4 ms·

> Even if he [AG Barr] makes that the law – and good luck ... > You’d have to inspect every packet on the internet to make sure it wasn’t using strong encrypti

by aazaa 7y ago

> Even if he [AG Barr] makes that the law – and good luck ... > You’d have to inspect every packet on the internet to make sure it wasn’t using strong encryption keys. You’d have to ban every kind of decentralized network. > You’d essentially have to ban any communication that isn’t subject to automatic monitoring by the government. You would essentially have to ban privacy. You’d have to ban the open source movement. Maybe not in this administration, but it's not even hard to think of scenarios after that in which such actions would be taken in a heartbeat. Anyone who witnessed the brainless panic after 9/11 with open eyes should should viscerally feel that the civil rights that make the US the country that is hang by a very delicate thread. All of the things needed for such a program would be done in a bipartisan manner, with members of Congress congratulating themselves for showing responsibility. It would be done to protect the children. Or the oil. Or to vanquish an Evil Empire. Or to stamp out terrorism. It would be done to protect us from nuclear, biological, or cyber annihilation. And it would happen to thunderous applause.

zelon88 7y ago
I agree with you. There was a really good episode of Blue Bloods about this issue. And the writers of Blue Bloods got it completely wrong. The problem is they portrayed the pro-encryption side of the argument negatively, and didn't do it any kind of justice. In the end the Police Commissioner guilted a tech executive to lend him "an engineer" to unlock a smartphone containing sensitive data. That is how this argument is portrayed to the public. "Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about!" It's funny because you can you can usually tell a non-tech-savvy person who has had their identity compromised from a non-tech-savvy person who hasn't, simply because they have a healthy dose of paranoia. I feel like if more of society were trivially hacked (and embarrassed by it) that they would take the issue more seriously. But by then it could be too late.
- mindslight 7y ago
  Of course they got it "wrong". The writers aren't looking to challenge their audience, but rather playing to preconceived notions of the centralizing narrative. The struggle of the good guys stopping the bad criminals. If only the good guys could have more power, they could be more effective! It would be hard to create a more robust system of government propaganda than primetime TV.
- Xelbair 7y ago
  >That is how this argument is portrayed to the public. "Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about!" If government has nothing to hide why getting anything out of FOIA is nearly impossible?
- m-p-3 7y ago
  The thing is that law and public acceptable change over time so > Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about! Maybe I don't need to hide anything for now because what I'm doing is considered legal now, but it might change in the future. Once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in.
kspacewalk2 7y ago
His point is not "this is so outrageous that the government won't dare do it". Rather, he's saying "it's such a monumental undertaking that costs so much and hurts so many entities that it's simply a pipe dream of a technically ignorant group of bureaucrats and cannot be done".
jbay808 7y ago
I thought that Cory Doctorow's YA book "Little Brother" did a very good job of illustrating this kind of scenario, and making the injustice feel viscerally real.

by aazaa 7y ago

zelon88 7y ago

I agree with you. There was a really good episode of Blue Bloods about this issue. And the writers of Blue Bloods got it completely wrong. The problem is they portrayed the pro-encryption side of the argument negatively, and didn't do it any kind of justice. In the end the Police Commissioner guilted a tech executive to lend him "an engineer" to unlock a smartphone containing sensitive data. That is how this argument is portrayed to the public. "Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about!" It's funny because you can you can usually tell a non-tech-savvy person who has had their identity compromised from a non-tech-savvy person who hasn't, simply because they have a healthy dose of paranoia. I feel like if more of society were trivially hacked (and embarrassed by it) that they would take the issue more seriously. But by then it could be too late.

mindslight 7y ago
Of course they got it "wrong". The writers aren't looking to challenge their audience, but rather playing to preconceived notions of the centralizing narrative. The struggle of the good guys stopping the bad criminals. If only the good guys could have more power, they could be more effective! It would be hard to create a more robust system of government propaganda than primetime TV.
Xelbair 7y ago
>That is how this argument is portrayed to the public. "Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about!" If government has nothing to hide why getting anything out of FOIA is nearly impossible?
m-p-3 7y ago
The thing is that law and public acceptable change over time so > Well if you aren't hiding anything then you have nothing to worry about! Maybe I don't need to hide anything for now because what I'm doing is considered legal now, but it might change in the future. Once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in.

kspacewalk2 7y ago

His point is not "this is so outrageous that the government won't dare do it". Rather, he's saying "it's such a monumental undertaking that costs so much and hurts so many entities that it's simply a pipe dream of a technically ignorant group of bureaucrats and cannot be done".

jbay808 7y ago

I thought that Cory Doctorow's YA book "Little Brother" did a very good job of illustrating this kind of scenario, and making the injustice feel viscerally real.