3 ms·

I think you're ignoring the context of my statements. Let's assume two things off the bat: a) The government is only surveilling people under reasonable su

by Nadya 12y ago

I think you're ignoring the context of my statements. Let's assume two things off the bat: a) The government is only surveilling people under reasonable suspicion. [1] b) Encryption is not a confirmation of illicit activities. The problem: 1) Government has reason to suspect Person A 2) Government cannot see their communications due to encryption 3) Government cannot investigate any further due to encryption In the past they could monitor communications of a suspect and determine whether or not the suspicions were true. This has prevented a number of crimes - both drug related, mafia/gang/cartel related, and terrorist related. With encryption methods becoming commonplace - the government can no longer do what they have been doing and these once preventable crimes are becoming less preventable. Encryption is now too powerful and secure. This is not a problem in and of itself. It's a good thing for citizens too! The problem is that crimes that were once preventable through surveillance are becoming impossible to survey. The solution is to not weaken encryption - but find other methods of confirming suspicions on a suspect who is under reasonable suspicions of illicit activity. [2] [1] We know this to be false, but go along with me here [2] Which is what is being asked for: "We need your help to find the solution."

bediger4000 12y ago
I reject your assumption (a) categorically. By now, we've seen enough leaked material to believe that the NSA and FBI surveill everyone they can. The NSA and FBI apparently believe that everyone is under suspicion. I reject that belief and your assumption.
- Nadya 12y ago
  See the footnote cited as [1] in assumption `A`. This does not make the argument itself false. It makes the implementation and practice flawed. Due to improper practice, people no longer trust the government to draw its own line in the sand and declare "We shall not cross this line!" Rightfully so! But that still does not take away the reality of the situation: Improved encryption methods means secure communications of which cannot be intercepted or prevented by a government body with the goals of protecting its citizens. This poses a danger to the citizens. Now the citizens can accept that danger and keep their own communications secure from a government they no longer trust to stay within the drawn lines - or they find an alternative solution. Or they accept the fact that their desire for personal privacy is worth more than their security and make that sacrifice. I'll save you the time of finding the quote. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
techdragon 12y ago
Going along with assumption A is obstinate and we live in a world where the U.S. Not only assumes B is false, but add assumption C "anyone who isn't an employee/officer of a U.S. Intelligence department / service, is a potential terrorist, and even then we should be careful in case of moles and home grown radicals" Pretending we're discussing something reasonable here is incredible foolish and worst of all, the United States continues to drag the rest of the world into their paranoid power trip. To paraphrase a famous poem, "First they came for anything that wasn't a corn farm..." And shits been skidding downhill ever since.

by Nadya 12y ago

bediger4000 12y ago

I reject your assumption (a) categorically. By now, we've seen enough leaked material to believe that the NSA and FBI surveill everyone they can. The NSA and FBI apparently believe that everyone is under suspicion. I reject that belief and your assumption.

Nadya 12y ago
See the footnote cited as [1] in assumption `A`. This does not make the argument itself false. It makes the implementation and practice flawed. Due to improper practice, people no longer trust the government to draw its own line in the sand and declare "We shall not cross this line!" Rightfully so! But that still does not take away the reality of the situation: Improved encryption methods means secure communications of which cannot be intercepted or prevented by a government body with the goals of protecting its citizens. This poses a danger to the citizens. Now the citizens can accept that danger and keep their own communications secure from a government they no longer trust to stay within the drawn lines - or they find an alternative solution. Or they accept the fact that their desire for personal privacy is worth more than their security and make that sacrifice. I'll save you the time of finding the quote. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

techdragon 12y ago

Going along with assumption A is obstinate and we live in a world where the U.S. Not only assumes B is false, but add assumption C "anyone who isn't an employee/officer of a U.S. Intelligence department / service, is a potential terrorist, and even then we should be careful in case of moles and home grown radicals" Pretending we're discussing something reasonable here is incredible foolish and worst of all, the United States continues to drag the rest of the world into their paranoid power trip. To paraphrase a famous poem, "First they came for anything that wasn't a corn farm..." And shits been skidding downhill ever since.