put in proper context
Imagine if its WWII and that they asked for all mail to be un-sealed..Shocking but did almost happen..as far as they got was asking Military Personnel to 'volunteer' not to seal mail..
Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
11–20 of 82 posts
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#12Something learned in my 30y career as low level felon and spending fairly significant amounts of time (to me at least...a week in jail is no picnic!) locked up in both jail and prisons...
95% of cases are made via informants and not CSI-type investigations, so the whole "going dark" thing, I feel, isn't going to affect law enforcement the way a lot of people think it might.
I did notice, however, my last time through the system last year, that the State is now making a bunch of cases using cell tower information to put the defendants near the crime scene during the approx time of the situation.
Just FYI.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#13This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the govern…
I think (most) of us on HN are on the same page here. But we are a minority... many people truly don't care and are not incentivized to care.
i think people are incentivized not to care, which is subtly different but far more pernicious.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#14If you want to beat it, brand it. Obamacare, The Surge, War on Terror. Going Dark is just the latest. Expect letsnotencrypt.gov any day now.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#15This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the govern…
The facts which Wittes gives are way off. He links to "civil suits against the companies who provide service to ISIS and other bad guys". The civil suit is regarding a Jordanian police officer who shot and killed an American military contractor. Other than this lawsuit, almost nothing is linking the officer to ISIS. If you read the lawsuit, they really have nothing linking this officer to ISIS either, other than a vague statement from a supposedly official ISIS source.
So the link to this military contractor's death to ISIS is very tenuous. This has to be established first, and there is almost nothing to establish it on - he was a Jordanian police officer, not an ISIS militant. Then you have to say Twitter is engaged in running afoul of material support of terrorism laws. These laws generally would mean something along the lines of that in some back office of Twitter, Jack Dorsey was storing up Kalashnikov rifles which he was going to ship to the Taliban in order to assault American bases there.
In 1929, the Republican (!) Secretary of State rolled up all the old World War I spying operations saying "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail". How far the US has fallen in freedom from the day Stimson uttered those words a century ago.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#16If you want to beat it, brand it. Obamacare, The Surge, War on Terror. Going Dark is just the latest. Expect letsnotencrypt.gov any day now.
> If you want to beat it, brand it. Obamacare, The Surge, War on Terror.
The Surge and the War On Terror were branded by their supporters. Obamacare was branded that way by those trying to defeat it, but it hasn't worked. So, not sure your examples illustrate your point.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#17If you want to beat it, brand it. Obamacare, The Surge, War on Terror. Going Dark is just the latest. Expect letsnotencrypt.gov any day now.
> If you want to beat it, brand it. Obamacare, The Surge, War on Terror. The Surge and the War On Terror were branded by their supporters. Obamacare was branded that way by those trying to defeat it, but it hasn't worked. So, not sure your examples illustrate your point.
I shall be sure to quote more pertinent examples in future.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#18This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the govern…
I think (most) of us on HN are on the same page here. But we are a minority... many people truly don't care and are not incentivized to care.
For pretty much any political issue the people caring are a minority (on each side) with middle being populated with people who don't care or don't know what's going on.
Those people on the sides that do care then shape the debate and ultimately the outcome of pretty much any democratic decision (as little as those are still left).
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#19Something learned in my 30y career as low level felon and spending fairly significant amounts of time (to me at least...a week in jail is no picnic!) locked up in both jail and prisons... 95% of cases are made via informants and not CSI-type investigations, so the whole "going dark" thing, I feel, isn't going to affect law enforcement the way a lot of people think it might. I did notice, however, my last time through…
"isn't going to affect law enforcement" - at least the way it is now (and has been forever), but it greatly affects the way law enforcement would _like things to be_.
And I'm not at all happy with the implications of what "they" want...
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#20This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the govern…
The facts which Wittes gives are way off. He links to "civil suits against the companies who provide service to ISIS and other bad guys". The civil suit is regarding a Jordanian police officer who shot and killed an American military contractor. Other than this lawsuit, almost nothing is linking the officer to ISIS. If you read the lawsuit, they really have nothing linking this officer to ISIS either, other than a va…
[deleted]