8 ms·

Sounds like this dude works for Her Majesty's Secret Service, not the USA. He should be fired for this.

amyjess 11y ago
Nah. He's just nostalgic for the pre-Internet days when the FBI could listen on anyone's communications because phone companies were legally required to make their lines tappable.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  They make going dark seem like some terrible unprecedented thing but electronic communication hasn't even been ubiquitous for that long. Before that there were no wire taps because there were no wires. The human race somehow managed to survive.
  - swsieber 11y ago
    It's important to note that part of the reason they "need" technology to track terrorism is that technology enables terrorism. To say that we got along fine before technology and mass surveillance means we don't need mass surveillance is a flawed argument; it misses the fact that technology brings with it a big bag troubles and benefits. But personally, I still think window of abuse for back doors is too large to be rationally allowed.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I wonder how we'll deal with this as technology progresses even further. In 10-20 years, it probably won't take much for a random nutjob to make an extremely deadly virus. And that are only baby steps in nanotechnology. Do we really want total privacy and anonymity in a world where a single person can easily wield such destructive powers?
      - ionised 11y ago
        Yes. Always.
      - click170 11y ago
        Are you saying that because someone might do something evil, we should all lose our right to privacy and anonymity to protect everyone from what the mad scientist might do? Can you even show that taking my privacy away makes me markedly safer, because unless you can establish that first I'm not even listening. That's not a world I want to live in thanks.
        15155 11y ago
        I would wager that a substantial number (probably majority) of individuals on this site (SF/NYC dwellers, especially) would trade their right (Ok: not really, but everyone elses) to keep and bear arms for a bit of (false) security. A bit of malfeasance: nobody gets any rights.
      - animatedb 11y ago
        How much money do you have in the bank, and what is your bank account number? If anything can be hidden in the internet, then who decides which things can be hidden?
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I can show you my balance and even give you the number in case you're so nice as to transfer me something. And I'll live happy knowing that if you try doing something funny, you can be tracked down and held responsible.
        tracker1 11y ago
        Sure.. tell that to some of the unscrupulous people in Nigeria and Russia that run a lot of the scams that don't seem to be held responsible at all.
      - crpatino 11y ago
    - mirimir 11y ago
      What about American "terrorists" who organized in secret to fight for independence from the British?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 11y ago
    i don't see how that argument makes sense. Yeah there were no wire taps, but there also weren't any wires for criminals to use to communicate. Criminal investigators have histroically been able to get at any place where there might be evidence, with a warrant. The historical maxim has been "the law is entitled to every man's evidence." You could put a lock on your desk drawer, but that can be easily bypassed with a warrant. There is protection against warrantless searches, but once due process is given, a court's power to compel the disclosure of evidence is almost unlimited. An encrypted hard drive is a totally unprecedented thing in that regard.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      > An encrypted hard drive is a totally unprecedented thing in that regard. Then governments with enumerated powers would need some unprecedented powers to get into that unprecedented thing, right?
      - rayiner 11y ago
        > Then governments with enumerated powers would need some unprecedented powers to get into that unprecedented thing, right? Only the federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. So at best your argument is that mandating backdoors requires state rather than federal action. State governments can do whatever they want unless it conflicts with a Constitutional right, and there is no right to have a place to stash evidence the government can't get to with adequate process.
        schoen 11y ago
        Sometimes human memory is such a place under the fifth amendment.
        rayiner 11y ago
        The contents of your human memory are not protected as a general principle. For example, you can be compelled to testify against someone else. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but the premise of that protection isn't some general right not to disclose the contents of your memory, but a very specific right against forced confessions.
arca_vorago 11y ago
Indeed, I've found the infiltration of monarchical type behaviour to be surprisingly prevalent in the modern US oligarchical elite structure. I think people have forgotten that, throughout most of the history of our country the UK and EU oligarchy/aristocracy/monarchy have been the enemy of the US, and in the beltway rush to power many of them have become infatuated with the trappings of neo-feudalism, all without even realizing the magnitude of their error. Make no mistake about it, the idea of national sovereignty worldwide is under attack, including the United States of America's, but no one really wants to admit or even entertain ideas of whom it might be, lest the truth be too upending. What have ended up is a modern day star chamber. "Finding its support from the king’s prerogative (sovereign power and privileges) and not bound by the common law, Star Chamber’s procedures gave it considerable advantages over the ordinary courts. It was less bound by rigid form; it did not depend upon juries either for indictment or for verdict; it could act upon the petition of an individual complainant or upon information received; it could put an accused person on oath to answer the petitioner’s bill and reply to detailed questions. On the other hand, its methods lacked the safeguards that common-law procedures provided for the liberty of the subject.” –Encyclopedia Britannica

Nah. He's just nostalgic for the pre-Internet days when the FBI could listen on anyone's communications because phone companies were legally required to make their lines tappable.

bradleyjg 11y ago
They make going dark seem like some terrible unprecedented thing but electronic communication hasn't even been ubiquitous for that long. Before that there were no wire taps because there were no wires. The human race somehow managed to survive.
- swsieber 11y ago
  It's important to note that part of the reason they "need" technology to track terrorism is that technology enables terrorism. To say that we got along fine before technology and mass surveillance means we don't need mass surveillance is a flawed argument; it misses the fact that technology brings with it a big bag troubles and benefits. But personally, I still think window of abuse for back doors is too large to be rationally allowed.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I wonder how we'll deal with this as technology progresses even further. In 10-20 years, it probably won't take much for a random nutjob to make an extremely deadly virus. And that are only baby steps in nanotechnology. Do we really want total privacy and anonymity in a world where a single person can easily wield such destructive powers?
    - ionised 11y ago
      Yes. Always.
    - click170 11y ago
      Are you saying that because someone might do something evil, we should all lose our right to privacy and anonymity to protect everyone from what the mad scientist might do? Can you even show that taking my privacy away makes me markedly safer, because unless you can establish that first I'm not even listening. That's not a world I want to live in thanks.
      - 15155 11y ago
        I would wager that a substantial number (probably majority) of individuals on this site (SF/NYC dwellers, especially) would trade their right (Ok: not really, but everyone elses) to keep and bear arms for a bit of (false) security. A bit of malfeasance: nobody gets any rights.
    - animatedb 11y ago
      How much money do you have in the bank, and what is your bank account number? If anything can be hidden in the internet, then who decides which things can be hidden?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I can show you my balance and even give you the number in case you're so nice as to transfer me something. And I'll live happy knowing that if you try doing something funny, you can be tracked down and held responsible.
        tracker1 11y ago
        Sure.. tell that to some of the unscrupulous people in Nigeria and Russia that run a lot of the scams that don't seem to be held responsible at all.
    - crpatino 11y ago
  - mirimir 11y ago
    What about American "terrorists" who organized in secret to fight for independence from the British?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  i don't see how that argument makes sense. Yeah there were no wire taps, but there also weren't any wires for criminals to use to communicate. Criminal investigators have histroically been able to get at any place where there might be evidence, with a warrant. The historical maxim has been "the law is entitled to every man's evidence." You could put a lock on your desk drawer, but that can be easily bypassed with a warrant. There is protection against warrantless searches, but once due process is given, a court's power to compel the disclosure of evidence is almost unlimited. An encrypted hard drive is a totally unprecedented thing in that regard.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    > An encrypted hard drive is a totally unprecedented thing in that regard. Then governments with enumerated powers would need some unprecedented powers to get into that unprecedented thing, right?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      > Then governments with enumerated powers would need some unprecedented powers to get into that unprecedented thing, right? Only the federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. So at best your argument is that mandating backdoors requires state rather than federal action. State governments can do whatever they want unless it conflicts with a Constitutional right, and there is no right to have a place to stash evidence the government can't get to with adequate process.
      - schoen 11y ago
        Sometimes human memory is such a place under the fifth amendment.
        rayiner 11y ago
        The contents of your human memory are not protected as a general principle. For example, you can be compelled to testify against someone else. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but the premise of that protection isn't some general right not to disclose the contents of your memory, but a very specific right against forced confessions.

arca_vorago 11y ago

Indeed, I've found the infiltration of monarchical type behaviour to be surprisingly prevalent in the modern US oligarchical elite structure. I think people have forgotten that, throughout most of the history of our country the UK and EU oligarchy/aristocracy/monarchy have been the enemy of the US, and in the beltway rush to power many of them have become infatuated with the trappings of neo-feudalism, all without even realizing the magnitude of their error. Make no mistake about it, the idea of national sovereignty worldwide is under attack, including the United States of America's, but no one really wants to admit or even entertain ideas of whom it might be, lest the truth be too upending. What have ended up is a modern day star chamber. "Finding its support from the king’s prerogative (sovereign power and privileges) and not bound by the common law, Star Chamber’s procedures gave it considerable advantages over the ordinary courts. It was less bound by rigid form; it did not depend upon juries either for indictment or for verdict; it could act upon the petition of an individual complainant or upon information received; it could put an accused person on oath to answer the petitioner’s bill and reply to detailed questions. On the other hand, its methods lacked the safeguards that common-law procedures provided for the liberty of the subject.” –Encyclopedia Britannica