2 ms·

>I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand. The article debates whether

>I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand. The article debates whether the American tech sector is conducive to American national security, not whether your phone is sufficiently libertarian. the points raised are perfectly valid. The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement, out of alignment with the American military sector, potentially more in alignment with foreign governments, and social media companies may be destabilizing society at a cultural level. So in short the American tech sector is a competing power center that sidelines the interests of the state and the nation. Funnily enough China which is mentioned multiple times ,despite popular perception in the US, actually does have the same problem. Which is why they did exactly what the article demanded, which is pursue anti-trust measures and bring the hammer down on big tech.

post_below 4y ago
I generally agree that tech monopolies are potentially bad for, not just national security, but general human wellbeing. > The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement In this particular case, I'd say that's a good thing. Law enforcement, and certain three letter agencies, have a terrible track record here. If big tech is making it a little harder for them to bypass basic privacy rights, I'm ok with that.
malwrar 4y ago
> No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand A backdoor that can be used by law enforcement is one that can potentially (probably) be misused by law enforcement, privileged parties, foreign governments, parties with leverage over the implementer or intermediate agents, plain old hackers, etc. My concern is unauthorized, inappropriate, or overzealous use of a backdoor by any one of these, which I believe to be a threat to national security. Perhaps some random citizen being compromised isn’t necessarily a national security threat, but large groups being compromised or particular key individuals (industrial leaders, government officials, etc) certainly could be. I agree this sidelines law enforcement to some extent, but then again by design so do many rights US citizens possess. Thus my explicit use of “foreign and domestic”.

post_below 4y ago

I generally agree that tech monopolies are potentially bad for, not just national security, but general human wellbeing. > The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement In this particular case, I'd say that's a good thing. Law enforcement, and certain three letter agencies, have a terrible track record here. If big tech is making it a little harder for them to bypass basic privacy rights, I'm ok with that.

malwrar 4y ago

> No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand A backdoor that can be used by law enforcement is one that can potentially (probably) be misused by law enforcement, privileged parties, foreign governments, parties with leverage over the implementer or intermediate agents, plain old hackers, etc. My concern is unauthorized, inappropriate, or overzealous use of a backdoor by any one of these, which I believe to be a threat to national security. Perhaps some random citizen being compromised isn’t necessarily a national security threat, but large groups being compromised or particular key individuals (industrial leaders, government officials, etc) certainly could be. I agree this sidelines law enforcement to some extent, but then again by design so do many rights US citizens possess. Thus my explicit use of “foreign and domestic”.