5 ms·

Barr is just the latest to advocate backdoors at the DOJ. Here's an incomplete list: Rosenstein: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-ros

• domnomnom 7y ago
  It’s almost as if access to high levels of intelligence has an influence on ones perspective. Not that I’m taking a position on things either way really. The likes of apple should be able to do what they please — just not be surprised when they find the government installing the backdoors themselves.
  • naturlich 7y ago
    It's strongly possible the causality goes the other way.
  • rgbrenner 7y ago
    I can't tell if you're for or against backdoors with that statement. Either way, I disagree. I don't think those for or against it are dumb people. They're just in a different position... In the DOJ, encryption gets in the way of their job--catching criminals... while the penalties for a backdoor fall on others (those responsible for the data). There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor. The opposite is true for those not in the DOJ... the protection for our data is compromised.. and in exchange, the DOJ is able to prosecute some criminal we've never known, met, or had any contact with. To those in the DOJ who deal with criminals everyday, their ability to prosecute criminals is of the upmost importance to them personally... and for the rest of us, unless we're a victim of a crime, there's only downsides to a backdoor.
    • magduf 7y ago
      >There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor. There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors.
      • grimjack00 7y ago
        Except legislation requiring backdoors will either exempt systems used by government workers of a certain level, or provide much higher penalties if those workers experience a breach.
        • magduf 7y ago
          That only works if the government is going to set up its own bank for use by government employees.
      • random023987 7y ago
        > There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors People in the DOJ have more options available to them if they choose to try to find or punish an identity thief than the general public. Also, the direct fear of not being able to do your job because of strong encryption is more focused than a nebulous fear of possible identity theft.
    • dllthomas 7y ago
      I was thrown by the "dumb people", not having got that from the parent comment. Then I realized I'd read "high levels of intelligence" in the sense of "military intelligence" rather than IQ. I think my initial reading was the intended one, but I'm not sure.
  • api 7y ago
    Being a cop (at any level) does very much bias your view of things. Nobody calls the cops (or the FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc.) when things are great. Police tend to only see the absolute worst of human nature and the worst things that people do and develop biases accordingly. I've known a few cops and they all have stories that are hard to hear and are worse than what you hear on most true crime shows. I assume access to high level intelligence involves endlessly seeing cases where people were caught attempting to purchase weapons grade nuclear materials, endless plots that never happened but are very scary to read about, etc. That being said, it is bias and it shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally influence politics. Banning strong encryption is both impractical and destructive to our society and economy.
• extra88 7y ago
  And Janet Reno (who succeeded William Barr) in the 90's, back in the days of the Clipper chip and encryption software being treated as munitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
• aussieguy1234 7y ago
  Do they really think terrorists will stop using strong encryption if they ban it?
  • dllthomas 7y ago
    They think that if they can jail people for using encryption then one of two things happen: terrorists stop using it (with the presumed good that entails) or terrorists don't stop using it. If the latter, they hope they can jail the terrorists for the use of illegal encryption - maybe even before any successful attack - without the need to show anything but the use of illegal encryption. If all you're focused on is short-term tactical progress in fighting terrorism, it's a win; I don't think it helps our argument to pretend like that's not the case.
    • HappyDreamer 7y ago
      Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradually getting access to more and more private conversations, step by step turning the US into sth like Russia and China? Then they would use the same arguments about terrorism, as they do now, wouldn't they.
      • dllthomas 7y ago
        "They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense. "But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).