5 ms·

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide l

by rplst8 7y ago

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major incident may well occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues. Whether we end up with legislation or not, the best course for everyone involved is to work soberly and in good faith together to craft appropriate solutions, rather than have outcomes dictated during a crisis. "

java-man 7y ago
where did we see it before? "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
goda90 7y ago
It's either a false flag or fear mongering, neither of which should be used to take away rights.
- chris_wot 7y ago
  Both of which are bad in their own right. He really is an awful AG.
  - yawboakye 7y ago
    Just as awful as your comprehension?
- JCStr 7y ago
  You are missing a third rail, but because YC censors, in its idiocy, those types of things will never penetrate the echo chambers of smug.
redler 7y ago
"Be aware that the Reichstag could burn at any time."
smacktoward 7y ago
I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but I don't read this that way, no. It reads to me more like he's saying that from a planning perspective it's better to figure the worst thing that could happen and have a plan already developed that could handle that, rather than being caught by surprise and then having law and policy made in a mad, panicked rush. (In other words, let's not do with cybersecurity policy what we did with counter-terrorism policy in the weeks after 9/11.)
- jimbob45 7y ago
  This is how I interpreted it. It seems like a wise, level-headed approach.
  - knd775 7y ago
    Wise? You think encryption back doors are wise?
    - smacktoward 7y ago
      Encryption back doors are not wise, no. Barr's point is that it's better to have that argument now, in a level-headed moment and with opportunities for all the relevant stakeholders to provide input, than it would be to have it in the middle of some dire emergency. If you oppose back doors, I would think you would agree with him on this -- government tends to be delegated sweeping powers in emergencies, so it would be much harder to stop gov-friendly proposals like "back door all the things" in that kind of moment than it would be to stop them now.
      - windexh8er 7y ago
        Agreed. It's better to have the conversation now because if we don't and the "event" does occur those who support encryption backdoors will use it as the basis of their argument in all possible manner. "We must do something now, it's clear that we need backdoors because of X!" <- That's a much worse position to be in during a debate.
      - 7y ago
TeMPOraL 7y ago
I might be missing some subtleties here, because it does read surprisingly reasonable. A "crisis" "galvanizing public opinion" is always a recipe for disaster. See e.g. US overreaction to 9/11, from which the whole world still suffers.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Yeah. I'm no fan of Barr, but "we should think about this stuff before a big event stirs public outrage" is very reasonable. "Don't do anything until we have a big problem" is how we got the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act.
yawboakye 7y ago
Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1) give no hiding place to the bad guys (2) make the good guys undiscoverable. It'd be sad to see a solution by decree (9/11-style) but I fear that's where we're headed so long as private companies are unwilling to find a workable solution. Peacetime is a delusion.
- me_again 7y ago
  They can issue as many decrees as they like but they can't solve the problem with decrees any more than they can decree that water is dry. All they can decree is that it is illegal to use effective encryption, which would be, um, unfortunate.
  - yawboakye 7y ago
    You have a point. By decree what I meant was that in the event of a disaster and panic the public will back any law that forces, say, Apple to give unfettered access to law enforcement. By then it's too late to engage in debates. The public became interested and very unforgivenly sided with law enforcement. They'd have prioritized their safety over being able to send cat pictures securely. Similar to 9/11.
  - redisman 7y ago
    Breaking encryption would cause breaches orders of magnitude more catastrophic than encrypted communications between bad guys.
    - yawboakye 7y ago
      See it this way: we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public. The way I see it the US government (and governments around the world) will make this a non-negotiable objective. There's not a lot of pressure now because, as Barr said, the event that will turn the public against encryption hasn't arrived yet. If the parties involved don't find a solution in the meantime they'd be forced to weaken encryption for everyone when a catastrophe happens. The public is fickle. Our safety is paramount.
shmerl 7y ago
The public opinion is clear - security should not be compromised, just because some want to have backdoors and can't get over the fact that it's a very bad idea. > We think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption while also providing secure legal access. Yeah, may be he can also claim, tech sector can achive perpetuum mobile. This just keeps coming back all over again. He should get over the fact that it's impossible, and move on to dealing with it. Next time he should consult actual security expects before producing the above nonsense.
youareostriches 7y ago
It’s really quite incredible how these subversions of our privacy (even including blatant disregard for the constitution) are rarely questioned when it comes to preventing terrorism, but when it comes to mass shootings that have actually killed far more people in the US, those guns are sacred objects. But notice how the label of “terrorist” is uniquely applied to the ethnic “other”, and now consider the first real gun control legislation — the Mulford Act: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  It's not incredible at all if you understand that all the power in the world is ultimately derived from people with guns.
  - youareostriches 7y ago
    In case it wasn’t already blatantly obvious, my point is that terrorism in the US is fundamentally associated with “brown” people, and elicits the most immediate and direct attention from governments, whereas mass shootings are almost always committed by white men, and even the worst mass shootings against children elicit no real action. But yes, guns have been regulated in the past — when? After the Black Panther party brought open carry weapons to the state capitol during a protest.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      Different motives: mentally ill vs spiritual belief. and there are plenty of initiatives to ban guns after terrorist actions done by whites. not sure what your point is.
      - youareostriches 7y ago
        I just stated my point with perfect clarity. And no, gun control has been legislated almost entirely in response to perceived violence from communities of color.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 7y ago
More likely transparent opportunism, in my opinion. Which is also bad and gross.

by rplst8 7y ago

java-man 7y ago

where did we see it before? "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...

goda90 7y ago

It's either a false flag or fear mongering, neither of which should be used to take away rights.

chris_wot 7y ago
Both of which are bad in their own right. He really is an awful AG.
- yawboakye 7y ago
  Just as awful as your comprehension?
JCStr 7y ago
You are missing a third rail, but because YC censors, in its idiocy, those types of things will never penetrate the echo chambers of smug.

redler 7y ago

"Be aware that the Reichstag could burn at any time."

smacktoward 7y ago

I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but I don't read this that way, no. It reads to me more like he's saying that from a planning perspective it's better to figure the worst thing that could happen and have a plan already developed that could handle that, rather than being caught by surprise and then having law and policy made in a mad, panicked rush. (In other words, let's not do with cybersecurity policy what we did with counter-terrorism policy in the weeks after 9/11.)

jimbob45 7y ago
This is how I interpreted it. It seems like a wise, level-headed approach.
- knd775 7y ago
  Wise? You think encryption back doors are wise?
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Encryption back doors are not wise, no. Barr's point is that it's better to have that argument now, in a level-headed moment and with opportunities for all the relevant stakeholders to provide input, than it would be to have it in the middle of some dire emergency. If you oppose back doors, I would think you would agree with him on this -- government tends to be delegated sweeping powers in emergencies, so it would be much harder to stop gov-friendly proposals like "back door all the things" in that kind of moment than it would be to stop them now.
    - windexh8er 7y ago
      Agreed. It's better to have the conversation now because if we don't and the "event" does occur those who support encryption backdoors will use it as the basis of their argument in all possible manner. "We must do something now, it's clear that we need backdoors because of X!" <- That's a much worse position to be in during a debate.
    - 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I might be missing some subtleties here, because it does read surprisingly reasonable. A "crisis" "galvanizing public opinion" is always a recipe for disaster. See e.g. US overreaction to 9/11, from which the whole world still suffers.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Yeah. I'm no fan of Barr, but "we should think about this stuff before a big event stirs public outrage" is very reasonable. "Don't do anything until we have a big problem" is how we got the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act.

yawboakye 7y ago

Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1) give no hiding place to the bad guys (2) make the good guys undiscoverable. It'd be sad to see a solution by decree (9/11-style) but I fear that's where we're headed so long as private companies are unwilling to find a workable solution. Peacetime is a delusion.

me_again 7y ago
They can issue as many decrees as they like but they can't solve the problem with decrees any more than they can decree that water is dry. All they can decree is that it is illegal to use effective encryption, which would be, um, unfortunate.
- yawboakye 7y ago
  You have a point. By decree what I meant was that in the event of a disaster and panic the public will back any law that forces, say, Apple to give unfettered access to law enforcement. By then it's too late to engage in debates. The public became interested and very unforgivenly sided with law enforcement. They'd have prioritized their safety over being able to send cat pictures securely. Similar to 9/11.
- redisman 7y ago
  Breaking encryption would cause breaches orders of magnitude more catastrophic than encrypted communications between bad guys.
  - yawboakye 7y ago
    See it this way: we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public. The way I see it the US government (and governments around the world) will make this a non-negotiable objective. There's not a lot of pressure now because, as Barr said, the event that will turn the public against encryption hasn't arrived yet. If the parties involved don't find a solution in the meantime they'd be forced to weaken encryption for everyone when a catastrophe happens. The public is fickle. Our safety is paramount.

shmerl 7y ago

The public opinion is clear - security should not be compromised, just because some want to have backdoors and can't get over the fact that it's a very bad idea. > We think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption while also providing secure legal access. Yeah, may be he can also claim, tech sector can achive perpetuum mobile. This just keeps coming back all over again. He should get over the fact that it's impossible, and move on to dealing with it. Next time he should consult actual security expects before producing the above nonsense.

youareostriches 7y ago

It’s really quite incredible how these subversions of our privacy (even including blatant disregard for the constitution) are rarely questioned when it comes to preventing terrorism, but when it comes to mass shootings that have actually killed far more people in the US, those guns are sacred objects. But notice how the label of “terrorist” is uniquely applied to the ethnic “other”, and now consider the first real gun control legislation — the Mulford Act: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

JudgeWapner 7y ago
It's not incredible at all if you understand that all the power in the world is ultimately derived from people with guns.
- youareostriches 7y ago
  In case it wasn’t already blatantly obvious, my point is that terrorism in the US is fundamentally associated with “brown” people, and elicits the most immediate and direct attention from governments, whereas mass shootings are almost always committed by white men, and even the worst mass shootings against children elicit no real action. But yes, guns have been regulated in the past — when? After the Black Panther party brought open carry weapons to the state capitol during a protest.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    Different motives: mentally ill vs spiritual belief. and there are plenty of initiatives to ban guns after terrorist actions done by whites. not sure what your point is.
    - youareostriches 7y ago
      I just stated my point with perfect clarity. And no, gun control has been legislated almost entirely in response to perceived violence from communities of color.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

snowwrestler 7y ago

More likely transparent opportunism, in my opinion. Which is also bad and gross.