinion is outside our community. And there are plenty of things I disagree with that I wouldn't downvote below 1 because I know they are held by a reasonable fraction of the intelligent people here.
- xpaulbettsx 16y agoRemember folks, the downvote mechanism is not for when you disagree with people - it's for people who aren't contributing to the conversation. This is a legitimate, reasonable comment and doesn't deserve the downmodding.