4 ms·

I'm curious how many people think he understands the technology and just doesn't care if he's undermining security, or is he just clueless.

parsnips 11y ago
Or, more importantly, understanding securing information from the government is a good thing.
GVIrish 11y ago
He wants to make his job easier, consequences be damned. It should be easy for the "good guys" to monitor and catch the "bad guys", give us back doors and unsecured communications with which to do our jobs. He's too focused on his narrative to be able to understand the web of unintended consequences of what he's proposing. The same way law enforcement and lawmakers fail to see all of the unintended consequences of the drug war.
sanderjd 11y ago
I found the question of whether he really doesn't understand the technical meaning of "back door" or is conscientiously trying to re-brand away from the negative connotations of the term particularly interesting. Maybe "side-door" would work?
- mhurron 11y ago
  He's trying to make it sound like they don't want anything bad, they're not 'sneaking in' they want a legal way to see all your stuff. He clearly knows what it means, what he's asking for and he knows it sounds bad when it's called a back door.
- TillE 11y ago
  It's so incredibly disingenuous. We're talking about a long established technical term with a precise meaning, but when world leaders are demanding it, they're uncomfortable using that term because it sounds like exactly what it is. Saying it's "not a back door" is simply a lie, and I'm sure they or their advisors know it.
jerf 11y ago
He can't see himself as the bad guy, or enabling the bad guys in the future by making the law enforcement apparatus all powerful. Of course he'd fling the same accusation at us, from his point of view. What if there was a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if only they'd have been allowed to see through the encryption? I mean, let's be honest, on its own merits, that's not the worst argument in the world. It's just that as an old-school true-blooded American patriot, I can't help but notice that "just giving them all the powerz" is not the way we do things around here, and there are reasons for that. (Before reflexively downvoting because I dared sound a bit patriotic, consider why I feel compelled to wrap myself in the flag here....)
- Nadya 11y ago
  I'd warn him to beware of "What if..." worlds. In such places, anything is possible. Fearing the possible makes one paranoid and untrusting. What if he is the terrorist and wants to more readily spy on the American people? Or a similar, more likely scenario, of what if the government has a spy from another country? Do we want them to have all of our information in their hands? If encryption is weakened they can more easily spy on our political leaders. What about national security? Lowering encryption standards hurts national security. As an American patriot why would you want to hurt national security? For a bit of promised security? The current mass surveillance has prevented 0 attacks. Who is to say more surveillance would prevent any attacks? You can say for certain it would hurt national security (bad guys can use backdoors too) - but you cannot say for certain it would prevent any attacks. So it's a "lose/maybe-win" scenario. Not one in the countries best interests, if you ask me.
- vidarh 11y ago
  Of course the "what-if" argument falls flat on its face because we can always go further to create more safety, and if you first use that argument you need to justify why you stop just there. E.g. why is terror getting this level of attention vs. child murder, which in terms of numbers of victims is a far bigger problem? By the "what if" logic, these people ought to be prepared to go far in curtailing privacy to get at child abuse given the magnitude of the problem compared to terror. We know how to profile the likely perpetrators very well too. The vast majority of such crimes are carried out by a few very specific groups of people, namely dads, brothers and other close male family members. Surely if the - on average - few terror deaths are worth these types of sacrifices, the many hundred child murders and thousands upon thousands of abuse victims would justify far more extensive curtailment of privacy? It quickly becomes very clear that the "what if" argument is rationalisation: if harm reduction was as important to them as they like to imply, they would not be spending their attention on terror. What the "anti-terror crowd" need to be made to answer when they ask for more rights is what makes terrorism different, and why are they not spending their energy on the many problems that have far more serious effects.
shkkmo 11y ago
I think he wants to deliberately undermine the ability of the majority people to have access to information security. The only groups that he wants to have information security are US government agencies and their allies (both national and corporate). I find the idea that "the people behind implementing and pushing for these policies don't understand the obvious consequences" to be absurd. This push has been about power from the start.

parsnips 11y ago

Or, more importantly, understanding securing information from the government is a good thing.

GVIrish 11y ago

He wants to make his job easier, consequences be damned. It should be easy for the "good guys" to monitor and catch the "bad guys", give us back doors and unsecured communications with which to do our jobs. He's too focused on his narrative to be able to understand the web of unintended consequences of what he's proposing. The same way law enforcement and lawmakers fail to see all of the unintended consequences of the drug war.

sanderjd 11y ago

I found the question of whether he really doesn't understand the technical meaning of "back door" or is conscientiously trying to re-brand away from the negative connotations of the term particularly interesting. Maybe "side-door" would work?

mhurron 11y ago
He's trying to make it sound like they don't want anything bad, they're not 'sneaking in' they want a legal way to see all your stuff. He clearly knows what it means, what he's asking for and he knows it sounds bad when it's called a back door.
TillE 11y ago
It's so incredibly disingenuous. We're talking about a long established technical term with a precise meaning, but when world leaders are demanding it, they're uncomfortable using that term because it sounds like exactly what it is. Saying it's "not a back door" is simply a lie, and I'm sure they or their advisors know it.

jerf 11y ago

He can't see himself as the bad guy, or enabling the bad guys in the future by making the law enforcement apparatus all powerful. Of course he'd fling the same accusation at us, from his point of view. What if there was a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if only they'd have been allowed to see through the encryption? I mean, let's be honest, on its own merits, that's not the worst argument in the world. It's just that as an old-school true-blooded American patriot, I can't help but notice that "just giving them all the powerz" is not the way we do things around here, and there are reasons for that. (Before reflexively downvoting because I dared sound a bit patriotic, consider why I feel compelled to wrap myself in the flag here....)

Nadya 11y ago
I'd warn him to beware of "What if..." worlds. In such places, anything is possible. Fearing the possible makes one paranoid and untrusting. What if he is the terrorist and wants to more readily spy on the American people? Or a similar, more likely scenario, of what if the government has a spy from another country? Do we want them to have all of our information in their hands? If encryption is weakened they can more easily spy on our political leaders. What about national security? Lowering encryption standards hurts national security. As an American patriot why would you want to hurt national security? For a bit of promised security? The current mass surveillance has prevented 0 attacks. Who is to say more surveillance would prevent any attacks? You can say for certain it would hurt national security (bad guys can use backdoors too) - but you cannot say for certain it would prevent any attacks. So it's a "lose/maybe-win" scenario. Not one in the countries best interests, if you ask me.
vidarh 11y ago
Of course the "what-if" argument falls flat on its face because we can always go further to create more safety, and if you first use that argument you need to justify why you stop just there. E.g. why is terror getting this level of attention vs. child murder, which in terms of numbers of victims is a far bigger problem? By the "what if" logic, these people ought to be prepared to go far in curtailing privacy to get at child abuse given the magnitude of the problem compared to terror. We know how to profile the likely perpetrators very well too. The vast majority of such crimes are carried out by a few very specific groups of people, namely dads, brothers and other close male family members. Surely if the - on average - few terror deaths are worth these types of sacrifices, the many hundred child murders and thousands upon thousands of abuse victims would justify far more extensive curtailment of privacy? It quickly becomes very clear that the "what if" argument is rationalisation: if harm reduction was as important to them as they like to imply, they would not be spending their attention on terror. What the "anti-terror crowd" need to be made to answer when they ask for more rights is what makes terrorism different, and why are they not spending their energy on the many problems that have far more serious effects.

shkkmo 11y ago

I think he wants to deliberately undermine the ability of the majority people to have access to information security. The only groups that he wants to have information security are US government agencies and their allies (both national and corporate). I find the idea that "the people behind implementing and pushing for these policies don't understand the obvious consequences" to be absurd. This push has been about power from the start.