Oh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?
For what it's worth, quite a few citizens consider other armed citizens a red flag, 2nd Amendment be damned.
Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#22Trump wins largely due to poorly secured communications of his opponent. I think HRC getting hacked actually pushed this issue forward. If it can happen to someone this powerful, and it is now so easy to secure email & texts, most Americans probably are. That means; hopefully, it doesnt matter if it is flagged as security is hopefully on a mainstream trajectory
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#23This, along with Sessions who sided with the FBI in the San Bernadino case, makes me very worried about the future of online privacy and communications encryption.
Can somebody please allay my fears. Besides the EFF, where can I donate to have most impact in terms of preventing the requirement of government backdoors in consumer hardware or software?
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#24I feel that the gun debate and the encryption debate have a shared argument: in a world where X is outlawed, only the outlaws will have X.
No. Not really. And frankly, it scares me that this is even confusing to people.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#25Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
I'm not sure what Trump has to do with this, since the government has been fighting/arguing against the populace having strong encryption for awhile.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#26Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#27>> "America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat."
>> "Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcase their zealotry online."
This type of rhetoric really concerns me. Especially because the author tries to distance himself from beliefs that he clearly espouses by structuring his opinions into factual statements ("America is in a long war...").
He says straight out that a) Social Media is a great tool for spying on people, b) that basically we should have 'thought police' ("people undergoing radicalization" ought to be spied (with the implication that they should be sanctioned)).
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#28Just keep in mind that governments that take powers never give it back.
Not unless some pressure is applied.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#29Just like keeping the curtains drawn on your house is a red flag...
Funnily enough in The Netherlands there's an aversion to curtains, to the point where people decorate the interior of their houses next to the window as some sort of diorama.
(Just so people don't think I'm just making this up: https://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-... )
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#30I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
> someone might want to keep an eye on you
what good will that do if the suspect is using encryption. thats the whole point!