81–90 of 130 posts
ps: not charged, not convicted, very innocent. not a fan of the justice dept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you shout really loud yr a democracy. Basically saying you have no control is saying that the US is no democracy.
The US does not have equal protection under the law, and the laws are enforced arbitrarily to carry out the will of the military and the ownership class. The thing you reference is just a cover story. It's plain as day to anyone paying attention who runs that country. There is no party you can vote for that will stop the perpetual war or perpetual ubiquitous surveillance, despite a vast majority of people in the coun…
I dont understand why the US people still trust these agencies. FBI, CIA, NSA have all shown to act against the democracy in many cases. If they could be trusted, they could be trusted with a backdoor. Since they cannot be trusted, the backdoor only makes them a more dangerous enemy of the people.
We DON'T trust them. We have about as much say in what those agencies do as a random shop keeper in 1980's USSR does with the KGB.
FWIW, I've had a warrant executed against me by the FBI. They seized every electronic device I own, and forcibly took my biometric data(fingerprints, face scan, retinal scan) in the hopes they could unlock my devices with it. They were unable to access any LUKS-encrypted volumes, and were less than happy about that situation. Can't say much else unless I'm good with 99x anxiety for the next few days. ps: not charged,…
Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
15 years ago, if I had said that society would build a tracking system and that most people would happily carry a tracker in their pocket and pay monthly fees to support the tracking networks, I would have been laughed out of the room. But that is what happened, and most people are oblivious to this fact.
Most people simply have no choice unless you are willing to switch to GNU/Linux phones. Those are not 100% ready for everything yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person (at least in term of criminal activity), to which the FBI didn't have access before. Indeed. But those conversations/meetings were visible, risky etc. They were thus possible to monitor/attack and they weren't scalable. From the perspective of law enforcement, criminals being able to discuss crim…
Nah, they just need to issue a wiretap order to the encrypted messenger app's centralized servers. Even end to end encrypted systems know who is talking to who, and how often, and where those two parties are (due to client IP geolocation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US does not have equal protection under the law, and the laws are enforced arbitrarily to carry out the will of the military and the ownership class. The thing you reference is just a cover story. It's plain as day to anyone paying attention who runs that country. There is no party you can vote for that will stop the perpetual war or perpetual ubiquitous surveillance, despite a vast majority of people in the coun…
Wholeheartedly agree. Hence it is about trust (my first point) and/or absence of democracy. And this is a bigger issue than encryption, IMHO.
Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…
It doesn't really matter that they quantitatively have access to more to them, from the POV of law enforcement though they had access to everything that was available if they wanted it then and they don't now. Law enforcement chafes and pushes against any attempt to limit them because their self image is that of protectors and good guys so what they do has good reason even if people don't want them to, it's a whole self justifying greater good/ends justify the means self justifying loop a lot of place fall into, including tech companies. You see it constantly with unjustified searches, stops and seizures, given a limit, eg the requirement for probable cause for a search, police find any way around it they can to justify the action they already want to take, eg smell of drugs or 'acting suspicious'.
There are definitely crimes that go unsolved because police can't monitor everything 24/7, that irritates a group tasked with 'protecting' society so they push back. We feel the same thing in software engineering to a certain extent, governance, architectural approval, etc all suck to work with but they exist for a reason in big orgs but just because they're useful agencies doesn't mean they suck less when you're held up because the architects take 3 months to approve something and want 20 Powerpoint decks to do it.
FWIW, I've had a warrant executed against me by the FBI. They seized every electronic device I own, and forcibly took my biometric data(fingerprints, face scan, retinal scan) in the hopes they could unlock my devices with it. They were unable to access any LUKS-encrypted volumes, and were less than happy about that situation. Can't say much else unless I'm good with 99x anxiety for the next few days. ps: not charged,…
Very depressing how in the UK you could've been forced to disclose your password under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and gotten even 5 years jail time if you refused. I presume there isn't a US equivalent?