7 ms·

Banning encryption or making commonly-used encryption systems crippled might have some value in their book: * You can still catch some criminals too dumb/lazy/

Banning encryption or making commonly-used encryption systems crippled might have some value in their book: * You can still catch some criminals too dumb/lazy/small-time/poor to use better encryption. * You can find evidence on people who didn't use better encryption because they didn't realize they were breaking the law. * You can use hints/metadata found in unsecure channels (that you forced to be unsecure.) * You can identify encrypted devices/communications as suspect (even more so than today) and investigate them especially. * You can prosecute people just for using encryption and sleep fine at night because it means "they have something to hide", and are probably breaking the law in some other way.

nindalf 11y ago
These are compelling points for backdoors. A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement. However, as Edward Snowden points out here [1], its not in society's best interests to eliminate all crime. [1] - https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/courx1i?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement" Such as? Keep in mind that eliminating low level crime is often very low priority for law enforcement: they only do this under pressure or when expecting some bonus for it. There's a lot of crime that they could fight but virtually don't. Also, most endemic low-level crime is best fought with policies and eliminating poverty, not by pinning petty criminals after the damage is already done.
  - michaelt 11y ago
    Such as? It would be trivial to use GPS data from cell phones to issue automatic fines for speeding. Profitable too - such a project could certainly pay for itself.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      ALPRs are so much better for that. You can't easily spoof the data and you can't pretend you're a good driver by slowing down just before a scanner. I keep wondering why they aren't deployed on every other road everywhere. It sounds like something that would quickly solve the problem of speeding (and related deaths).
      - dhimes 11y ago
        ALPR: automatic license plate recognition. How would that work? Compare the times between shots a large distance apart, like on toll roads?
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yup. You take two shots few kilometers apart and calculate the time it took the car to cross that distance. You can't cheat that easily; if you've crossed the distance faster than distance/maximum_legal_speed, you've been speeding, period. That's why many drivers hate them - because they work and can actually enforce some common sense from them.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        We have a nice road with those in NL, it's 5 lanes (where before we had 2) per side, the speed? 100 Km/h. The old 2 laner had a maximum speed of 120 Km/h. Goldmine for the government though, just about anybody that drives there the first time thinks they must be the only ones who don't realize that 100 Km/h is a bit slow for a road like that. http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-goudmijn http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-gou... 13 million Euros in the first couple of months. For sure common sense had nothing to do with this.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Well, if the limit is 100 km/h and people still drive 120 km/h, then it's only their fault that they get fined. Limits are limits, you are supposed to respect them. The situation would be different if, for instance, those limits would be obscured or appeared suddenly, and you'd have police forces enforcing them there on purpose. I've heard of cases like that. Did anyone actually ask the people who put the limits about their reasoning though? Maybe this is the value that came out of simulations. Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions). But maybe the simulations were wrong. I'm sure that there are proper channels one could use to dispute the limits. But just disregarding them because they 'look wrong' is pure hubris.
- TheGrimDerp1 11y ago
  | A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement. | Or by not having piddly bullshit actions be illegal in the first place... The only power a government actually has is to make criminals of its citizens. ..Which seems to be fairly on point with your link. Cheers.
- anon4 11y ago
  I think I can put it more succintly: "Just because you call yourself a senator doesn't mean you're not a terrorist". After all, what is the abolition of privacy if not terrorism. You force a large population to follow your ideology by stripping them of their right to privacy and constantly hanging the threat of prison over them. This is precisely what "to terrorise" means.

nindalf 11y ago

These are compelling points for backdoors. A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement. However, as Edward Snowden points out here [1], its not in society's best interests to eliminate all crime. [1] - https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/courx1i?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement" Such as? Keep in mind that eliminating low level crime is often very low priority for law enforcement: they only do this under pressure or when expecting some bonus for it. There's a lot of crime that they could fight but virtually don't. Also, most endemic low-level crime is best fought with policies and eliminating poverty, not by pinning petty criminals after the damage is already done.
- michaelt 11y ago
  Such as? It would be trivial to use GPS data from cell phones to issue automatic fines for speeding. Profitable too - such a project could certainly pay for itself.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    ALPRs are so much better for that. You can't easily spoof the data and you can't pretend you're a good driver by slowing down just before a scanner. I keep wondering why they aren't deployed on every other road everywhere. It sounds like something that would quickly solve the problem of speeding (and related deaths).
    - dhimes 11y ago
      ALPR: automatic license plate recognition. How would that work? Compare the times between shots a large distance apart, like on toll roads?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yup. You take two shots few kilometers apart and calculate the time it took the car to cross that distance. You can't cheat that easily; if you've crossed the distance faster than distance/maximum_legal_speed, you've been speeding, period. That's why many drivers hate them - because they work and can actually enforce some common sense from them.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        We have a nice road with those in NL, it's 5 lanes (where before we had 2) per side, the speed? 100 Km/h. The old 2 laner had a maximum speed of 120 Km/h. Goldmine for the government though, just about anybody that drives there the first time thinks they must be the only ones who don't realize that 100 Km/h is a bit slow for a road like that. http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-goudmijn http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-gou... 13 million Euros in the first couple of months. For sure common sense had nothing to do with this.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Well, if the limit is 100 km/h and people still drive 120 km/h, then it's only their fault that they get fined. Limits are limits, you are supposed to respect them. The situation would be different if, for instance, those limits would be obscured or appeared suddenly, and you'd have police forces enforcing them there on purpose. I've heard of cases like that. Did anyone actually ask the people who put the limits about their reasoning though? Maybe this is the value that came out of simulations. Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions). But maybe the simulations were wrong. I'm sure that there are proper channels one could use to dispute the limits. But just disregarding them because they 'look wrong' is pure hubris.
TheGrimDerp1 11y ago
| A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement. | Or by not having piddly bullshit actions be illegal in the first place... The only power a government actually has is to make criminals of its citizens. ..Which seems to be fairly on point with your link. Cheers.
anon4 11y ago
I think I can put it more succintly: "Just because you call yourself a senator doesn't mean you're not a terrorist". After all, what is the abolition of privacy if not terrorism. You force a large population to follow your ideology by stripping them of their right to privacy and constantly hanging the threat of prison over them. This is precisely what "to terrorise" means.