71–80 of 219 posts
Putting in backdoors is sure fire way to kill US based mobile phone producers. Criminals will just use foreign produced phones and only way to counteract that is to outlaw those phones. Can't wait till they criminalize having certain firmware on your phones.
It's already a violation of the law to import and sell routers with unlocked firmware
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.davidforcalifornia.com/ Uhh, I think I'm blanking on the other. Both will likely lose, but maybe it will make her look over shoulder and keep closer to her constituents.
Michael Eisen http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/qa-michael-eisen-want... Feinstein is now 83. I don't think she has announced either way, but it is likely she'll retire. If so, then there will probably be a lot of candidates.
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
It was always just a ruse to snatch power. Parading a potential existential threat to consolidate authority goes back to antiquity and is a common theme in historical narratives, fiction, allegorical literature, popular political writings of the founding fathers...
It's like the political version of a 419 scam. I'm continually dumbfounded that people fall for these things.
In the modern era, there's accessible easy-to-read references at our finger-tips to learn about all the classic shams that are constructed to manipulate and seize power, but it doesn't seem to matter. It's really something.
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
> From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. Wiretapping and search warrants are long standing and well support ways for law enforcement to investigate among other things organized crime. Just because you know have encryption doesn't mean that has changed. Similar to how the NSA didn't suddenly stop doing signal intel…
True, but there is a big difference between presenting evidence to a judge to obtain a search warrant and subsequently manually wiretapping a phone line or two and the sort of massive-scale surveillance/capture we have today.
It's like the difference between a doctor examining an awake patient who has complained about a specific symptom... vs to a doctor sneaking into the bedroom of thousands of sleeping non-patients and performing a secret physical exam on their genitals just in case anything about their genitals seems alarming.
The crime (building the illegal infrastructure to do that surveillance) is now justified after the fact by a fairly quaint comparison to traditional police work.
As much as I'd like to, I don't believe that surveillance is about police work. It's about political intimidation which is identical to the kind of political intimidation that seems obvious when talking about other police states from history.
The effects of intimidation are not obvious as everyone expects them to be. I'll make an analogy with the North Korean regime to illustrate my point.
How is it possible that the leader of N. Korea is able to make statements to the public that are obviously absurd. Are people in N. Korea less rational than elsewhere? Less intelligent? No, but over time the range of ideas considered acceptable has adapted to include some of the most ludicrous (and contradicted by fact) claims imaginable.
How does this happen? I think it happens gradually. How likely are we to loudly criticize our government when we know all our devices contain a hot mic and all the audio might be getting recorded? Maybe we still offer a criticism but we couch it a bit or we follow it with some praise. Small things like this mean that we all hear less criticism, less scrutiny, less dissent. All because we are not sure who is listening or who will be reported to authorities for holding a controversial view.
Over the course of decades, perfectly intelligent, rational people in N. Korea are easily able to believe some fairly outlandish claims simply because of a few decades of secret police presence and fear of being reported.
What does this have to do with the US? By definition, terrorism is a political crime. It causes intimidation and fear. It is designed to be asymmetrical and sporadic, and is impossible to stop. The only way to fight it is with extreme social control... a more compliant society where holders of nonstandard beliefs are more easily identified.
If the surveillance data had not been used to fight non-terrorism crimes, or if the systems were designed with a cryptographically provable audit trail, I'd consider the possibility that this was just a more modern way of doing law enforcement. But sadly I think all of the evidence points in the other direction.
Unbelievable. Just happened to see a clip today ( https://goo.gl/F9XeQU ) where Feinstein was "grilling" Comey about announcing the investigation into Clinton right before the election. When Feinstein totally let him off the hook I was floored?!? He interfered worse than the Russians - how does he still have a job? Ahh, she wants his support for the decrypt bill. I'll never understand why the Democrats have zero inte…
Our 2 party system leads to widely erratic results on issues like this, as we are seeing with this Comey Feinstein partnership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case
Nothing the parent said assumes voters are rational. They pointed out that CA voters can remove her. True. They pointed out she's still there, so the plausible majority of the people that cast votes must have wanted to elect her vs the opposition choice (as of the last election). True.
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
I am an Indian citizen living in USA and I think American society must take the blame here and not the politicians. The way society thinks and votes I think only a total narcissist moron can succeed in US administration.
The fastest way to rise to top (as we saw in case of Obama and Trump) is to find some target group and blame that group for the failure of other larger society. The larger society is far too quick to raise pitchforks and burn the other group at stake.
It is depressing to see that large % of Americans have seen inside of jail. A lot of people labeled as "suspected terrorist" or "sex offenders" are no where close to the common sense definition of those words. But once you have that label rest of the society treats you like utter shit. You cant find a job, state can put any arbitrary restrictions on all your freedoms etc.
Unless US society learns to be compassionate and stand up for the rights of even those "deplorable" people purely as matter of principle I don't think there is any scope for optimism.
I remember Ron Paul's words "Once you give up some liberty, you are not going to get it back, ever!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case
Democracy couldn't exist if there was a mechanism to say certain votes are irrational and shouldn't be counted. It's not a perfect system but it's the best yet.
Really I'd like for this not to be the case, but at the moment it seems like that isn't likely to happen anytime before I'm dead.
I'm confused about this. I'm hurried at the moment, but this seems to a bill that orders tech companies to provide a solution to encryption without having a backdoor? Isn't this like legislating a violation of mathematics or something?