FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption 174
blottsie writes: At a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, the FBI endured outright hostility as both technical experts and members of Congress from both parties roundly criticized the law enforcement agency's desire to place so-called back doors into encryption technology. "Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate. "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have," Lieu said.
The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of being down-modded: ... it is the people that allow them to get away with this stupid shit in the first place.
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say that about anyone who does anything stupid. It's just a cop out - usually to avoid the work part of coalition building. This discussion is part of the process of not allowing them to get away with it.
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so pleased on multiple counts... First of all, that legislators would be smart enough to understand what a stupid idea this is and not just believe it la-di-da, public safety, terrorism, the FBI says we have to do it or we'll all die. Second, I'm pleased to see there is something that Congress can agree on bipartisanly.
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Interesting)
it is the people that allow them to get away with this stupid shit in the first place.
Except they are NOT getting away with it ... because of the people. We are not going to accept it, and our elected representatives know that. They already tried this crap with the Clipper Chip [wikipedia.org], which died in a firestorm of protest. The same is happening now. There is no way that the TLAs are going to LEGALLY get a backdoor. It is not going to happen.
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they are NOT getting away with it ...
Until you can name an FBI agent or administrator in prison, they *are* getting away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Right now it is not a crime, BUT it should be.
Anyone in power to actually propose or advocate such ideas that are clearly, outright dangerous to our freedom and privacy rights should be treated as our worst enemy. Anyone who does that is clearly showing to be a dangerous inept several magnitudes worse than the worst terrorist. An enemy of the public that can only choose between exile or jail.
Yay freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of CALEA ports?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I was referring to the CALEA legislation which 'the people' also fought and lost, not that CALEA and crypto are the same thing. However, making it legal for TLAs to force backdoors in crypto is certainly similar.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It certainly sounds similar but it's really not.
The CALEA ports aren't really a backdoor though, more like a side utility door it is just to make it easier for the police to do something they could already lawfully do with cause. Get the traffic that goes through the companies equipment with a warrant. The police have always been able to get a warrant to get data from anyone on anything either electronic or paper if they have cause. They can already right now get a warrant forcing you to allow them to insta
Re: (Score:2)
If they get away with this backdoor crap, how long until they are demanding master keys to your house. (Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole, but only because the physical expense would be huge
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whistleblowers have been coming forward, the people have been loudly criticizing it, we elected the Presidential candidate who was most opposed to it in both of the last two elections (the second guy was distinctly more of a "lesser of two evils" than the first), and we've been taking them to court.
So, to recap, that's soap box, ballot box, and jury box that we've been using. To claim that we're letting them get away with it is to betray your ignorance of the facts. Short of revolution, we have done everything we can. This is the oligarchy ignoring the law and the will of the people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Interesting)
A police state is what happens when the citizens forget that police-people always want more control and power that is good for society and forget to kick them in the nuts from time to time. The mind-set of most people joining the police and similar (like the FBI) is not compatible with a free society, hence oversight and democratic control. They literally cannot police themselves. Of course, many police states an even quite a few totalitarian regimes where cheered in by the people that later suffered under them.
Re:The problem isn't the FBI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would beg to differ on this. The mind set of most people joining these agencies is actually a love of country and law and order. But then they get drawn into the task of investigating crimes and continually run into the brick wall of the constitution in their well meaning efforts to root out criminals. That and the continual push from above to arrest the bad guys leads to them trying to make their jobs easier and more effective, thus looking for back-doors or to get them added to crypto software, or other work-arounds to the challenges on collecting information/evidence/intelligence without alerting the suspect(s). These limits and road blocks are good and absolutely necessary to a free society, but that doesn't mean these well meaning officers and agents don't get frustrated and try to seek other ways on occasion.
But that desire comes from a desire to capture and see the guilty punished, yes it can, has and will in the future lead to overstepping bounds (occasionally egregiously), but that does not mean they joined for want of power or control. (Okay some may become police officers for such but not the FBI.)
Re: (Score:3)
"You the people"... so you are not a person?
Then what are you, a *literal* troll?
Re: (Score:2)
AC might not be American. Though I can't see what else the average person could do to stop these kinds of abuses except maybe run for office yourself. Though I imagine as soon as you gain office, you too will get corrupted by the real powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, individual deliberation before voting as a means of change is nearly pointless these days.
Just look at the Koch brothers - they literally put out a list of "viable Republican candidates they will consider". So now it seems even primary elections will be decided by the American Oligarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would EXACTLY be those JACKASSES that *YOU THE PEOPLE* elected and put in office to write laws regarding how the FBI, NSA, DHS, ICE, IRS and all the other agencies you hate are to treat YOU.
REAL fucking smart all that voting and standing up and telling them what you want that you've been doing all these 15+ years.... REAL FUCKING SMART. It's no wonder you get them trying to roll out more shit against you. You actually bend over and let them fuck you.
What an idiot. Sorry, how responsive is the federal government to the needs of the People? There have been studies [cambridge.org] done that show that citizens have little say in how policy is formed. We vote for Kodos or Kang every two to four years and not much changes for the better.
So what am I supposed to do? Sure, I can get involved politically and I do that to some extent. But I have a 40+ hour a week job to maintain, kids at home once I get there at night, and life maintenance/kid stuff to do on the weekends.
Sure would be nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure would be nice (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reminded of a political quote of late "How's that Hopey Changey thing workin' out for ya?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush's 2004 campaign motto: "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". I think Obama followed through better, personally.
"I like Ike". Eisenhower, 1952.
"I still like Ike". Eisenhower, 1956.
Now that's straightforward. And he delivered 100%, in that he had already won WWII, so absent some kind of time machine he couldn't have possibly failed.
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me this is the most subtle and nuanced ironic post ever posted on slashdot. Because almost every sentence in it seems to be a carefully crafted opposite of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Other people have corrected your incredible lack of understanding of the economy, so let me try on the Middle East.
When Bush left office, the Iraqi government was far from stable, and was propped up by the US military presence. Obama withdrew on Bush's schedule, and we had the entirely predictable disaster. The only way to stop it would have been to leave an army of occupation in Iraq indefinitely, which would have been a wonderful advertisement for Muslim terrorist organizations. Iran isn't going to
Re: (Score:2)
It generally was and is. Don't get me wrong: research let us understand the world and that has a value in itself. But there are a lot of other areas that could use the effort and money spent on general space research and would actually improve the lives of people.
But that ignores the fact that most "space" research was and is actually military research. GPS, spy satellites, communication satellites and even rockets themselves was mainly developed for their military usefulness, not for civilian purposes.
Re:Sure would be nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I despise people of any political persuasion making fun of any other side. I have Republican friends who have quoted the same line, and I call them on it whenever they do. I also have Democratic friends who refer to the other side by various names such as "Republitards" and I call them on it as well.
We cannot have any kind of discussion as long as we're hurling insults at each other. We can disagree--even vehemently--but the moment we start telling the other side that they suck is the point where we start closing off discussion based on basic human emotional response.
Re: (Score:3)
I correct the McDonalds case more often than I should have to. One of the things that I try to do is add context to discussions. Most recently, this has centered on attacks on Obama and Democrats in general, but I did the same thing when Bush was in office. I especially focus on Supreme Court decisions (and sometimes just oral arguments, which seem to be the recent topic with the same-sex marriage arguments just the other day) which sometimes seem to fly in the face of common sense but which, when read,
how (Score:5, Insightful)
How stupid must your plan be if politicians actually call it stupid?
Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, this particular politician actually holds a relevant degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the next round of Republican voting will ensure he's replaced by a guy that uses a drawl, could beat up the other candidate physically, and asks God for guidance on good encryption policy.
But...but..
Robert Byrd is dead and was a Democrat, besides he didn't look all that tough! Maybe he was a bit more spry back in his younger days when he was burning crosses on 'uppity' black family's front lawns with Al Gore Sr.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...not [to] be riddled with holes. (subjunctive)
There's a shock... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for these problems with DNA analysis? Because I'd like to see it. It's my understanding that the FBI has always been on the cutting edge with DNA and has been pretty cautious in court testimony about it.
The FBI for years used, in court, hair analysis, handwriting and audio experts that couldn't prove anything. They've all been proven to be pseudo sciences with no actual ability to prove anything with an accuracy better than random guessing. There are a LOT of people in jail based entire
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, DNA-based techniques have the advantage that they are actually 'science', as originally developed by scientists looking for useful res
Re: (Score:2)
would have some ideas about encryption that are anything other than technologically cutting edge and fourth amendment compliant
They are asking for something that is forth amendment compliant. What do you expect them to do with a warrant when the device is encrypted? Beg the phone to decrypt itself?
Just the good guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate.
How is "a technological backdoor" restricted to just the good guys? I don't think we need to go to the Orwellian level to demonstrate how misguided such a notion is. The fact that bad guys will likely gain access as well should be sufficient.
Re:Just the good guys? (Score:4, Informative)
That's kinda just restating what he was saying . . .
Re: (Score:3)
That's kinda just restating what he was saying . . .
Perhaps I should have included Lieu's next sentence: "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have,"
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I was going to say. "Is there some sign that says 'good guys only' that stops bad guys from using it too?"
Re:Just the good guys? (Score:5, Funny)
Bad guys have to set the evil bit; the software checks whether or not it's set. Really people, we've thought this through.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad guys have to set the evil bit; the software checks whether or not it's set. Really people, we've thought this through.
Relevant RFC [ietf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Bad guys have to set the evil bit; the software checks whether or not it's set. Really people, we've thought this through.
Relevant RFC [ietf.org]
You know, it's been years since I actually read that. The basic concept is funny, obviously, but the author took it much further. I'd forgotten such gems as:
Because NAT [RFC3022] boxes modify packets, they SHOULD set the evil bit on such packets.
Indeed, NAT boxes really should mark all their packets as evil, because NAT is evil.
Oh, I also quite enjoy:
In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.
Oh, obviously. If you have a firewall, every host inside the firewall is perfectly safe. BWAHAHA...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just the good guys? (Score:5, Funny)
That's like the "do not track" thing in my browser, right?
Re: (Score:3)
The noise you hear overhead is the sound a joke makes while traveling at high speed through a gaseous medium.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I was going to say. "Is there some sign that says 'good guys only' that stops bad guys from using it too?"
Maybe the real irony is the two are one and the same.
Devil's advoct ALL encryption has a good-guy door (Score:2)
I agree this is stupid. Sometimes, though, I like to think of the best arguments I can for the other side's position. In other words, come up with reasons I might be wrong.
In this case, I'd have to admit that ANY time I send an encrypted message, it should always have a way for the good guy to read the message. For example, suppose I use https to send a secure request to bank.com. That must have a way for the good guy, bank.com, to read the message. There's no technical reason it can't be encrypted su
Re: (Score:2)
I agree this is stupid. Sometimes, though, I like to think of the best arguments I can for the other side's position. In other words, come up with reasons I might be wrong.
In this case, I'd have to admit that ANY time I send an encrypted message, it should always have a way for the good guy to read the message. For example, suppose I use https to send a secure request to bank.com. That must have a way for the good guy, bank.com, to read the message. There's no technical reason it can't be encrypted such that TWO good guys have keys, bank.com and the Good Guy Bureau.
In fact, standard encryption as used by tls does almost that - two people ALREADY have the key which is used to encrypt the message. The sender has the key and so does the receiver. The shared key is then encrypted by another key generated such that two parties can know it, without either ever transmitting it. Mathematically, one could certainly add the GGB key to the algorithm.
It could be just as unbreakable as the current encryption standards, though those do depend on keys being kept secret. The Good Guy Key probably wouldn't actually be kept secret for long. That's the huge failing that makes it a non-starter from a purely technical perspective- that we'd all be screwed if the FBI's key were ever revealed or cracked. Various attempts at DRM show that widely-used keys are always cracked.
Why bother with all that? The FBI walks in (or calls) the bank, and they hand over all your information just trying to be "helpful." This happens ALL THE TIME at ISPs and banks. Why do all the technical stuff to achieve it?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right about restricted access, but you're misinterpreting the sentence. He's talking about a backdoor created *for* the good guys. As in, they wanted to have it, so it was put in. Not as in it's ours so only we can use it.
My point is about an intentionally manufactured backdoor, specifically how can it be engineered so that it is restricted to only the good guys?
Re: (Score:3)
And that is exactly the problem. Let's even assume for a moment that they actually are the good guys.
Wanting a backdoor for the "good guys" means wanting a backdoor for everyone. By definition. A backdoor in encryption is what everyone who tries to spy on someone else wants. The FBI wants it to spy on their enemies. Corporations want it to spy on other corporations. And I'm pretty sure China and Iran would love to use it to take a peek into some US government information.
Access to such a backdoor is hard to
The 64,000 dollar question (Score:2)
Not "stupid" just for that reason (Score:5, Insightful)
from TFA, on "a back door just for the good guys": "Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have"
Yes, agreed. But besides that, having the back-doors only available "for the good guys" is problematic for a number of other reasons, including:
a) "the good guys" in this administration may be replaced by "less than good guys" in the next administration
b) It only takes one "not so good guy" in the organization to take advantage of a back door for nefarious purposes (perhaps with the best of intentions)
c) The existence of a back door "just for the good guys" assumes that there is no exploit that anyone could figure out with today's technology up to the technology available up to the retirement of the last piece of equipment that contained that particular back door (which might be decades). When you design a system, do you take into account the technology that will become available to break into it 20 or 30 years in the future?
d) That the "keys" for such a universal back door would be so valuable that they would inevitably be sold by someone with access to the highest bidder, or because of political or religious motivations.
The FBI might be better served by just being better at cyber break-ins than anyone else. This would allow them to do the monitoring they desire, and have the added benefits of making them work for access, rather than just go fetch passwords out of a safe, and develop some in-house expertise that could be used against real cyber criminals.
Now that I think of that last part, if we really want the FBI to understand about cyber security, it's important from an evolutionary point to never give them easy access to anything.
Re:Not "stupid" just for that reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA have long relied on the general ignorance of the public, and even of Congress, on various technical matters. Further, they had their claws into academia and were thus capable of controlling the dissemination of information in regards to technical matters. These agencies still believe they are dealing with various kinds of ignorant rubes who will believe any technobabble their representatives care to spew. But this isn't the fertile ground for their particular brand of bullshit. The IT world is dominated by people of a rather different mindset, and while companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple couldn't really be regarded as friends of liberty, what they are is highly protective of their revenue streams. Crapola plans like encryption back doors and universal spying on their traffic is already damaging these companies' international reputations, and risks undermining many years worth the work of selling their platforms to foreign buyers.
And this, as sad is it is, is why these agencies will lose. Not because any of the Captains of IT Industry or anyone in Congress gives a flying fuck about liberties, but because it poses a threat to profits. I guess the little guy has to accept that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, and hope the IT companies win the day, but what bothers is that we may win the battle, and lose the war, simply because instead of a bunch of government spooks spying on every bit that gets transmitted over the Internet, we'll have a bunch of corporate spooks.
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is: Why all the act about encryption? If there is going to be a backdoor, and everyone knows there is going to be a backdoor, and the backdoor is enforced by federal law, then why go through all this circus?
Just Use Agile! (Score:2)
The FBI should have no trouble pulling it off then.
Clipper? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its the fucking clipper chip fiasco all over again. Doomed to repeat the past....
But "bad" guys can break the law, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part about legislating what kinds of technology people can use is that only legal entities must abide by the law.
So, the "good companies" or "good individuals" who agree with you are now penalized by having back-doors while anyone "bad" is "free" to use solid and effective tools.
Bullet, meet foot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but the whole point here is to keep the "good" people in line, not to actually spy on the "bad" people.
And if they do serendipitously catch a "bad" person, they can lock them away for life for owning "illegal" tools.
I think I've "forgotten" why we're using "air quotes" here.
Re: (Score:3)
The best part about legislating what kinds of technology people can use is that only legal entities must abide by the law.
So, the "good companies" or "good individuals" who agree with you are now penalized by having back-doors while anyone "bad" is "free" to use solid and effective tools.
Bullet, meet foot.
Actually, this is useful from a law enforcement perspective. Much in the way that Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion rather than racketeering, anybody caught using illegal encryption could be arrested and convicted for that without having to prove that they were doing anything else nefarious.
Bad idea for other reasons but definitely useful.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts are likely to consider encryption to be a free speech matter, and strike down laws limiting it.
The economics of it all ... (Score:2)
... is just too much.
Imagine Apple builds iPhones with a back door. That phone will not sell in any other country, right? If Apple wants to sell to Japan, Apple will have to put a Japanese backdoor into those devices.
The Japanese will prohibit Apple from selling those to people in the US.
Apple will have a brazillion adaptations of its iPhones to make every country happy and that's just not going to happen.
We can bet our asses that some company somewhere will meet US market demand for clean encrypted phones
Oh...stupid ideas about encryption... (Score:2)
The problem is Big Government (Score:2)
Bravo for Representative Lieu, but he misses the whole point. The encryption doesn't matter if a Government is so big will harm you even when it is trying to do good. The problem is not the backdoors, it is the elephant in the room - a Government that is just to big and increasingly centralized. More Government power **necessarily** means citizens lose liberty. And the Democrats and Establishment Republicans are both bad at growing Government (and the associated debt).
Power needs to be devolved back t
Re:The problem is Big Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen your state government recently? Specifically, have you seen the state governments that are purporting to do the "small government" routine? Kansas? New Jersey? Wisconsin? They're economies are tanking, credit ratings falling, deficits ballooning. What, New Jersey's credit rating has been downgraded nine times since Chris Christie took office with a promise to return to "fiscal sanity through smaller government". And their legislators? They're too busy trying to make sure high school students aren't exposed to fucking AP history class and making that the Bible is the "official state book" to address anything serious. Because god forbid a student should learn how the railroads were really built. Or what our government was up to in Central and South America in the '80s. Or what "Trail of Tears" means. Or who the "robber barons" were. Or that the earth wasn't made in six days.
States, Federal, it doesn't make a difference as long as it's government by, of and for the wealthy elite. And we've got SuperPACs spending tens of millions of dollars on local school board elections for chrissake. State legislators, the guys that used to be part-time politicians and full-time citizens, are almost as likely to become millionaires during their first two terms as your average federal congressman. Sure, you can make state boundaries mean something again, but remember, money doesn't recognize state borders. It doesn't matter if government is centralized. All that matters is that SuperPACs are centralized, because that's where the power lies.
This fight between big government/small government/state/federal is just something to keep us busy while the elite are carrying off everything in sight. Your "elections" are nothing more than the circuses in "bread and circuses".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except you don't. Big money took over state elections at least 15 years ago.
Before you are allowed to get to know a new candidate, they have already been through the "money primary" where rich guys have decided that the candidate is appropriately sensitive to their needs. By the time you know their names, you've already been shut out of
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that rule has been in place since 1990, but it's now being completely ignored by the SuperPACs due to Citizens United. In 2012, the Scott Walker campaign for governor of Wisconsin took in $2.6 million from SuperPACs.
Right now, you have all campaign finance laws being flouted because the SuperPACs smell blood in the water due to Citizens United and the 5-4 breakdown of the Supreme Court. Do you remember when the Supreme Court told Montana that they were not allowed to have any laws limiting campaign
Re: (Score:2)
I agree about Hillary and her corrupt money, but do you really believe labor unions are "Marxist"? You're too big be that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I would highly recommend people google "Trevor Loudon" and make their own decisions about him.
That's all I'll say on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute. How is THIS an "anti-scientific approach"?
This is the entirety of my statement:
All I'm recommending is that people google "Trevor Loudon" and read his articles and watch his YouTube videos and decide about his evidence for themselves. What's wrong with that approach in your eyes? It's exactly what you recommended in your comment about him.
If you
MoneyMouth (Score:5, Insightful)
This story reminds me that it's time to go throw the EFF another $20.
https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]
FREAK (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Were no longer an island (Score:3)
Mandatory encryption backdoors pretty much means we become a backwards island as nobody else will willingly use our crypto. It's already become a valid concern over networking gear from US companies since the NSA has been shown to subvert them, when people are buying chinese gear because it's a better option security wise than US gear you have a serious image issue.
But (Score:2, Insightful)
Who in America still considers the FBI, NSA, or CIA to be "the good guys" anymore?
My job would cease to exist if the FBI got this. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Founding Fathers read Orwell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The term was Orwellian [wikipedia.org], which constitutes a few things..
"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" – a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practised by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly 1984.
While I don't think our founding fathers understood the concept of an "unperson" or manipulating the past, they did understand how Colonial rule worked which by all accounts came close to being Orwellian.
Re:Founding Fathers read Orwell? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Orwell believed that the advancement of technology, combined with government control, would lead to a particularly frightening dystopia. One where the government would use technology (mostly mass surveillance and control of information repositories) to control thought and knowledge. That's why I prefer the technology industry maintain a healthy antagonism with the government. The fact that the (UK) government castrated t
Re:Founding Fathers read Orwell? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the founding fathers had seen some pretty bad behavior from kings and tyrants, and were people who understood the big picture.
They certainly didn't anticipate everything, but they sure as hell tried to lay the groundwork for trying to formulate how to prevent this crap.
And then people got all scared and lost their shot and decided "oh, fuck all those constitutional protections, we're scared".
The problem with the FBI is they moronically believe that if they poke holes in crypto that it would still have any value. Because they're too fucking concerned about getting this information they can't stop to think that if there are holes for them, there's holes for anybody else to use.
What the FBI et al are basically saying amounts to "everybody should leave their house unlocked in case we need to go in, and we will go 'la la la' and pretend that nobody else will do this".
The FBI are either collectively too fucking stupid, or too fucking fascist to comprehend that crypto only really works if you don't punch holes in it.
But, hey, between law enforcement hiding how often they use that Stingray thing, and the "manaul of institutional perjury" which is parallel construction -- maybe it's time we stopped treating them as anything but a corrupt organization which needs a serious culling?
Fire 'em, arrest 'em, hang 'em -- it doesn't matter. These clowns have decided the law doesn't apply to them, so they don't deserve to be treated like the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI doesn't care if they break the entire purpose of Crypto. They would like the world without crypto at least in their day job. You do something foolish in assuming they don't understand that it would break the entire purpose of crypto. They likely understand that all too well.
Re:Founding Fathers read Orwell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you not see the recent scandal about the FBI forensic lab techs who lied on the stand? One guy's hair was matched to a fucking dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Access to a time machine would explain why y'all think the founding fathers are prescient I guess.
Or Orwell read the founding fathers, among others who had similar concerns. And Orwell more concisely portrayed the problem to the public and so the phrase Orwellian gets attached. No time machine necessary. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Orwell visited fascist Spain, and wrote a fictionalized version set in a venue English speakers could identify with. (I've heard that it's called 1984 because he was reporting on 1948.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they do, the US is probably suffering badly for it.
Think who has the most intellectual property. Ponder who does the most research. Consider that spying is cheaper than researching. Know that a backdoor does not care who is using it.
And now ponder what using this backdoor in the computers of a US corporation by a Chinese corporation could do to the GDP of either country.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it stupid? Yes no doubt about that...They want this and they will get it one way or another.
No, they won't. When you have have Congress telling you how stupid you are, that's a clue that you aren't going to get what you want. The FBI knows it's a moronic idea too, they are doing this to plant the idea that the reason they appear incompetent and ineffectual is that their hands are being tied. Without a ready excuse, the next time a bad event happens they might have to admit that they made mistakes or that they are incapable of doing the job they are tasked with.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the US still retains the 2nd, very obviously it can.
Re: Ted Lieu (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also (like most people who want to get some asymmetric warfare done) he didn't bother with the abject futility of a gun battle
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty, and they need to be used in order. Right now we are at the soap box stage. Next is the ballot box stage, and there isn't a lot being done there now. Then the jury box - much like the ballot box, not a lot going on there, and there needs to be. The last choice is the ammo box, a desperate measure.
If 1946 is contemporary enough, you may want to read up on the Battle of Athens - http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/at... [jpfo.org]
I think McVeigh was a terrorist - t
Re: (Score:2)
The Palestinians put legitimate military targets in areas with daycare centers, which is a violation of international law. The US put legitimate government organizations in areas with daycare centers, which is perfectly normal and legal. Israel bombing Palestinian military sites is legal, while detonating a private bomb isn't. Want any more reasons why your comparison is stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
The law is clear, and that's not a matter of opinion. If you can't tell the difference between an office of bureaucrats and a bombardment rocket launcher, well, that's your problem
You do not put actual weapons around child care centers. You do put routine government functions there. Got that?