11 ms·

Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

189 points by paralelogram 12y ago

lukem123 12y ago
WHAT? everything is horrible
dllthomas 12y ago
“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” If you can penetrate that with evidence of a terrorist plot, 1) you can penetrate that without evidence of a terrorist plot, and 2) probably so can others. Both of these make us less safe.
- nyxtom 12y ago
  Exactly!
woodman 12y ago
walter_laughing_in_crawlspace.gif
bhhaskin 12y ago
George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful. For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning. For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't actually happen" distracting from the important points.
  - d23 12y ago
    I've started thinking it's harmful because it gets brought up in every damn debate as though just making reference to it is enough to signal that you have thought critically about the issue.
  - louthy 12y ago
    Use the Stasi as a plausible real life example instead
  - judk 12y ago
    1984 is harmful because government agents get inspired by ideas in the book.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author, specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now as it ever has, and should be required reading for everyone - not just school kids - who care about the state of their cultures in the future.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      While I don't think I disagree with any of that, I do think my observation stands and that 1984 should be less stressed in these discussions. Note that I didn't say that I think the book is harmful, but the focus on it.
      - fit2rule 12y ago
        Why do you think the focus itself is harmful? Does 1984 in some way detract from the issue of state control over personal lives, or is it the hubris of the issue that makes it so difficult .. because if you're referring to the hubris, I can understand that. Its a kind of fatigue that sets in when 1984 is brought up, over and over again, and people stop paying attention to the real issue because the pop-culture knee-jerk reaction is to devalue the message due to the fatigue of no solution. There is no solution to 1984; its a dire conundrum with no end, and I think this is a source of definite stress in the issues.. the book itself does not discuss a solution. However, discussing the book is a solution, because it brings the issue to a point where an individual can be aware that they have to always be vigilant against state intrusion. But this is not always the case - for the younger generations who are not familiar with the issue, 1984 is a very important piece of literature. For those of us who have suffered decades of ignominy over the crimes of our governments, sure: fatigue is the issue. But, we must never be willing to put our freedoms aside, for a little relief from repression. Always be aware, and always fight back!
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  Reality isn't 1984. Reality also isn't Brave New World (and we're amusing ourselves to death). It's bits and pieces of both of these and much more. So yes, reading 1984 is beneficial. Only reading 1984 is not.
  - semperfaux 12y ago
    I don't follow the reasoning. Obviously none of these works are going to perfectly reflect everything about our current reality; that's not the idea. The idea is to think critically about what's actually going on around you, and these stories can be a lens through which to look at your situation. "Only reading 1984 is not" helpful? I definitely do not agree. Reading at least one of these works at least provides the opportunity to consider its relevance. Reading none of them trivially throws out that potential benefit.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      The person appeared to be advocating real world action based on the contents of a fictional novel. Sure, it is a fact that the story exists and is interesting. That doesn't mean that it prescribes a particular action for people to take in the real world. Anything can happen in a fiction story, but as far as we can tell, the real world is not fiction and is limited in what can happen. This means that it is potentially very dangerous to take actions based on the events of a fictional story, as there is no guarantee (or even a good reason) to believe that the real world operates in the same fashion as any particular fictional world.
- viccuad 12y ago
  I would add Brave new world to the mixture, so there's awareness of what happens when there is surplus of cat pics and reality shows. edit: oh, one starts to write a comment, attends the phone, and your idea is already submitted :/.
- adventured 12y ago
  I would add Anthem to that list. It predates 1984 by 11 years, and Orwell likely borrowed a lot of concepts from it.
  - kps 12y ago
    Yvgeny Zamyatin We 1921. Orwell acknowledged its influence on 1984, and believed that Brave New World was also influenced by it, though Huxley said otherwise. Anthem's resemblance may not be purely coincidental.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    As long as we're adding books to a dystopian-novel reading list, consider That Hideous Strength - a sort of spiritual prequel to 1984 describing the gradual rise of such a regime. It also might be the last major work in the genre before the atomic bomb, and predates 1984. It's a transitional work, which is both interesting and a source of its limitations -- I'll leave you with Orwell's book review to detail its strengths and weaknesses which should get you an idea: http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ You can also consider Chesterton's The Man who Would Be Thursday, referenced in that review as well.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I read a book in high school called The Alliance that discussed pervasive digital surveillance in a dystopia. I think it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Gerald-Lund/dp/0875791603 http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Gerald-Lund/dp/0875791603 . It starts slowly but gets better as I recall.
tdaltonc 12y ago
What if Google says, "no"? What if they choose to implement a service that they don't have keys to?
- imaginenore 12y ago
  They will force them to create a backdoor. Just like they did with Microsoft's products.
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    They have offices in other country, e.g., Switzerland. Couldn't they avoid having to create backdoors by running the service in question from there?
    - icelancer 12y ago
      Absolutely not. No first world country would host it, especially one that has strong ties to the US like Switzerland now does. This isn't the 1960s.
      - andreasvc 12y ago
        It was my impression that Switzerland had a name for being crypto and privacy friendly. It sounds odd to me that the US making a law would automatically mean that every other country with strong ties to the US would follow it as well.
mrsteveman1 12y ago
Blatant attempt by intelligence services and law enforcement to get their personal wish lists legislated by shamelessly exploiting a tragedy. I'll happily donate a constant percentage of my company income to fight whatever useless laws come out of this. It'll be fought immediately if they try to legislate backdoors or any equivalent tinkering. Last time we had a big legal fight about strong encryption, we got a supreme court ruling that source code implementing strong encryption was free speech, didn't we? Wonder how counterproductive the governments own actions will be this time.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Might be interesting to take this kind of tack: https://xkcd.com/504 https://xkcd.com/504
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Why don't you donate to EFF?
  - mrsteveman1 12y ago
    I do :)
nlh 12y ago
Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They are plotting and coordinating these bad things via communications with one another. Historically, we have been able to intercept those communications, read them, and interrupt our adversaries from the bad things they are plotting. If our adversaries' communications are completely impossible to intercept, we have lost one of the most valuable tools in our ability to prevent them from doing bad things. How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things? Again - please don't attack me - just looking for a smart answer here.
- prawn 12y ago
  Historically, one adversary was someone now honoured with a US public holiday, right?
  - jrs235 12y ago
    First thought was Columbus. That didn't seem to fit. Then came Martin Luther Kng Jr. Is that who you had in mind?
    - judk 12y ago
      Correct. The FBI's original mission was to investigate citizens who opposed the politics of the individuals in executive office.
- duaneb 12y ago
  > How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things? Well, we might not be able to. Such is the price of liberty. Personally, I think the thousands that died in the trade centers do not justify the massive loss of civil liberties, and it's STILL not clear we would have been able to do anything about it. Bad guys are going to use encryption no matter what. Citizens should not be restricted from using it themselves just because it makes it easier on the federal government.
tuna-piano 12y ago
My biggest issue with all this is that when you give them the power to take away rights to prevent terrorism or protect children, the government will use their powers wherever convenient. For example, the patriot act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases[1]. It has also been used for everything from copyright violations to Las Vegas money issues[2]. 1. (2011) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_th...
- SixSigma 12y ago
  B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bbc-uses-ripa-terrorism-laws-to-catch-tv-licence-fee-dodgers-in-northern-ireland-30911647.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northe...
  - nailer 12y ago
    For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).
    - alextgordon 12y ago
      The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.
      - 0942v8653 12y ago
        U.S. citizen here—what's the difference?
        tomhoward 12y ago
ak217 12y ago
> “If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. Yes, it's the kind of problem you get when a patriot whistleblower exposes rampant corruption and unlawful behavior at the NSA; behavior that, above and beyond civil liberties, hurts American commercial interests, and then you do nothing about it. > He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” He's right about them being patriots. He might be wrong about what patriotism means in this case.
comrade1 12y ago
"They're patriots" This is the same argument Obama tried to use with Abbvie while trying to block their takeover of shire for tax purposes. He used the phrase "economic patriotism". But in the end the government had to go with a more mundane solution and reward Abbvie 100% of contracts for their new hepatitis drug with Medicare rather than give split the cohtract with gilead. My point - look for some large government contracts with apple and google in exchange for dropping encryption on their platforms.
click170 12y ago
> [Obama] said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” He's right that they're patriots, but he's wrong about the problem they're trying to solve. They're fighting different terrorists. Terrorists hiding in government.
- nateberkopec 12y ago
  That's optimistic. I think we learned with PRISM that Silicon Valley companies are more than willing (whether through legal compulsion or otherwise) to cooperate with the administration.
yarrel 12y ago
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit.
p01926 12y ago
'Patriots' is an interesting word in this context. I say giving foreign intelligence agencies access to your customer's private communications is treason.
- themartorana 12y ago
  This is doublespeak - taken in its opposite (and the message it was intended to deliver), it means if you don't want law enforcement to have encryption backdoors, you're not patriotic. Ya know - "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." [0] [0] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
hackuser 12y ago
This all seems to be a bit of a red herring: 1) Based on what I've read from experts and what I know, if a national security agency targets your data, they will get it. Even government systems containing state secrets, protected by other state security agencies, have proven to be vulnerable. Banks are penetrated; even RSA's crown jewels were stolen, IIRC. 2) Even if 'content' data is encrypted, metadata almost certainly is not. Security agencies can identify which data belongs to their target and collect it, even if encrypted. Also, IIRC, recent leaks indicated that the NSA automatically collects much encrypted traffic, including Tor and maybe VPN traffic. 3) Metadata, as most people here probably don't need to be reminded, is as valuable as content. Again, regardless of what encryption you use your metadata probably is vulnerable and security agencies can easily collect it and utilize it. 4) Therefore, it seems that encryption only prevents low-cost search of bulk-collected content. It doesn't provide any security for metadata (usually), encrypted content still can be collected, and unencrypted content probably is vulnerable if you are a high-value target.
andrewflnr 12y ago
“We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad cryptography.” Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. What in the world is this author doing giving the NSA the last word? What's really sick is that it sounds reasonable, like he's exposing a false dichotomy. But is it so hard to see that it's actually a real choice?
- skuhn 12y ago
  The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order to mislead. The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bit export grade RSA, that the government can just bust whenever they feel like it. Of course, so can pretty much anyone else, so this offers almost no protection. The second option is to use secure cryptography, like 2048-bit RSA, that is thought to be difficult to bust in any reasonable timeframe. However, the government can compel you to hand over your private key, and they can then use that to decrypt whatever they want. An attacker could also steal the key and do the same thing. The third option, which is what companies have begun to realize is the only method with actual security from criminals AND the government, is to transmit data without using a private key that they control. A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either. If they have done their job correctly, there is no way to compromise the data that doesn't include obtaining someone's phone. This third option is what the ex-NSA lawyer doesn't even want to include in the conversation, even though it is what everyone is up in arms about right now. It's also worth stating that this does not offer some new revelation in privacy. If I had sent you a letter in 1885, someone would have to actually GET the letter to read it and know what I told you. A system like iMessage functions in the same way: to know what I wrote you, you have to obtain one of our phones. The NSA is just sad that they can no longer pluck the message from the air. One final note: there are so many methods of communication on the Internet, and more launch every month, that I can't imagine how they could all be monitored. Terrorists could be communicating with voice chat on Everquest 2. They could be arranging plants in their Farmville gardens to spell out coded messages. It's an arms race, and I don't want my freedoms compromised by governments trying to win it.
chj 12y ago
What's the front door approach they are going to take? legalised middle man attack?
datashovel 12y ago
This is absolutely terrifying. You can't use "the way things currently are" to argue for giving governments access to personal data. You have to think about, and protect "the way things might end up". How easy do you want to make it for corrupt government leaders to suppress opposition?
- datashovel 12y ago
  with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The moment you make it entirely the government's problem and responsibility is the moment you (for humanity's sake) have to relinquish your privacy.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Similar for abuse of anonymity, I think.
    - datashovel 12y ago
      I think I understand, and agree. Government should strive to be inclusive in their objectives, and not exclusive. It creates an entirely different landscape when government is dependent upon the people and vice-versa.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        I think in particular that there is value in spreading memes that 1) the possibility of anonymity is vital to a free society; and that 2) abuse of anonymity undermines that possibility and thereby undermines freedom. Obviously we don't deal with 2 by breaching anonymity - that is destructive to our ends. But that doesn't stop us spreading the meme.
  - woodman 12y ago
ipsin 12y ago
What really twists the knife for me is the idea that a belief in privacy is unpatriotic. "Of course, they'll want to subvert private communications. They're patriots." The world needs a hell of a lot less patriotism right about now.
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  This kind of "privacy" (lack of the existence of institutionalized absolute compelled disclosure to law enforcement and along with broadly cast suspicion less search) was once called liberty and freedom by American mythological forefathers.
ibejoeb 12y ago
"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…" Have I missed something important? Is there a case, or even evidence of one, wherein encryption was a factor in a plot coming to fruition? If there had been, I would have expected the Obama, Cameron, et al., to trot it out. Are we legislating this just in case? Strong encryption is already out there. I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with weak encryption. But why don't we just make terrorism illegal, then?
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  It is not about terrorism - it is that technology like this threatens the current level of the capability of the state to enforce its laws. Imagine instead the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud speculation markets or manipulate stock prices. Or enemy states using encryption to thwart espionage attempts. Or insurgents and soldiers engaged with US troops around the world to organize efforts to put up resistance. Remember that Julius Caesar famously sought to make pen and paper illegal because he saw such low barriers to fast potentially secret communication a threat to Rome's security. I know of no case reasonably called terrorism where encryption played a role in thwarting intelligence efforts. > I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with weak encryption. When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.
  - ibejoeb 12y ago
    If it's not about terrorism, somebody should tell Obama; that's his quote I pulled. Now, regarding: > the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud speculation markets or manipulate stock prices Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud than it prevents? > When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take away our encryption and somehow convince our adversaries to abide by those rules.
    - xnull1guest 12y ago
      > somebody should tell Obama Oh he knows. Lip service to the public about terrorism is just that. > Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud than it prevents? No idea. Keeping things on topic financial fraud, insider trading, etc is an example where strong encryption does complicate the state's ability to enforce and investigate illegal activity. The purpose here is to draw from a well of motivation other than oft cited but never seen use of encryption in 'terrorism'. The government's fear is that ubiquitous access to these tools will deprecate the executive branch. All tools from nuclear enrichment to hammers to animal husbandry have noble and malicious potential. Encryption is no different. The executive branch's job is to allow the noble purposes and to discourage, prevent, investigate and indict the malicious. From the perspective of the executive, encryption presents a serious hurtle to the pursuit of the malicious. Yet disagreements between the public and the executive about the the scope and breath of executive practices along with the US incarceration rate, of legal exceptionality of the rich and powerful, and general unease with current power structure coupled with traditional mythical US values means that the public would like guarantees about their ability to communicate without being searched. The US public wants its cake and to eat it too. Secure and private communication for the masses that can not be intercepted. But it wants the executive branch to be able to enforce the law and to investigate broadly. The executive branch has made many proposals to this middle ground: the clipper chip and key escrow, proliferation of weak cryptography and the use of third party doctrine as a buffer zone mechanism all represent compromises the executive branch has made. What it comes down to is that the US public does not trust the executive branch not to abuse a middle ground - it points to historical and current examples of extralegal abuse - and in general feels that its government represents their interests but only after compromises with other 'more important' interests (international and domestic elite). That is to say that the current state of "front door" encryption is a compromise made by the executive but one that the public does not trust. Yet the public still wants law enforcement to be able to investigate insider trading. So the government is in a bind. The government is justified to the people by its ability to enforce the laws of the land - if it can't, even for technical reasons - it will have difficulty seeming justified. The government's solution is to invoke the boogieman. 'Terrorists' will get you if we don't compromise. 'Pedophiles' will get your kids if we don't compromise. But no, it's not about terrorism - it's that the government does not know how it will be able to stand up to proper strong cryptography in the case of true and perceived malicious use. Freedom is like a dove, yadda yadda. Encryption is like osteoporosis. > Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take away our encryption and someone convince our adversaries to abide by those rules. Entirely. Historically this has been achieved by subversion of cryptographic methods, consumer products and standards and misinformation about security margins. It has made legitimate strong cryptography hard to come by but not specifically illegal. It is likely to become more and more difficult to perform this sort of influence now that the cat is out of the bag.
icelancer 12y ago
How can people still side with major party candidates after Obama's power grabs? So frustrating.
diminoten 12y ago
Well what he actually said was that if the US government has a warrant, they shouldn't be stopped by encryption. And if the company is a US company, who would disagree with that?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
spiralpolitik 12y ago
So its Crypto Wars 2. There are two possible ways this will play out: a) Obama is just being polite given that "Call me Dave" is in town and has an election to fight so he can't been seen as being soft on terrorism. He knows that its highly likely that Cameron will be out of a job in six months time so is just stringing him along. OR: b) The fix is in, a tame lawmaker will drop a bill that they just happened to have prepared that was sitting in their drawer for a rainy day. Given the Republican's have never met a national security bill that they didn't like expect it to pass through the house and senate with the usual added pork and pardons for the NSA/CIA to make sure nobody goes to jail for recent revelations (Democrats being too chicken to filibuster). If we don't see a huge outcry from the tech industry pointing out what an insanely bad idea this is on Tuesday then I fear for the future.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  There are a fair number of Republicans who would oppose this sort of thing (as many did last time). The most prominent might be Rand Paul, who is a serious prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. But look at what just happened with civil forfeiture; pressure on the administration came from Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans like to feel privacy from the government too. It just needs to be framed correctly; "imagine if someone like Lois Lerner had a backdoor to every conservative group's email server," or something like that. And there are other routes they could take with legislation besides global key escrow. They could pass a law that mandates stiff penalties for people who decline to provide their encryption password in the face of a warrant.
  - spiralpolitik 12y ago
    There is already laws on the books to handle that. If the government can get a warrant describing the item(s) to be retrieved from the encrypted volume then you can be held in contempt of court if you don't hand them over. There was a recent ruling that (that is being appealed) that ruled in this direction. But as per the 4th, if the government can't say what they want from the encrypted volume then they are on a fishing trip and you can tell them to get lost. There was a recent ruling that confirmed this (again being appealed). What is up in the air is whether or not you can be compelled to provide your password to decrypt the volume. Expect the Supremes to have weigh in on this one in the coming years. Basically all this is an end run around what's left of the 4th and 5th amendments. Probable cause means that law enforcement actually has do its job and build reasonable case rather than just deciding you are a bad person, looking to see which laws you've broken based on your data shadow, and then throwing the book at you in hope you'll settle for a plea.
nsnick 12y ago
So Obama is the least transparent president in history, cracked down the most on whistle blowers and is diametrically opposed to privacy. When will everyone admit that they voted for a charming fascist.
- datashovel 12y ago
  I try not to mix the politician with the POV. Especially in this case. My impression of Obama is he's a very cerebral president. My impression is that he wants the country to have an open, honest conversation about important issues. Without stirring up controversy sometimes it's probably impossible to get people talking about or thinking about these things. My initial belief is that he not only doesn't believe in this, but wants to see strong signs that public opinion disagrees also with what he has proposed. I'm hopeful the next president will be just as conscientious about the intricacies of important issues and how it's important not to act on controversial things without strong public support. My initial reaction, though strongly opposed to what he's saying is: "Joke is on us". The fear I think is having a U.S. president who will not consider public opinion and go about making his / her decisions in a bubble.
  - nsnick 12y ago
    So what you are saying is that Obama is supporting surveillance in the hopes that we will oppose it because he supports it? I think you are giving him too much credit. There aren't many policies that all politicians can agree on, but spying on citizens seems to be one of them. This is a great example of how Obama can do no wrong.
    - datashovel 12y ago
      Time will tell, but my previous comments are my initial reactions in a nutshell :) The scary thing will be if he actually acts on this.
      - judk 12y ago
        Obama has run the NSA for 6 years, shielding them from prosecution or even censure for their crimes.
hamoid 12y ago
This discussion so far contains: 52 times "terror", 11 times "safe", 5 times "fear". I'm tired of those words. Having no TV and reading no news I don't see any connection between those words and the world that surrounds me. It's sad to see homeless or drunk people in the street, but that's the worst I see. I think eating healthy, exercising, having friends and a job does much more for our "safety" than ridiculous laws and surveillance. I don't understand why people fear so much. Is it not possible to just refuse to fear? Be conscious about the effects it has. Talk about it. Why not just be brave and ignore the nonsense? Living with fear is no good life. We can't choose what happens in the world, but we can choose what we feel about it. We will die if we have to die. So what? It's not the end of the world. edit: I remember seeing the tv in Finland. They play hours of crime-related series every day. What can you think of the world if you just see murders all day?

189 points by paralelogram 12y ago

WHAT? everything is horrible

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” If you can penetrate that with evidence of a terrorist plot, 1) you can penetrate that without evidence of a terrorist plot, and 2) probably so can others. Both of these make us less safe.

nyxtom 12y ago
Exactly!

woodman 12y ago

walter_laughing_in_crawlspace.gif

bhhaskin 12y ago

George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.

dllthomas 12y ago
I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful. For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning. For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't actually happen" distracting from the important points.
- d23 12y ago
  I've started thinking it's harmful because it gets brought up in every damn debate as though just making reference to it is enough to signal that you have thought critically about the issue.
- louthy 12y ago
  Use the Stasi as a plausible real life example instead
- judk 12y ago
  1984 is harmful because government agents get inspired by ideas in the book.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author, specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now as it ever has, and should be required reading for everyone - not just school kids - who care about the state of their cultures in the future.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    While I don't think I disagree with any of that, I do think my observation stands and that 1984 should be less stressed in these discussions. Note that I didn't say that I think the book is harmful, but the focus on it.
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      Why do you think the focus itself is harmful? Does 1984 in some way detract from the issue of state control over personal lives, or is it the hubris of the issue that makes it so difficult .. because if you're referring to the hubris, I can understand that. Its a kind of fatigue that sets in when 1984 is brought up, over and over again, and people stop paying attention to the real issue because the pop-culture knee-jerk reaction is to devalue the message due to the fatigue of no solution. There is no solution to 1984; its a dire conundrum with no end, and I think this is a source of definite stress in the issues.. the book itself does not discuss a solution. However, discussing the book is a solution, because it brings the issue to a point where an individual can be aware that they have to always be vigilant against state intrusion. But this is not always the case - for the younger generations who are not familiar with the issue, 1984 is a very important piece of literature. For those of us who have suffered decades of ignominy over the crimes of our governments, sure: fatigue is the issue. But, we must never be willing to put our freedoms aside, for a little relief from repression. Always be aware, and always fight back!
pgeorgi 12y ago
Reality isn't 1984. Reality also isn't Brave New World (and we're amusing ourselves to death). It's bits and pieces of both of these and much more. So yes, reading 1984 is beneficial. Only reading 1984 is not.
- semperfaux 12y ago
  I don't follow the reasoning. Obviously none of these works are going to perfectly reflect everything about our current reality; that's not the idea. The idea is to think critically about what's actually going on around you, and these stories can be a lens through which to look at your situation. "Only reading 1984 is not" helpful? I definitely do not agree. Reading at least one of these works at least provides the opportunity to consider its relevance. Reading none of them trivially throws out that potential benefit.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    The person appeared to be advocating real world action based on the contents of a fictional novel. Sure, it is a fact that the story exists and is interesting. That doesn't mean that it prescribes a particular action for people to take in the real world. Anything can happen in a fiction story, but as far as we can tell, the real world is not fiction and is limited in what can happen. This means that it is potentially very dangerous to take actions based on the events of a fictional story, as there is no guarantee (or even a good reason) to believe that the real world operates in the same fashion as any particular fictional world.
viccuad 12y ago
I would add Brave new world to the mixture, so there's awareness of what happens when there is surplus of cat pics and reality shows. edit: oh, one starts to write a comment, attends the phone, and your idea is already submitted :/.
adventured 12y ago
I would add Anthem to that list. It predates 1984 by 11 years, and Orwell likely borrowed a lot of concepts from it.
- kps 12y ago
  Yvgeny Zamyatin We 1921. Orwell acknowledged its influence on 1984, and believed that Brave New World was also influenced by it, though Huxley said otherwise. Anthem's resemblance may not be purely coincidental.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  As long as we're adding books to a dystopian-novel reading list, consider That Hideous Strength - a sort of spiritual prequel to 1984 describing the gradual rise of such a regime. It also might be the last major work in the genre before the atomic bomb, and predates 1984. It's a transitional work, which is both interesting and a source of its limitations -- I'll leave you with Orwell's book review to detail its strengths and weaknesses which should get you an idea: http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ You can also consider Chesterton's The Man who Would Be Thursday, referenced in that review as well.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 12y ago
I read a book in high school called The Alliance that discussed pervasive digital surveillance in a dystopia. I think it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Gerald-Lund/dp/0875791603 http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Gerald-Lund/dp/0875791603 . It starts slowly but gets better as I recall.

tdaltonc 12y ago

What if Google says, "no"? What if they choose to implement a service that they don't have keys to?

imaginenore 12y ago
They will force them to create a backdoor. Just like they did with Microsoft's products.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  They have offices in other country, e.g., Switzerland. Couldn't they avoid having to create backdoors by running the service in question from there?
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Absolutely not. No first world country would host it, especially one that has strong ties to the US like Switzerland now does. This isn't the 1960s.
    - andreasvc 12y ago
      It was my impression that Switzerland had a name for being crypto and privacy friendly. It sounds odd to me that the US making a law would automatically mean that every other country with strong ties to the US would follow it as well.

mrsteveman1 12y ago

Blatant attempt by intelligence services and law enforcement to get their personal wish lists legislated by shamelessly exploiting a tragedy. I'll happily donate a constant percentage of my company income to fight whatever useless laws come out of this. It'll be fought immediately if they try to legislate backdoors or any equivalent tinkering. Last time we had a big legal fight about strong encryption, we got a supreme court ruling that source code implementing strong encryption was free speech, didn't we? Wonder how counterproductive the governments own actions will be this time.

dllthomas 12y ago
Might be interesting to take this kind of tack: https://xkcd.com/504 https://xkcd.com/504
guard-of-terra 12y ago
Why don't you donate to EFF?
- mrsteveman1 12y ago
  I do :)

nlh 12y ago

Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They are plotting and coordinating these bad things via communications with one another. Historically, we have been able to intercept those communications, read them, and interrupt our adversaries from the bad things they are plotting. If our adversaries' communications are completely impossible to intercept, we have lost one of the most valuable tools in our ability to prevent them from doing bad things. How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things? Again - please don't attack me - just looking for a smart answer here.

prawn 12y ago
Historically, one adversary was someone now honoured with a US public holiday, right?
- jrs235 12y ago
  First thought was Columbus. That didn't seem to fit. Then came Martin Luther Kng Jr. Is that who you had in mind?
  - judk 12y ago
    Correct. The FBI's original mission was to investigate citizens who opposed the politics of the individuals in executive office.
duaneb 12y ago
> How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things? Well, we might not be able to. Such is the price of liberty. Personally, I think the thousands that died in the trade centers do not justify the massive loss of civil liberties, and it's STILL not clear we would have been able to do anything about it. Bad guys are going to use encryption no matter what. Citizens should not be restricted from using it themselves just because it makes it easier on the federal government.

tuna-piano 12y ago

My biggest issue with all this is that when you give them the power to take away rights to prevent terrorism or protect children, the government will use their powers wherever convenient. For example, the patriot act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases[1]. It has also been used for everything from copyright violations to Las Vegas money issues[2]. 1. (2011) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_th...

SixSigma 12y ago
B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bbc-uses-ripa-terrorism-laws-to-catch-tv-licence-fee-dodgers-in-northern-ireland-30911647.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northe...
- nailer 12y ago
  For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.
    - 0942v8653 12y ago
      U.S. citizen here—what's the difference?
      - tomhoward 12y ago

ak217 12y ago

> “If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. Yes, it's the kind of problem you get when a patriot whistleblower exposes rampant corruption and unlawful behavior at the NSA; behavior that, above and beyond civil liberties, hurts American commercial interests, and then you do nothing about it. > He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” He's right about them being patriots. He might be wrong about what patriotism means in this case.

comrade1 12y ago

"They're patriots" This is the same argument Obama tried to use with Abbvie while trying to block their takeover of shire for tax purposes. He used the phrase "economic patriotism". But in the end the government had to go with a more mundane solution and reward Abbvie 100% of contracts for their new hepatitis drug with Medicare rather than give split the cohtract with gilead. My point - look for some large government contracts with apple and google in exchange for dropping encryption on their platforms.

click170 12y ago

> [Obama] said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” He's right that they're patriots, but he's wrong about the problem they're trying to solve. They're fighting different terrorists. Terrorists hiding in government.

nateberkopec 12y ago
That's optimistic. I think we learned with PRISM that Silicon Valley companies are more than willing (whether through legal compulsion or otherwise) to cooperate with the administration.

yarrel 12y ago

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit.

p01926 12y ago

'Patriots' is an interesting word in this context. I say giving foreign intelligence agencies access to your customer's private communications is treason.

themartorana 12y ago
This is doublespeak - taken in its opposite (and the message it was intended to deliver), it means if you don't want law enforcement to have encryption backdoors, you're not patriotic. Ya know - "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." [0] [0] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...

hackuser 12y ago

This all seems to be a bit of a red herring: 1) Based on what I've read from experts and what I know, if a national security agency targets your data, they will get it. Even government systems containing state secrets, protected by other state security agencies, have proven to be vulnerable. Banks are penetrated; even RSA's crown jewels were stolen, IIRC. 2) Even if 'content' data is encrypted, metadata almost certainly is not. Security agencies can identify which data belongs to their target and collect it, even if encrypted. Also, IIRC, recent leaks indicated that the NSA automatically collects much encrypted traffic, including Tor and maybe VPN traffic. 3) Metadata, as most people here probably don't need to be reminded, is as valuable as content. Again, regardless of what encryption you use your metadata probably is vulnerable and security agencies can easily collect it and utilize it. 4) Therefore, it seems that encryption only prevents low-cost search of bulk-collected content. It doesn't provide any security for metadata (usually), encrypted content still can be collected, and unencrypted content probably is vulnerable if you are a high-value target.

andrewflnr 12y ago

“We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad cryptography.” Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. What in the world is this author doing giving the NSA the last word? What's really sick is that it sounds reasonable, like he's exposing a false dichotomy. But is it so hard to see that it's actually a real choice?

skuhn 12y ago
The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order to mislead. The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bit export grade RSA, that the government can just bust whenever they feel like it. Of course, so can pretty much anyone else, so this offers almost no protection. The second option is to use secure cryptography, like 2048-bit RSA, that is thought to be difficult to bust in any reasonable timeframe. However, the government can compel you to hand over your private key, and they can then use that to decrypt whatever they want. An attacker could also steal the key and do the same thing. The third option, which is what companies have begun to realize is the only method with actual security from criminals AND the government, is to transmit data without using a private key that they control. A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either. If they have done their job correctly, there is no way to compromise the data that doesn't include obtaining someone's phone. This third option is what the ex-NSA lawyer doesn't even want to include in the conversation, even though it is what everyone is up in arms about right now. It's also worth stating that this does not offer some new revelation in privacy. If I had sent you a letter in 1885, someone would have to actually GET the letter to read it and know what I told you. A system like iMessage functions in the same way: to know what I wrote you, you have to obtain one of our phones. The NSA is just sad that they can no longer pluck the message from the air. One final note: there are so many methods of communication on the Internet, and more launch every month, that I can't imagine how they could all be monitored. Terrorists could be communicating with voice chat on Everquest 2. They could be arranging plants in their Farmville gardens to spell out coded messages. It's an arms race, and I don't want my freedoms compromised by governments trying to win it.

chj 12y ago

What's the front door approach they are going to take? legalised middle man attack?

datashovel 12y ago

This is absolutely terrifying. You can't use "the way things currently are" to argue for giving governments access to personal data. You have to think about, and protect "the way things might end up". How easy do you want to make it for corrupt government leaders to suppress opposition?

datashovel 12y ago
with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The moment you make it entirely the government's problem and responsibility is the moment you (for humanity's sake) have to relinquish your privacy.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Similar for abuse of anonymity, I think.
  - datashovel 12y ago
    I think I understand, and agree. Government should strive to be inclusive in their objectives, and not exclusive. It creates an entirely different landscape when government is dependent upon the people and vice-versa.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I think in particular that there is value in spreading memes that 1) the possibility of anonymity is vital to a free society; and that 2) abuse of anonymity undermines that possibility and thereby undermines freedom. Obviously we don't deal with 2 by breaching anonymity - that is destructive to our ends. But that doesn't stop us spreading the meme.
- woodman 12y ago

ipsin 12y ago

What really twists the knife for me is the idea that a belief in privacy is unpatriotic. "Of course, they'll want to subvert private communications. They're patriots." The world needs a hell of a lot less patriotism right about now.

xnull1guest 12y ago
This kind of "privacy" (lack of the existence of institutionalized absolute compelled disclosure to law enforcement and along with broadly cast suspicion less search) was once called liberty and freedom by American mythological forefathers.

ibejoeb 12y ago

"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…" Have I missed something important? Is there a case, or even evidence of one, wherein encryption was a factor in a plot coming to fruition? If there had been, I would have expected the Obama, Cameron, et al., to trot it out. Are we legislating this just in case? Strong encryption is already out there. I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with weak encryption. But why don't we just make terrorism illegal, then?

xnull1guest 12y ago
It is not about terrorism - it is that technology like this threatens the current level of the capability of the state to enforce its laws. Imagine instead the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud speculation markets or manipulate stock prices. Or enemy states using encryption to thwart espionage attempts. Or insurgents and soldiers engaged with US troops around the world to organize efforts to put up resistance. Remember that Julius Caesar famously sought to make pen and paper illegal because he saw such low barriers to fast potentially secret communication a threat to Rome's security. I know of no case reasonably called terrorism where encryption played a role in thwarting intelligence efforts. > I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with weak encryption. When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.
- ibejoeb 12y ago
  If it's not about terrorism, somebody should tell Obama; that's his quote I pulled. Now, regarding: > the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud speculation markets or manipulate stock prices Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud than it prevents? > When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take away our encryption and somehow convince our adversaries to abide by those rules.
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    > somebody should tell Obama Oh he knows. Lip service to the public about terrorism is just that. > Is anyone going to attempt to argue that encryption facilitates more fraud than it prevents? No idea. Keeping things on topic financial fraud, insider trading, etc is an example where strong encryption does complicate the state's ability to enforce and investigate illegal activity. The purpose here is to draw from a well of motivation other than oft cited but never seen use of encryption in 'terrorism'. The government's fear is that ubiquitous access to these tools will deprecate the executive branch. All tools from nuclear enrichment to hammers to animal husbandry have noble and malicious potential. Encryption is no different. The executive branch's job is to allow the noble purposes and to discourage, prevent, investigate and indict the malicious. From the perspective of the executive, encryption presents a serious hurtle to the pursuit of the malicious. Yet disagreements between the public and the executive about the the scope and breath of executive practices along with the US incarceration rate, of legal exceptionality of the rich and powerful, and general unease with current power structure coupled with traditional mythical US values means that the public would like guarantees about their ability to communicate without being searched. The US public wants its cake and to eat it too. Secure and private communication for the masses that can not be intercepted. But it wants the executive branch to be able to enforce the law and to investigate broadly. The executive branch has made many proposals to this middle ground: the clipper chip and key escrow, proliferation of weak cryptography and the use of third party doctrine as a buffer zone mechanism all represent compromises the executive branch has made. What it comes down to is that the US public does not trust the executive branch not to abuse a middle ground - it points to historical and current examples of extralegal abuse - and in general feels that its government represents their interests but only after compromises with other 'more important' interests (international and domestic elite). That is to say that the current state of "front door" encryption is a compromise made by the executive but one that the public does not trust. Yet the public still wants law enforcement to be able to investigate insider trading. So the government is in a bind. The government is justified to the people by its ability to enforce the laws of the land - if it can't, even for technical reasons - it will have difficulty seeming justified. The government's solution is to invoke the boogieman. 'Terrorists' will get you if we don't compromise. 'Pedophiles' will get your kids if we don't compromise. But no, it's not about terrorism - it's that the government does not know how it will be able to stand up to proper strong cryptography in the case of true and perceived malicious use. Freedom is like a dove, yadda yadda. Encryption is like osteoporosis. > Right. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Cameron are going to take away our encryption and someone convince our adversaries to abide by those rules. Entirely. Historically this has been achieved by subversion of cryptographic methods, consumer products and standards and misinformation about security margins. It has made legitimate strong cryptography hard to come by but not specifically illegal. It is likely to become more and more difficult to perform this sort of influence now that the cat is out of the bag.

icelancer 12y ago

How can people still side with major party candidates after Obama's power grabs? So frustrating.

diminoten 12y ago

Well what he actually said was that if the US government has a warrant, they shouldn't be stopped by encryption. And if the company is a US company, who would disagree with that?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

spiralpolitik 12y ago

So its Crypto Wars 2. There are two possible ways this will play out: a) Obama is just being polite given that "Call me Dave" is in town and has an election to fight so he can't been seen as being soft on terrorism. He knows that its highly likely that Cameron will be out of a job in six months time so is just stringing him along. OR: b) The fix is in, a tame lawmaker will drop a bill that they just happened to have prepared that was sitting in their drawer for a rainy day. Given the Republican's have never met a national security bill that they didn't like expect it to pass through the house and senate with the usual added pork and pardons for the NSA/CIA to make sure nobody goes to jail for recent revelations (Democrats being too chicken to filibuster). If we don't see a huge outcry from the tech industry pointing out what an insanely bad idea this is on Tuesday then I fear for the future.

snowwrestler 12y ago
There are a fair number of Republicans who would oppose this sort of thing (as many did last time). The most prominent might be Rand Paul, who is a serious prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. But look at what just happened with civil forfeiture; pressure on the administration came from Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans like to feel privacy from the government too. It just needs to be framed correctly; "imagine if someone like Lois Lerner had a backdoor to every conservative group's email server," or something like that. And there are other routes they could take with legislation besides global key escrow. They could pass a law that mandates stiff penalties for people who decline to provide their encryption password in the face of a warrant.
- spiralpolitik 12y ago
  There is already laws on the books to handle that. If the government can get a warrant describing the item(s) to be retrieved from the encrypted volume then you can be held in contempt of court if you don't hand them over. There was a recent ruling that (that is being appealed) that ruled in this direction. But as per the 4th, if the government can't say what they want from the encrypted volume then they are on a fishing trip and you can tell them to get lost. There was a recent ruling that confirmed this (again being appealed). What is up in the air is whether or not you can be compelled to provide your password to decrypt the volume. Expect the Supremes to have weigh in on this one in the coming years. Basically all this is an end run around what's left of the 4th and 5th amendments. Probable cause means that law enforcement actually has do its job and build reasonable case rather than just deciding you are a bad person, looking to see which laws you've broken based on your data shadow, and then throwing the book at you in hope you'll settle for a plea.

nsnick 12y ago

So Obama is the least transparent president in history, cracked down the most on whistle blowers and is diametrically opposed to privacy. When will everyone admit that they voted for a charming fascist.

datashovel 12y ago
I try not to mix the politician with the POV. Especially in this case. My impression of Obama is he's a very cerebral president. My impression is that he wants the country to have an open, honest conversation about important issues. Without stirring up controversy sometimes it's probably impossible to get people talking about or thinking about these things. My initial belief is that he not only doesn't believe in this, but wants to see strong signs that public opinion disagrees also with what he has proposed. I'm hopeful the next president will be just as conscientious about the intricacies of important issues and how it's important not to act on controversial things without strong public support. My initial reaction, though strongly opposed to what he's saying is: "Joke is on us". The fear I think is having a U.S. president who will not consider public opinion and go about making his / her decisions in a bubble.
- nsnick 12y ago
  So what you are saying is that Obama is supporting surveillance in the hopes that we will oppose it because he supports it? I think you are giving him too much credit. There aren't many policies that all politicians can agree on, but spying on citizens seems to be one of them. This is a great example of how Obama can do no wrong.
  - datashovel 12y ago
    Time will tell, but my previous comments are my initial reactions in a nutshell :) The scary thing will be if he actually acts on this.
    - judk 12y ago
      Obama has run the NSA for 6 years, shielding them from prosecution or even censure for their crimes.

hamoid 12y ago

This discussion so far contains: 52 times "terror", 11 times "safe", 5 times "fear". I'm tired of those words. Having no TV and reading no news I don't see any connection between those words and the world that surrounds me. It's sad to see homeless or drunk people in the street, but that's the worst I see. I think eating healthy, exercising, having friends and a job does much more for our "safety" than ridiculous laws and surveillance. I don't understand why people fear so much. Is it not possible to just refuse to fear? Be conscious about the effects it has. Talk about it. Why not just be brave and ignore the nonsense? Living with fear is no good life. We can't choose what happens in the world, but we can choose what we feel about it. We will die if we have to die. So what? It's not the end of the world. edit: I remember seeing the tv in Finland. They play hours of crime-related series every day. What can you think of the world if you just see murders all day?