11 ms·

It's frightening how politicians with such little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects have so much power to create legislation about those subjects.

It's frightening how politicians with such little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects have so much power to create legislation about those subjects. But apparently that's how we have built our civilization, through trial and error.

dogma1138 8y ago
The problem is that we as a society already agreed that it’s acceptable. We allowed the government to open mail, open locks and tap phones with a warrant all of which were technically challenging. Phone networks must be set up with specific dedicated access for law enforcement heck I remember crawling through the SNMP MIBs on my Motorola cable modem 15 years ago and discovering a whole class of them dedicated to lawful interception. Most networking equipment providers even have guides on how to set these up: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_usr_cfg/configuration/xe-3s/sec-usr-cfg-xe-3s-book/sec-lawful-intercept.pdf https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_usr_cf... And this is why the encryption battle is a bit odd to me as much as I would like encryption to be never tampered with we’ve already as a society agreed that the government in some cases should have access so what makes WhatsApp so different to a phone call? If encryption isn’t a way to backdoor ourselves out of the existing legal interception laws then as much as I hate to admit it we don’t have a leg to stand on. If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn’t be able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to communicate.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Most of the time such laws are passed on Christmas or New Year's eve (Obama literally allowed the NSA to share Upstream surveillance data with all the other 16 agencies like 3-4 days before his presidency ended - how exactly would anyone have stopped Obama then?!), or people "allow" them to pass through inaction, which I think is not quite the same as actively supporting something. Governments of the world simply take advantage of people's inaction or their lack of attention to certain issues. This is a problem with how most democracies work (the democratic processes are not democratic enough, but we've failed to improve upon them due to complacency). And 10 years later when people wake up to it they come out and say "but we've been using this for a decade and it's been so helpful in our investigations!". And even if that was true, often they don't provide real proof, and also the government is almost never interested in doing a cost-benefit analysis for such things. Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too?
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    That still doesn't answer my question, the legal precedence for all of these was set up decades if not centuries ago. We agreed that a government should be able to tap a phone, in fact it's illegal to be a communication provider in the US and in the majority of the rest of the world essentially every country where there is a rule of law has the same laws without complying with the legal intercept requirements from the government. Every piece of telecommunications equipment already has these backdoors built-in, in fact part of the FCC certification is to ensure compliance with LEI when applicable. What Obama did with the NSA is also a doesn't have any bearing on this issue, if the NSA surveillance is warrantless it's another issue as far as sharing the contents of the in interception with other agencies well it's again a different issue. But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US the question is and always was what makes WhatsApp any different than a phone call? Your mobile provider by law must provide LEI of data, voice and text, now no one uses voice anymore, most people don't even text not without using alternative apps like WhatsApp or iMessage. So what is so special about these apps that the laws don't apply to them? and if we are using encryption as a way to back out of the rights we as a society already granted our government then by all means let's do it publicly because there is no reason why the government should be able to tap the phone of a 90 year old grandmother but not yours just because you know how to use WhatsApp. >Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too? Practically none, every telecommunication equipment in the US and the west in large has LEI backdoors built-in these aren't used for exploitation, just like the fact that most mobile phones can be easily tapped by anyone with a $100 worth of SDR equipment. While these are technically a risk in practice they aren't really a risk because they still have a high barrier for entry, high risk, and essentially very low reward due to the lack of scalability.
    - 3x 8y ago
      The difference is that these agencies never even bother with a warrant to store all of our data, and claim to not "collect" anything all while using algorithms to conduct mass surveillance at a scale far beyond the KGB's wildest dreams. And when they do want to spy on an individual more directly, it's done through gag orders and secret courts with no accountability to the public. Digital data is actually afforded even fewer protections than your example of letters in the mail.
- anafh83 8y ago
  >The problem is that we as a society already agreed that it’s acceptable. >We allowed the government to open mail, open locks and tap phones with a warrant all of which were technically challenging. If we had a referendum on this ("should the police be able to access the communications of someone as part of the investigation of a crime?") I bet "yes" would win. Myself I also think it's acceptable. Don't think it's so clear-cut.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    >If we had a referendum on this ("should the police be able to access the communications of someone as part of the investigation of a crime?") I bet "yes" would win. I highly doubt so, but if so it should be the way to go because there are backdoors in nearly every piece of telecom gear because the providers are mandated to provide LEI capability by law.
    - anafh83 8y ago
      Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        >Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. If anything the if the US has a trust problems with the government then it should be a yes rather than a no. But anywhere else in the world there is also little to no chance that the population at large would be up for denying the government the ability to have lawful intercept and lawful access to any protected resource during an investigation. In fact you might not want to deny them that right at all because it would essentially shift the majority of the evidence to circumstantial eyewitness testimonies. Because why stop at a phone call? why should a government be able to search your residence? open a safe? read a diary? open your computer? And if you deny them all that then what happens? sure at first the legal system would be in a transition phase where much less people might be convicted because under these new restrictions the prosecution won't be able to meet the bar required for conviction but fairly quickly as soon as conviction rates would drop the legal system would bounce back up and get used to the reality of less evidence and this isn't a good place to be. Any development in forensic sciences and investigatory techniques has prevented innocent people from being charged and convicted just as it helped to convict the guilty (don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's perfect or that mistakes are not being made, but DNA for example had to exonerate as many people that it helped to put in). So I'm not entirely sure we want to go back to the days where people were judged in court based on how many character references they could provide.
- mrsteveman1 8y ago
  > If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn’t be able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to communicate. They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic. These are opportunities they don't have available to them, and it needs to stay that way. They should not be permitted to set aside all other concerns just to keep that wiretap and search ability in the cases where it comes up, because it simply isn't that important compared to all of the problems they will cause in the process. People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    >They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic. No it was never opportunistic, it was always by design and mandated by law as telecommunication providers must provide LEI capabilities this affects how they design and implement their networks and the equipment they use which is why LEI capabilities appear even in CPE equipment such as your modem and the FCC and other regulatory bodies enforce this as part of their certification process. The case here is that that now the telecommunication providers aren't actually that useful for LEI or at least it's that WhatsApp/Facebook isn't classified as one because if it was it would be required to provide LEI capabilities by law. >People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained. If we turn back the clock even only 5 years ago where essentially nothing was encrypted in a manner that would invalidate LEI this wasn't an issue, nor does it grant the government any new powers.
  - guy98238710 8y ago
    Perhaps such interception capabilities were developed because encryption technology wasn't widely available at the time. Even back then people with high security needs encrypted phone calls with contemporary encryption technology. Times have changed and encryption technology is widely available now. The question is whether encryption will be broken by people resisting change or whether law enforcement will be satisfied with metadata alone. EDIT: Should have been posted under grandparent.
- lugg 8y ago
  Please don't use whataboutism. If it was already agreed there would be no bill. Just because our forefathers succumbed to the scare tactics, fake news, logical fallacies, propaganda and plain old whataboutism does not mean we must also do so. The people, society, law makers, whatever made their decisions and it is incredibly hard to undo them. I would love say today, hey you know what, it was worth while having law enforcement be given access in the past but in light of their abuse re Snowden et al, maybe it's time to roll some of this back. Because you know, the rewards no longer justify the means. But you know what? That just isn't a workable option. Now with that said, for the bill I question, It does not just plainly follow that we must make the same mistakes. We have hindsight and should take advantage of that fact, not just squander it.
johnchristopher 8y ago
I work for the tech division of a non-tech related branch of public service. It's scarier than you think. People passing by in the hall are sometimes literally added to the meeting taking place and get to (are obliged ?) voice any advice they might have on the subject being discussed. Boom, they are now an expert and project leader. It's not about legislation though but the consequences are very real (how to project gets implemented with all the dance with contractors and other branches and how it will impact everyone in the country).
dgzl 8y ago
That's what lobbyists are for, and the reason that they aren't inherently bad.
josefresco 8y ago
"It's frightening how politicians with such little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects have so much power to create legislation about those subjects" But we've elected these politicians to ... create legislation! Should leave it up to people like ... Zuckerberg? Jack?
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >Should leave it up to people like ... Zuckerberg? Jack? Why not say, cryptographers, mathmeticians, computer scientists that arent multi-billionaires that actually do have your best interests in mind and haven't been corrupted by money?
  - josefresco 8y ago
    Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists should be consulting politicians, who should have a broader view than just their specialty. Also, money corrupts without prejudice, even cryptographers, mathematicians, and "computer scientists".

dogma1138 8y ago

The problem is that we as a society already agreed that it’s acceptable. We allowed the government to open mail, open locks and tap phones with a warrant all of which were technically challenging. Phone networks must be set up with specific dedicated access for law enforcement heck I remember crawling through the SNMP MIBs on my Motorola cable modem 15 years ago and discovering a whole class of them dedicated to lawful interception. Most networking equipment providers even have guides on how to set these up: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_usr_cfg/configuration/xe-3s/sec-usr-cfg-xe-3s-book/sec-lawful-intercept.pdf https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_usr_cf... And this is why the encryption battle is a bit odd to me as much as I would like encryption to be never tampered with we’ve already as a society agreed that the government in some cases should have access so what makes WhatsApp so different to a phone call? If encryption isn’t a way to backdoor ourselves out of the existing legal interception laws then as much as I hate to admit it we don’t have a leg to stand on. If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn’t be able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to communicate.

mtgx 8y ago
Most of the time such laws are passed on Christmas or New Year's eve (Obama literally allowed the NSA to share Upstream surveillance data with all the other 16 agencies like 3-4 days before his presidency ended - how exactly would anyone have stopped Obama then?!), or people "allow" them to pass through inaction, which I think is not quite the same as actively supporting something. Governments of the world simply take advantage of people's inaction or their lack of attention to certain issues. This is a problem with how most democracies work (the democratic processes are not democratic enough, but we've failed to improve upon them due to complacency). And 10 years later when people wake up to it they come out and say "but we've been using this for a decade and it's been so helpful in our investigations!". And even if that was true, often they don't provide real proof, and also the government is almost never interested in doing a cost-benefit analysis for such things. Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too?
- dogma1138 8y ago
  That still doesn't answer my question, the legal precedence for all of these was set up decades if not centuries ago. We agreed that a government should be able to tap a phone, in fact it's illegal to be a communication provider in the US and in the majority of the rest of the world essentially every country where there is a rule of law has the same laws without complying with the legal intercept requirements from the government. Every piece of telecommunications equipment already has these backdoors built-in, in fact part of the FCC certification is to ensure compliance with LEI when applicable. What Obama did with the NSA is also a doesn't have any bearing on this issue, if the NSA surveillance is warrantless it's another issue as far as sharing the contents of the in interception with other agencies well it's again a different issue. But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US the question is and always was what makes WhatsApp any different than a phone call? Your mobile provider by law must provide LEI of data, voice and text, now no one uses voice anymore, most people don't even text not without using alternative apps like WhatsApp or iMessage. So what is so special about these apps that the laws don't apply to them? and if we are using encryption as a way to back out of the rights we as a society already granted our government then by all means let's do it publicly because there is no reason why the government should be able to tap the phone of a 90 year old grandmother but not yours just because you know how to use WhatsApp. >Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too? Practically none, every telecommunication equipment in the US and the west in large has LEI backdoors built-in these aren't used for exploitation, just like the fact that most mobile phones can be easily tapped by anyone with a $100 worth of SDR equipment. While these are technically a risk in practice they aren't really a risk because they still have a high barrier for entry, high risk, and essentially very low reward due to the lack of scalability.
  - 3x 8y ago
    The difference is that these agencies never even bother with a warrant to store all of our data, and claim to not "collect" anything all while using algorithms to conduct mass surveillance at a scale far beyond the KGB's wildest dreams. And when they do want to spy on an individual more directly, it's done through gag orders and secret courts with no accountability to the public. Digital data is actually afforded even fewer protections than your example of letters in the mail.
anafh83 8y ago
>The problem is that we as a society already agreed that it’s acceptable. >We allowed the government to open mail, open locks and tap phones with a warrant all of which were technically challenging. If we had a referendum on this ("should the police be able to access the communications of someone as part of the investigation of a crime?") I bet "yes" would win. Myself I also think it's acceptable. Don't think it's so clear-cut.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  >If we had a referendum on this ("should the police be able to access the communications of someone as part of the investigation of a crime?") I bet "yes" would win. I highly doubt so, but if so it should be the way to go because there are backdoors in nearly every piece of telecom gear because the providers are mandated to provide LEI capability by law.
  - anafh83 8y ago
    Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      >Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. If anything the if the US has a trust problems with the government then it should be a yes rather than a no. But anywhere else in the world there is also little to no chance that the population at large would be up for denying the government the ability to have lawful intercept and lawful access to any protected resource during an investigation. In fact you might not want to deny them that right at all because it would essentially shift the majority of the evidence to circumstantial eyewitness testimonies. Because why stop at a phone call? why should a government be able to search your residence? open a safe? read a diary? open your computer? And if you deny them all that then what happens? sure at first the legal system would be in a transition phase where much less people might be convicted because under these new restrictions the prosecution won't be able to meet the bar required for conviction but fairly quickly as soon as conviction rates would drop the legal system would bounce back up and get used to the reality of less evidence and this isn't a good place to be. Any development in forensic sciences and investigatory techniques has prevented innocent people from being charged and convicted just as it helped to convict the guilty (don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's perfect or that mistakes are not being made, but DNA for example had to exonerate as many people that it helped to put in). So I'm not entirely sure we want to go back to the days where people were judged in court based on how many character references they could provide.
mrsteveman1 8y ago
> If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn’t be able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to communicate. They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic. These are opportunities they don't have available to them, and it needs to stay that way. They should not be permitted to set aside all other concerns just to keep that wiretap and search ability in the cases where it comes up, because it simply isn't that important compared to all of the problems they will cause in the process. People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  >They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic. No it was never opportunistic, it was always by design and mandated by law as telecommunication providers must provide LEI capabilities this affects how they design and implement their networks and the equipment they use which is why LEI capabilities appear even in CPE equipment such as your modem and the FCC and other regulatory bodies enforce this as part of their certification process. The case here is that that now the telecommunication providers aren't actually that useful for LEI or at least it's that WhatsApp/Facebook isn't classified as one because if it was it would be required to provide LEI capabilities by law. >People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained. If we turn back the clock even only 5 years ago where essentially nothing was encrypted in a manner that would invalidate LEI this wasn't an issue, nor does it grant the government any new powers.
- guy98238710 8y ago
  Perhaps such interception capabilities were developed because encryption technology wasn't widely available at the time. Even back then people with high security needs encrypted phone calls with contemporary encryption technology. Times have changed and encryption technology is widely available now. The question is whether encryption will be broken by people resisting change or whether law enforcement will be satisfied with metadata alone. EDIT: Should have been posted under grandparent.
lugg 8y ago
Please don't use whataboutism. If it was already agreed there would be no bill. Just because our forefathers succumbed to the scare tactics, fake news, logical fallacies, propaganda and plain old whataboutism does not mean we must also do so. The people, society, law makers, whatever made their decisions and it is incredibly hard to undo them. I would love say today, hey you know what, it was worth while having law enforcement be given access in the past but in light of their abuse re Snowden et al, maybe it's time to roll some of this back. Because you know, the rewards no longer justify the means. But you know what? That just isn't a workable option. Now with that said, for the bill I question, It does not just plainly follow that we must make the same mistakes. We have hindsight and should take advantage of that fact, not just squander it.

johnchristopher 8y ago

I work for the tech division of a non-tech related branch of public service. It's scarier than you think. People passing by in the hall are sometimes literally added to the meeting taking place and get to (are obliged ?) voice any advice they might have on the subject being discussed. Boom, they are now an expert and project leader. It's not about legislation though but the consequences are very real (how to project gets implemented with all the dance with contractors and other branches and how it will impact everyone in the country).

dgzl 8y ago

That's what lobbyists are for, and the reason that they aren't inherently bad.

josefresco 8y ago

"It's frightening how politicians with such little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects have so much power to create legislation about those subjects" But we've elected these politicians to ... create legislation! Should leave it up to people like ... Zuckerberg? Jack?

prolikewh0a 8y ago
>Should leave it up to people like ... Zuckerberg? Jack? Why not say, cryptographers, mathmeticians, computer scientists that arent multi-billionaires that actually do have your best interests in mind and haven't been corrupted by money?
- josefresco 8y ago
  Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists should be consulting politicians, who should have a broader view than just their specialty. Also, money corrupts without prejudice, even cryptographers, mathematicians, and "computer scientists".