5 ms·

It's like arguing thick walls and windows and strong door locks make it harder for law enforcement to break in to catch the criminals. Nowadays, I'm very suspi

It's like arguing thick walls and windows and strong door locks make it harder for law enforcement to break in to catch the criminals. Nowadays, I'm very suspicious whenever they use the phrase "to fight against child pornography", because I just know they have a different agenda/priority in mind if they had to use that, but they'd rather give the child pornography line to the public.

corin_ 15y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but that was just the journalist giving one of two examples for when we want law enforcement to succeed in their goals - it wasn't the Government covering up real reasons for anything.
- Duff 15y ago
  Note he didn't point out crimes like embezzlement, bookmaking or murder. When spokespeople for the police say "We can't do X, which makes it harder to stop child pornography and drug dealing", that's PR-speak for "It's bad, trust us and don't think about it." Also conspicuously absent is preventing terrorism, which is a scenario where obtaining the password is more likely to be impossible, because the owner is most likely dead. My layman's understanding is that the law doesn't consider being compelled to reveal a password to be self-incrimination. Failing to reveal a password will get you held in contempt, or result in an "adverse inference" ruling from the judge.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    But it wasn't said by a spokesperson for the police, it was said by a random journalist after reading a report.
    - Duff 15y ago
      Who wrote the source report? Mediocre journalism is consists of stringing together press releases.
tptacek 15y ago
Thick walls and windows and door locks do make it harder for law enforcement to break in and catch criminals. If technology drove the cost of fortified residences down to the point where random common criminals were more likely than not to live in nearly impregnable vaults, law enforcement would quite rightly have a reason for concern. It is a fallacious nerd narrative that LEOs want super powers to keep track of what kind of anime porn you watch. They don't care. The day-in day-out of LEOs involves crimes so banal (embezzlement, narcotics, counterfeiting, &c) that they don't catch your attention. What's changing is that technologies that dramatically raise the cost of investigating those crimes are now the default. As a civil libertarian, I'm glad of that. But as a citizen and a counterparty to the social contract, I can appreciate the underlying concern. The thing you "just know" is false. They care a lot more about child pornography (which happens a lot more than you appear to think it does) than you think they do. When they try to outlaw full disk encryption to increase their chances of catching child pornographers, let's all share outrage together. Until then, try opening your mind a little bit to LEO's concerns. They have real ones.
- earl 15y ago
  They have tried just that: FBI Director Louis Freeh is the most outspoken advocate of encryption restrictions. He argues that the capability to conduct court-authorized electronic surveillance should be built into any technology, including powerful encryption software. [1] One Freeh proposal is that all users of powerful encryption software be asked to turn over their keys to a third party, so that law-enforcement officials can gain access to them with a court order. Freeh's allies include his boss, Attorney General Janet Reno, and legislators including Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), the retiring chairman of the House Rules Committee. "Let there be no doubt," Reno wrote congressmen last year. "Without encryption safeguards, all Americans will be endangered." See also law enforcements contention that they are free to invasively check the data on any laptop or phone that crosses the border, etc. As always, child porn / blah blah blah (while not minimizing my concern for the children involved) is, as always, merely the excuse. This will, as always, be used for harassing people growing pot or civil rights protestors or to help beat hippies. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/encryption.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryp...
muuh-gnu 15y ago
> because I just know they have a different agenda/priority in mind It seems to be a core part of (european) music industry's fight for profit-oriented internet censorship: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-chil...
vacri 15y ago
"child porn" seems to have replaced "terrorism" as the new universal argument.
- waqf 15y ago
  "Terrorism" has less power to persuade, justifiably or not, when recent terrorist attacks are not on people's minds. "Child porn" doesn't have this disadvantage, because you can be told that it's going on all around you without your knowledge.

corin_ 15y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but that was just the journalist giving one of two examples for when we want law enforcement to succeed in their goals - it wasn't the Government covering up real reasons for anything.

Duff 15y ago
Note he didn't point out crimes like embezzlement, bookmaking or murder. When spokespeople for the police say "We can't do X, which makes it harder to stop child pornography and drug dealing", that's PR-speak for "It's bad, trust us and don't think about it." Also conspicuously absent is preventing terrorism, which is a scenario where obtaining the password is more likely to be impossible, because the owner is most likely dead. My layman's understanding is that the law doesn't consider being compelled to reveal a password to be self-incrimination. Failing to reveal a password will get you held in contempt, or result in an "adverse inference" ruling from the judge.
- corin_ 15y ago
  But it wasn't said by a spokesperson for the police, it was said by a random journalist after reading a report.
  - Duff 15y ago
    Who wrote the source report? Mediocre journalism is consists of stringing together press releases.

tptacek 15y ago

Thick walls and windows and door locks do make it harder for law enforcement to break in and catch criminals. If technology drove the cost of fortified residences down to the point where random common criminals were more likely than not to live in nearly impregnable vaults, law enforcement would quite rightly have a reason for concern. It is a fallacious nerd narrative that LEOs want super powers to keep track of what kind of anime porn you watch. They don't care. The day-in day-out of LEOs involves crimes so banal (embezzlement, narcotics, counterfeiting, &c) that they don't catch your attention. What's changing is that technologies that dramatically raise the cost of investigating those crimes are now the default. As a civil libertarian, I'm glad of that. But as a citizen and a counterparty to the social contract, I can appreciate the underlying concern. The thing you "just know" is false. They care a lot more about child pornography (which happens a lot more than you appear to think it does) than you think they do. When they try to outlaw full disk encryption to increase their chances of catching child pornographers, let's all share outrage together. Until then, try opening your mind a little bit to LEO's concerns. They have real ones.

earl 15y ago
They have tried just that: FBI Director Louis Freeh is the most outspoken advocate of encryption restrictions. He argues that the capability to conduct court-authorized electronic surveillance should be built into any technology, including powerful encryption software. [1] One Freeh proposal is that all users of powerful encryption software be asked to turn over their keys to a third party, so that law-enforcement officials can gain access to them with a court order. Freeh's allies include his boss, Attorney General Janet Reno, and legislators including Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), the retiring chairman of the House Rules Committee. "Let there be no doubt," Reno wrote congressmen last year. "Without encryption safeguards, all Americans will be endangered." See also law enforcements contention that they are free to invasively check the data on any laptop or phone that crosses the border, etc. As always, child porn / blah blah blah (while not minimizing my concern for the children involved) is, as always, merely the excuse. This will, as always, be used for harassing people growing pot or civil rights protestors or to help beat hippies. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/encryption.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryp...

muuh-gnu 15y ago

> because I just know they have a different agenda/priority in mind It seems to be a core part of (european) music industry's fight for profit-oriented internet censorship: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-chil...

vacri 15y ago

"child porn" seems to have replaced "terrorism" as the new universal argument.

waqf 15y ago
"Terrorism" has less power to persuade, justifiably or not, when recent terrorist attacks are not on people's minds. "Child porn" doesn't have this disadvantage, because you can be told that it's going on all around you without your knowledge.