Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#131

Post by ltbarcly3 »

BWStearns wrote: post #72
justin_vanw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonable according to whom? This is why we have Rule of Law . There is no "we follow the law when it seems reasonable". Whatever the law is, it should be followed, and it does not matter at all what anyone's personal opinion is regarding what the law should be. Perhaps it is more complex than this, for example in cases of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is for cases of conscience when you cannot per…

I was suggesting following the rule of law. Congress passes laws when they get around to it. I'm not in any way advancing that we should ban encryption or support backdoors (effectively banning encryption). I will not however pretend that I have exhaustively considered all legislation that would allow the FBI to open this phone without setting dangerous precedents. I can't think of any at the moment but I don't think…

It's not vaguely Orwellian. Given an ability to disregard the rule of law, and sufficient charisma, and some hard times, any country can become a dictatorship in 5 years.

We can't kill every charismatic person, and we can't prevent hard times. We can insist on the rule of law.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#132

Post by mikhailt »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #64
allworknoplay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security vs privacy is a false dichotomy here. Backdoors can help law enforcement achieve some goals but weaken overall security. The debate is security vs security, and framing it any other way reflects either willful deceit or ignorance.

Encryption could also help obstruct justice and let criminals get away with things. Most people won't understand till it impacts them personally but imagine if you are robbed of all your money and the answer of who did it lies in a computer you are able to get your hand on. Wouldn't you love it if the police had a backdoor now. You are wrong in framing the debate as security vs security. Its like everything else when…

> Encryption could also help obstruct justice and let criminals get away with things.

That's fine with me. The actions of the few does not justify the loss of privacy for all.

> Most people won't understand till it impacts them personally but imagine if you are robbed of all your money and the answer of who did it lies in a computer you are able to get your hand on. Wouldn't you love it if the police had a backdoor now.

No, I don't. Because that means the police can get into my data at any given time without any oversight and without me ever knowing it. It also means that anyone could attack my system and get that money as well.

I've been in this situation many times in the past, I've lost a lot of sensitive data because I forgot the password to my encrypted DMG files and I've moved on and I still encrypt my stuff in the DMG files.

Do I think the police and others should have a backdoor into my DMG files? No, and there is absolutely nothing that will ever justify it, not even terrorism or even the life of my family.

More Americans have been killed by Americans in the past few years than the entire history of terrorist attacks combined.

How about we take actions to ban guns in the country and see how it works.

> The question is how much liberty are we willing to give up for protection.

None. I don't deserve protection if I don't care about my privacy.

> We can't let a corporation or the government anchor our opinions on the left or right.

Sure we can, by voting and with our money. People trust Apple because they do focus on security of their devices.

It was the same thing with RIM/BlackBerry.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#133

Post by Russell91 »

exodust wrote: post #111
Russell91 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy is only superficial. It seems at first thought that the government (being owned by the people) would be more trustworthy. But... Based on incentives, the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible. Apple is incentivized to make people's phone/laptop experience as good as possible. Based on worst-case actions, Apple can use your data to 1) sell you more devices, 2) generally red…

Your idea that Apple are incentivized to make people's phone experience as good as possible sounds like a wishful proposition. There's plenty of examples of Apple features and restriction designed as eco-system lock-in, behavior manipulation, or control limiting for commercial reasons. "What's good for Apple is good for our customers" is what they want you to believe, but as a long time iOS device owner, I reject tha…

Well I think my main point was just to say that the "hypocrisy" you mention actually has a rational backing. Not that the backing is bulletproof, but it's certainly more than a hypocrisy.

You seem to most strongly disagree with the assertion that "the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible". It's pretty clear from my original comment that "the government" is referring to law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. Note that the FBI has thousands of agents whose performance is measured ultimately by the percent of cases they close. Thus, the claim that FBI agents "are incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible" is more an observation than some crackpot theory. It doesn't mean that we should change that - running a law enforcement agency any other way wouldn't make much sense. But it does provide the rational backing for someone to be more concerned about worst-case government abuse of data than worst-case corporate abuse.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#134

Post by BWStearns »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #131
BWStearns wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was suggesting following the rule of law. Congress passes laws when they get around to it. I'm not in any way advancing that we should ban encryption or support backdoors (effectively banning encryption). I will not however pretend that I have exhaustively considered all legislation that would allow the FBI to open this phone without setting dangerous precedents. I can't think of any at the moment but I don't think…

It's not vaguely Orwellian. Given an ability to disregard the rule of law, and sufficient charisma, and some hard times, any country can become a dictatorship in 5 years. We can't kill every charismatic person, and we can't prevent hard times. We can insist on the rule of law.

I suggested that a disagreement might have a non-specified solution a) exists and b) would be achievable through legislation, passed by an elected legislature. Nothing I suggested requires killing charismatic people (?) or advocates against the rule of law.

Normally when people intentionally misread me in the most uncharitable fashion possible I can at least see the deranged logic, but in your case I can't see what evil you claim I am advancing or how you arrived at that conclusion.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#135

Post by dmix »

autoreleasepool wrote: post #97
FreedomToCreate wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is to show how encryption in the wrong hands can also have terrible consequences. This is a two way street.

> encryption in the wrong hands can also have terrible consequences. So can literally anything in the wrong hands, though.

Cars, cellphones, fertilizer, kitchen knives, baseball bats, apple seeds, etc. Encryption is only special because of the power dynamic that shifts in the average citizens favour.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#136

Post by justin_vanw »

BWStearns wrote: post #134
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not vaguely Orwellian. Given an ability to disregard the rule of law, and sufficient charisma, and some hard times, any country can become a dictatorship in 5 years. We can't kill every charismatic person, and we can't prevent hard times. We can insist on the rule of law.

I suggested that a disagreement might have a non-specified solution a) exists and b) would be achievable through legislation, passed by an elected legislature. Nothing I suggested requires killing charismatic people (?) or advocates against the rule of law. Normally when people intentionally misread me in the most uncharitable fashion possible I can at least see the deranged logic, but in your case I can't see what e…

I am still talking about your original comment.

I understand your clarification, I was nitpicking that you were saying my response to the original comment was 'crazy' or something, but without the context you gave in your reply I think my original response was appropriate.

I agree with your larger point, there is probably a workable solution that balances the threat of government with the benefits of government, but I disagree that it is 'not getting things done' that is the cause of us not finding that compromise.

In general, I think that appeals to 'a lack of will' are almost always incorrect. People, even politicians, are generally good and want to find good solutions. There is a lot of disagreement on what is a good solution, and even more disagreement on what the long term consequences of choices are. This is why there is gridlock, and if you read the Federalist Papers (in the case of the US), you will see that this gridlock is a Feature of the system, not a Bug.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#137

Post by BWStearns »

justin_vanw wrote: post #136
BWStearns wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggested that a disagreement might have a non-specified solution a) exists and b) would be achievable through legislation, passed by an elected legislature. Nothing I suggested requires killing charismatic people (?) or advocates against the rule of law. Normally when people intentionally misread me in the most uncharitable fashion possible I can at least see the deranged logic, but in your case I can't see what e…

I am still talking about your original comment. I understand your clarification, I was nitpicking that you were saying my response to the original comment was 'crazy' or something, but without the context you gave in your reply I think my original response was appropriate. I agree with your larger point, there is probably a workable solution that balances the threat of government with the benefits of government, but…

Every time I hear someone defend the recent state of affairs by bringing up the gridlock being a feature and not a bug, I feel like someone who owns a delivery truck that won't go more than 10 mph. I go to the dealer and ask what the fuck, and the dealer says that there's a speed governor on the truck that won't let it surpass 80mph and the governor is just working better than usual.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#138

Post by justin_vanw »

BWStearns wrote: post #137
justin_vanw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still talking about your original comment. I understand your clarification, I was nitpicking that you were saying my response to the original comment was 'crazy' or something, but without the context you gave in your reply I think my original response was appropriate. I agree with your larger point, there is probably a workable solution that balances the threat of government with the benefits of government, but…

Every time I hear someone defend the recent state of affairs by bringing up the gridlock being a feature and not a bug, I feel like someone who owns a delivery truck that won't go more than 10 mph. I go to the dealer and ask what the fuck, and the dealer says that there's a speed governor on the truck that won't let it surpass 80mph and the governor is just working better than usual.

That is a clever analogy.

I think we are fine though, we are safer than ever before. We don't need to extend government snooping power, because there is no need to do so. If someone disagrees, that is fine, but that is why we have a speed governor.

People have always complained about decisions being made too slowly, but they have never been made faster, if anything they are made more quickly now than ever before. Congress used to only meet a few times a year for a few weeks!

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#139

Post by BWStearns »

justin_vanw wrote: post #138
BWStearns wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I hear someone defend the recent state of affairs by bringing up the gridlock being a feature and not a bug, I feel like someone who owns a delivery truck that won't go more than 10 mph. I go to the dealer and ask what the fuck, and the dealer says that there's a speed governor on the truck that won't let it surpass 80mph and the governor is just working better than usual.

That is a clever analogy. I think we are fine though, we are safer than ever before. We don't need to extend government snooping power, because there is no need to do so. If someone disagrees, that is fine, but that is why we have a speed governor. People have always complained about decisions being made too slowly, but they have never been made faster, if anything they are made more quickly now than ever before. Con…

When they only met a few times for a few weeks they were passing laws that were readable in whole by individuals during those sessions. The scope of their responsibilities has increased and I expect them to apply a correspondingly high degree of effort.

I want the legislature to be passing laws rolling back the security state, I want them to cancel or rework programs that don't work across the board. They can't do those things if they spend all their time in some arcane ritual circle jerk whose only and ultimate goal is just to make some of the other participants ultimately look more ridiculous than other participants.

We've normalized and accepted parliamentarian bullshit at the expense of governing (on both sides, but the republicans are the undisputed masters of the dark arts) for a couple decades now. Legislative lethargy (sorry, had to) is supposed to derive from lengthy debate and substantive disagreement, not from participants purposely tanking the process to score points in the cheap seats. Part of the reason that they got shit done in a couple of weeks in ye-olden-congress is that it was closer to a turn based game, news traveled slower and so the results of the whole session were what constituted news, not every little BS stunt.

The frustrated and vindictive part of me hopes that not a single senator or congressman pays a price for their cynical abandonment of their duty to govern. That way, next term we see months long shutdowns of the whole federal government and a collapse of federal services until [Bernie|Hillary] signs a budget that reallocates all non-entitlement social spending to some insane shit that polled well among likely voters suffering from bathtub-gin induced brain damage. The revolting (both senses) congressmen won't actually care about getting the spending reallocated, but them "standing up to" [Bernie|Hillary] will play well with their group so so be it.

Edit: to clarify the frustrated and vindictive part would be rooting for it in the sense that the worst part about democracy is that people get the government they deserve, and at the moment it doesn't seem like the process thinks we deserve much.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#140

Post by discardorama »

bradleyjg wrote: post #18
mhays wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he did go to Congress, and came back with nothing, forcing him to use the AWA. So who is pushing who exactly? And who has a louder voice in criminal justice matters than the FBI?

Forcing him how? If he came back with nothing, that's his answer. The answer of the American people. Perhaps he should learn what no means.

> Forcing him how? If he came back with nothing, that's his answer.

It's amazing how many people don't get this. The Congress makes laws, which are the tools at the FBI's disposal. If they didn't give them this particular tool, then too bad: they have to figure out how to do their job without this tool.

And the DFBI did not address the gross incompetence shown by them, when they asked the County to reset the phone. If they didn't even know the consequences of that request, how can they predict the (supposed no) consequences of their request to Apple?

Post reply on HN