51–60 of 148 posts
> [Obama] said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” He's right that they're patriots, but he's wrong about the problem they're trying to solve. They're fighting different terrorists. Terrorists hiding in government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northe...
For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention potential misbehavior by rogue elements, even when official policy is innocent. LOVEINT being a recent example in precisely this domain, but instances are manifold.
And LOVEINT resulted in zero people going to prison. It was a blatant abuse of power too. They violate the rules and nothing happens.
Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They ar…
The people who exploded the first car bomb in front of J.P.Morgan didn't use encryption. Timothy McVeigh didn't use encryption. 9/11 Hijackers didn't use encryption. 7/7 Bombers didn't use encryption. Boston Bombers didn't use encryption. Can you see where this is going ?
The gunman in Canada who tried to shoot up Parliament openly posted his plans and talked to jihadi sympathizer accounts on Twitter in the open. He was also on watch lists and had his passport pulled for trying to go to Syria.
One of the Boston bombers was on a watch list, and Russian officials sent warnings about him.
Seems nobody is watching the people on watch lists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).
The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northe...
For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).
(Nor's the BBC for that matter run by the Government - it merely has requirements to be for the public benefit, to represent the UK, and a variety of other things, by law, and in return it gets money from the TV license.)
Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They ar…
The people who exploded the first car bomb in front of J.P.Morgan didn't use encryption. Timothy McVeigh didn't use encryption. 9/11 Hijackers didn't use encryption. 7/7 Bombers didn't use encryption. Boston Bombers didn't use encryption. Can you see where this is going ?
"Encrypted Web Traffic More Than Doubles After NSA Revelations". http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sandvine-report/
'Patriots' is an interesting word in this context. I say giving foreign intelligence agencies access to your customer's private communications is treason.
Ya know - "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." [0]
[0] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They ar…
Because as someone smart said - If we want to defend our own freedoms, we have to start with defending freedoms of scoundrels, because the government will always start with taking away theirs. And when it's gone, ours will be gone too.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — HL Mencken
Though, personally the scene that springs to my mind is the one from "A Man for All Seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
“We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he
said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad
cryptography.”