Attorney General Bill Barr Will Ask Zuckerberg To Halt Plans For End-To-End Encryption Across Facebook's Apps (buzzfeednews.com) 191
Attorney General Bill Barr, along with officials from the United Kingdom and Australia, is set to publish an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking the company to delay plans for end-to-end encryption across its messaging services until it can guarantee the added privacy does not reduce public safety. From a report: A draft of the letter, dated Oct. 4, is set to be released alongside the announcement of a new data-sharing agreement between law enforcement in the US and the UK; it was obtained by BuzzFeed News ahead of its publication. Signed by Barr, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel, acting US Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, and Australian Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton, the letter raises concerns that Facebook's plan to build end-to-end encryption into its messaging apps will prevent law enforcement agencies from finding illegal activity conducted through Facebook, including child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and election meddling.
"Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world," the letter reads. "Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes." The letter calls on Facebook to prioritize public safety in designing its encryption by enabling law enforcement to gain access to illegal content in a manageable format and by consulting with governments ahead of time to ensure the changes will allow this access. While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content through its own systems, it also notes that "mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children."
"Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world," the letter reads. "Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes." The letter calls on Facebook to prioritize public safety in designing its encryption by enabling law enforcement to gain access to illegal content in a manageable format and by consulting with governments ahead of time to ensure the changes will allow this access. While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content through its own systems, it also notes that "mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children."
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content..."
Um, yes they should.
Its going to happen, get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
"Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content..."
Um, yes they should.
Yes, but also to fight end-to-end encryption is futile. If Facebook did not deliver it then someone else would and users, in particular the "evildoers", wound migrate. Its going to happen. The only way it won't is if the legislative and executive branches sign into law an end-to-end ban.
Sorry but your going to have to put greater emphasis on that old-timey police work where you spend time with people. Bad guys, informants, etc to learn what is going on. Human intelligence, not signal intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Sucker, end to end encryption with a privacy invasive company, what end to what end, hmm. Your back end to their front end or the end they are implying one user to another user.
The scummy trick, ohh look Facebook will win because we are talking your back end to their front end and right their in their offices, your decrypted messaging. It is a dirty as it sounds.
Now end to end, user to user communications, why would anyone use Facebook, like what the fuck, how stupid would you have to be, I mean to say, t
Re: (Score:2)
Most evildoors are pretty thick. A lot of them want to be on the popular platforms too, because that's where they were first radicalized and that's where they can radicalize other people. It's no coincidence that the Christchurch terrorist decided to livestream on Facebook and told people to subscribe to a YouTube channel.
How effective monitoring such communications can be is debatable. Clearly they didn't stop that guy before he murdered 60 people. Perhaps a more effective technique would be to go after th
Re: (Score:2)
told people to subscribe to a YouTube channel.
Hey do you disagree with any of my murders today? Who would you kill?
Let me know in the comments and don't forget to like and subscribe to my channel!
More data than God yet fail to protect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think this was a conspiracy theory, but it seems to be what is actually happening. Anyone have another explanation?
Use Occam's razor
Never blame on a conspiracy what is better explained by incompetence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed.
Fuck Barr.
Encryption should be used everywhere.
If Facebook doesn't do it, the "bad people" (for varying definitions of bad) will just use open source or other off the shelf mostly unbreakable encryption.
You can't stop it. Why bother trying?
I remember when PGP was "illegal" - I downloaded it and used it just to spite these assholes.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"My Constitution guarantees it."
No it doesn't"
"You should fight for it,"
THIS is what guarantees it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your personal liberty ends when there is some theoretical threat to the children, or to national security, or if it interferes with the operation of the police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes.... child pornography. The root password to the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
... or drafted.
Re: (Score:2)
My personal liberty outweighs your desire. My Constitution guarantees it. Maybe in your country the citizenry doesn't have such a thing. You should fight for it, it's worth having.
Unless its regarding firearms. Then one should embrace ineffective placebos because it will makes low information individuals feel better. Your rights, your not being part of the problem, is irrelevant; it is less important than the warm fuzzies from the security theatrics.
What if (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the protection from that?
In the voting booth on election day. There is no other peaceful alternative.
Don't squander the opportunity to vote them out.
Re:What if (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, in the US...BOTH parties support this kind of surveillance and associated policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not possible given the political system.
Re:What if (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But enough people won't follow that suggestion.
So at best it's a moot point to even bring it up.
Never been more fertile ground for a third party (Score:2)
But enough people won't follow that suggestion. So at best it's a moot point to even bring it up.
Right, because education never solved anything, because a third party never became one of the two dominant parties.
With the two mainstream parties becoming more and more extreme there has never been more fertile ground for a third party in the last century. A third party that basically represents the disenfranchised moderate republicans and conservative democrats who can work with each other, reach compromises, etc. So many people registering as independents is a f'n clue.
Re: (Score:2)
With the two mainstream parties becoming more and more extreme...
From the outside, your Democratic party is not becoming any more or less extreme. It is pretty equivalent to a European right-of-centre mainstream party and has been so for decades. Your Republicans are something we do not have in major parties in the free world although the Conservative party here in the UK does seem to want to go this way. They, however, may be making themselves unelectable at present.
The USA is like a bird with both it's wings on the same side of its body. It is going to be very unst
Re: (Score:2)
And what it means to the rest of the world or Europe means squat.
It is VERY left to us and looking wildly radical and that's all that matters as that it is a US election and concern for ourselves.
If you want what you have, fine...that's good, but this is very radical to many if not most of us here in the US and is alarming.
S
Re: (Score:2)
3rd parties don't have to "win" to make a difference.
A 3rd party vote is a strong signal to the main parties that they are losing disaffected voters.
In 2016, the Libertarians and Greens received over 4% of the vote, WAY more than the margin of victory (-2.1%).
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing is that the suggestion is generally made in a disingenuous attempt to split the Democratic vote and ensure another Republican administration.
The first priority is to get the people doing the MOST damage out of office. Then we can deal with other matters, rather than give them a chance to brick up the hole in the wall behind them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you see me blaming anyone for anything, or complaining about anything? I simply made a statement that by all outward indications is going to continue to be true for the forseeable future.
You might as well be talking about how much better this world would be if world peace were a thing, or if global warming were somehow reversed in our lifetime.
The reality is that it won't. Accept that, and try to live your own life as the best version of you instead of hoping for some sort of airy fairy b
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad I can only vote for my state/district's Senators and representative...
Re: What if (Score:2)
> In the voting booth on election day. There is no other peaceful alternative.
Voting is far from peaceful. It's a system where the majority will enforce its preferences, killing members of the minority if they choose to resist.
Don't vote - it's immoral and it's only there to fool you into believing you have a say in the matter.
Develop superior market replacements for the monopolies governments have assumed and leave nothing for a majority to hold over the rest.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decid
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And when you add them back again, should they have access back to all the content that they had before?
How would you do it?
Re:What if (Score:4)
Do you remember playing Doom where two Cyberdemons are on either side of you? The trick is to let them fire at each-other and stay the hell away.
That works only on Masterminds (the big spiders); cyberdemons are immune to each other's rockets.
Bah humbug... (Score:3, Interesting)
Attorney General Bill Barr, along with officials from the United Kingdom and Australia, is set to publish an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking the company to delay plans for end-to-end encryption across its messaging services until it can guarantee the added privacy does not reduce public safety.
Yeah, and will they reciprocate by providing a transparent mechanism by which the citizenry can verify that the data they collect isn't being abused? ... and by abused I mean everything from labelling people and persecuting them for their beliefs to drunken NSA staffers amusing themselves by showing off people's private emails at a keg party.
That's not the way the Constitution works. (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of the first amendment is that the government doesn't get to decide that a form of expression — in this case, software — is illegal unless the creator can prove that it cannot be used to cause harm. Rather, the onus is on the government to prove that it does.
The only reasonable response from Facebook would be a single-character email containing the middle finger unicode symbol in a very large font.
Re: (Score:2)
"the government doesn't get to decide that a form of expression"
Yes, yes they do! And they have done it many many times all over the place, especially with "minority protections".
"The whole point of the first amendment"
Sorry, no one gives a shit about the Constitution.
"Rather, the onus is on the government to prove that it does."
Really? They can just shoot you without any reason especially the... "we shit our pants while looking at you" reason.
"The only reasonable response from Facebook would be a single-
Re: That's not the way the Constitution works. (Score:3)
> Sorry, no one gives a shit about the Constitution.
Agreed. And it's the Constitution that authorizes the government to exist in the first place.
The whole central government exists entirely unlawfully at this point. Jefferson made the point that citizens have a moral duty to resist unlawful power. Cowards need not apply.
Re: (Score:3)
The government is quite in its right to regulate business. Even the speech of those businesses. You can't say that you offer illegal services, you can't make false claims about your product, you can't establish an illegal contract under the guise that it is an "expression", you are required to follow certain standards when using public airwaves, etc.
The Citizens United ruling gave businesses some new legal rights. But they are not quite as free as an private individual is when it comes to expression.
Constitution: Individuals and groups have rights (Score:5, Informative)
The government is quite in its right to regulate business. Even the speech of those businesses.
The US Supreme Court says otherwise. The Court ruled that groups of people have the same free speech rights as individual persons. This has been falsely represented as "corporations are people" in the famous Citizens United decision. However in this case the Court really said groups have free speech regardless of whether they are corporations, unions, advocacy groups, etc; and that all corporations have the same rights, in other words media/news corporation have no special right compared to other corporations, they all have the same right to speech.
You can't say that you offer illegal services ...
What illegal service? End-to-end encryption? First amendment violation to attempt making that illegal **within** US boundaries. We've been here before. The government could regulate the strength of encryption being exported but not its domestic use.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting comment. A small nit: the 14th amendment was the basis "corps are peeps". Citizens United continues the tradition, for good or bad...
"[a] headnote added to it by the court reporter at the time, which quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite as saying: “The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these c
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the American Constitution give the government the right to make encryption illegal anywhere? The 1st is pretty simple, "Congress shall make no law"... not Congress will only make laws under this list.
This is a big problem with America, everyone ignores the Constitution for various reasons. Want a list of why laws can be passed stopping free speech, pass an amendment instead of appointing corrupt Justices who say "The Fore Fathers really meant"...
Both the 1st and 2nd are very simple amendments and
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the American Constitution give the government the right to make encryption illegal anywhere?
"Article 1: Legislative ... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations ..."
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To
The specific regulation was to limit the export of munitions. Strong encryption was declared a munition and an export license was required. Hence different binaries for product for domestic use and international use back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Amendments override the original text, in this case Congress can't regulate speech with the Commerce clause and the 2nd limits the government from infringing on people owning arms and makes the point that it includes military arms, so the argument that they're munitions doesn't fly either.
Re: (Score:2)
Amendments override the original text, in this case Congress can't regulate speech with the Commerce clause and the 2nd limits the government from infringing on people owning arms and makes the point that it includes military arms, so the argument that they're munitions doesn't fly either.
Again "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". The amendments don't apply to foreign nations, they apply to the "people" of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that? The first puts a blanket ban on the types of laws that Congress can write and the 2nd says no infringing peoples rights to bear arms.
They were well aware of the Bill of Rights of 1689 which was specific, only Protestants (actually Catholics couldn't) could bear arms for self defence and only politicians had free speech in Parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that?
The US Constitution says that by using the words "foreign Nations" as something distinctly different than the "several States" and the "Indian Tribes".
And by identifying the "people" as the "People of the United States".
Re: (Score:2)
So we're left with whether declaring some speech as a munition is a workaround on the 1st amendment and picking and choosing which foreign nations. I never had a problem being in a foreign nation downloading the encryption (Netscape) besides some warnings IIRC
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a problem being in a foreign nation downloading the encryption (Netscape) besides some warnings IIRC
All it takes is a court ruling to change that to either be illegal or to be legal. Our system is more than the Constitution, a history of court precedence matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a problem being in a foreign nation downloading the encryption (Netscape) besides some warnings IIRC
All it takes is a court ruling to change that to either be illegal or to be legal. Our system is more than the Constitution, a history of court precedence matters.
There are court rulings. They say that source code is speech. But were are not talking about source code, we are talking about a thing that performs encryption. That the courts have chosen not to rule on the classification of something that does strong encryption as a munition and subject to export regulations leaves such regulations standing. Although in a moment of rationality the government did change what it considers to be strong encryption, its not as draconian as it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
So we're left with whether declaring some speech as a munition is a workaround on the 1st amendment and picking and choosing which foreign nations. I never had a problem being in a foreign nation downloading the encryption (Netscape) besides some warnings IIRC
Only the source code is speech. At the time US Citizens traveling to some foreign nations with computers were warned not to take encryption software. In some nations, and this includes some developed western nations, it was considered contraband. Not by US law but by *their* law. Your laptop could be seized by their customs agents.
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck sakes, if *THAT* were the criteria, I'm pretty sure guns, which can be used to cause harm, would have been outlawed years ago.
Yes, arms are a protected right in the USA, but so is freedom of speech.
Man in the Middle (Score:2, Insightful)
The only justification I can see for this is if FB is actually going to promise end-to-end crypto and actually deliver a thing where they act as a man in the middle who can harvest data for profit. As long as their promise is delivered on in a verifiable way things like this are pretty Orwellian.
Also, let's not let this get into Orange Man Bad territory - politicians and governments of all types are pretty uniform on this sort of desire to spy on citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is saying, if Orange Man Bad, what if we some how get worse down the road. Will the Next Big Evil make Orange Man Bad seem tame? Let's hope not.
I do worry that if the Dems some how do flip both the Senate and the Presidency they could very well run us over a cliff. Hopefully Dems flip the presidency but don't gain the Senate or lose the House. Just some combination that keeps them from any kind of super majority would be lovely.
The last two times that government was so one sided resulted in unpop
So let me get this straight (Score:3)
I can't really condone what Facebook does in the realm of data mining ( I don't use Facebook ) but it seems like Zuckerberg just can't win no matter what he does.
Option A) Don't do anything to preserve privacy for users of their apps -> Get yelled at for not doing enough.
Option B) Gets tired of Option A and decides to protect user privacy within their apps with EtE encryption - > Get yelled at for doing so
Basically, the government wants him to give the appearance of doing something, while really not doing anything. :D )
( Sounds like the training program for a future politician to me
Re: (Score:2)
There are different groups pushing A and B
Re: (Score:2)
... which is another log to throw on the fire of the many reasons to never use Facebook.
My financial services company does... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to, your financial transactions are already provided to them by the financial institution. Of course they wouldn't have a problem with secure communications if one side always told them what was said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How have they done this? Unless it's end-to-end, it's not encrypted when it gets to your email provider, and if said government tells them to save/copy/log, there is nothing you can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. So please stop giving them ideas....
It won't reduce public safety (Score:2)
No Talking In Private! ...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good ole Police State (Score:2)
Just keep its nose out of everything! When your government is spying on you, it fears you... in the WRONG WAY!
Replace "Public Safety" with "mass surveillance". (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "Public Safety" with "mass surveillance".
Site one example where illegally surveilling American's social media activity has ever led to preventing terrorism.
This is such a violation of our 4th amendment rights.
Do we really want to let any one power have unfettered backdoor access to dig up dirt on all of their political rivals?
If companies are forced to leave a door open in their code, history has taught us that the key will secretly fall into the wrong hands.
Godamn it! (Score:3)
Why are you making me root for Facebook here?
Data Mining (Score:2)
What I don't get about this is that Facebook would actually want secure messaging. Everything they've ever done has shown that they try to gather every possible last scrap of data from their users. If they are going to have secure messaging that the government can't get into, then that would necessarily be secure messaging that Facebook can't data mine.
It wouldn't even surprise me if Facebook said they were going to do end-to-end encryption while already having agreed to put in a backdoor for themselves a
Illiberal Occupation of Liberal Democratic GVT (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Admission that they have access (Score:2)
Zuckerberg should take this letter as an admission that the 5-eyes group has core access to the facebook systems (without a warrant) and then accelerate their end to end encryption plans.
Keep in mind the government can request any data from Facebook with a warrant and they will provide it. The only reason to oppose end to end encryption is they have backdoor access to facebooks systems and end to end encryption would make spying from that backdoor impossible.
Lawyers vs Maths (Score:3)
First of all, which definition of "public safety" is he talking about? Public safety from what? Other citizens? Terrorists? Their own government?
Secondly, either encryption works or it doesn't. Mathematics does not care if you are working for the government, if you're the hacker kid next door or if you are a terrorist.
Yeah. The government is asking for an Oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
"Implement strong encryption that permits spying on the content."
Ah, the subtle devious beauty of the language of politicians.
Politics: The triumph of linguistic art over reality.
It makes no difference (Score:2)
So privacy is now a "public safety" risk? (Score:2)
Dark times. When those in power want to snoop on everything and want to listen in on everything, the free society is almost dead.
Lack of legitimacy has consequences (Score:3)
Barr takes a break from world conspiracy tour to inform US citizens companies they run should be as accommodating to as much government abuse as possible. Meanwhile the president of the United State is busy attempting to smear and illegally unmask whistleblowers while illegally hiding evidence of abuse of office.
Probably from a political perspective not the best time to try and push a going dark agenda.
the real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
The stated reason:
[encryption will] "prevent law enforcement agencies from finding illegal activity conducted through Facebook, including child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and election meddling."
The real reason:
Every repressive government needs to be able to stamp out protest at the earliest opportunity. We need to know what you are doing, what you are saying, what you are thinking so that it can be corrected before it becomes a danger to your caring leaders.
Open Letter to AG Barr (Score:2)
Might as well write to the Pope and ask him to prove God is real.
If you're a dissident, persecuted, patriot, etc... (Score:2)
If you're a dissident, if you're persecuted, hunted, if you're a Patriot, you're well advised to communicate with your others by means other than electronic if you're planning anything. Y'know, like protests, or other things The Powers That Be would object to.
I forsee a resurgence in Enigma. There's codebook-making utils out there. There's a few Engima emulators, and some are being made with arduino.
Before you snark, think of this: The German enigma use was broken because they were lazy and make mistakes
Re: (Score:2)
I forsee a resurgence in Enigma. There's codebook-making utils out there. There's a few Engima emulators, and some are being made with arduino.
Before you snark, think of this: The German enigma use was broken because they were lazy and make mistakes.
If you do it right, Enigma's almost uncrackable even today. If you don't know the starting positions and the plugboard setup for the day, gooood luck with that.
There are still engima messages there were never decrypted because the rotors and plugboard settings w
Definition of a police state (Score:2)
When the efficiency of law enforcement becomes more important than the freedom of the people, you know you live in a police state.
"Virtual" (Score:2)
public safety (Score:2)
doublething hard at work here.
How about a swap? (Score:2)
Re:ftfy (Score:5, Informative)
Privacy will Reduce Public Safety. But it is worth it in a Free country.
America Sings The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
To be free we must be brave. Knowing our freedom comes at the risk of safety. In a Dictatorship there is a lot less crime then in free countries. While I expect it is partially because they just wont report it, but mainly because there is quick and swift action to anyone who speaks ill of what the leader or party says. But in a free country we need to wait for people to have crossed the line, and someone to has lost their freedom or property to them to actually call them out.
Don't kid yourself, rules that make us safe will make us less free. Rules to increase freedom will make us less safe.
Re:ftfy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy will Reduce Public Safety. But it is worth it in a Free country.
We'll ban strong crypto, but not guns. As a nation we're pretty terrible at weighing risk.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll ban strong crypto, but not guns. As a nation we're pretty terrible at weighing risk.
Guns cannot be banned in the US. It is a practical impossibility. Given that there are over 400 million guns in the US and that making guns, including fully-automatic weapons, is relatively simple and requires minimal tooling, it would require effectively placing the entire population under super-max-prison level lock-down. There are simply not enough people to accomplish it even combining all police & military, many of which would refuse any such order and join the resistance taking their military weap
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or enough people are killed through gun violence that it forces a broad change in public sentiment. That's what happened in Australia. Granted, in America we love our guns so much that we need a lot more dead kids to be convinced. I'm not saying that I think this will ever happen in America, but I think it is the most likely scenario for how we ban/confiscate guns, or large categories of guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, in America we love our guns so much that we need a lot more dead kids to be convinced.
The people willing to use guns to kill children lack any concern for your laws. Keep that in mind as you draft them.
Re: (Score:2)
The people willing to use guns to kill children lack any concern for your laws. Keep that in mind as you draft them.
It seems they want a new 'HIPPA' Act for firearms: Home Invasion Perpetrator Protection Act.
Criminals by definition ignore laws like murder, rape, and robbery, but I'm sure they'll obey *these* laws. 0_o
The increase in gun violence is directly due to increasingly Progressive-Left cultural and societal changes over the last few decades that has caused a breakdown in societal and cultural values.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The increase in gun violence is directly due to increasingly Progressive-Left cultural and societal changes over the last few decades that has caused a breakdown in societal and cultural values.
There's really nothing more to say other than: you are a worthless piece of shit partisan, with your head buried up your ass. YOU and people like YOU are the cause of most of the problems in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no short term fix to problem we've let fester for so long.
The problem is not private ownership of firearms. The problem is a sick society created by decades of Leftist-Progressive policies, laws, and programs. I can make an AK47 or a Sten type submachinegun with the tools in my basement. There is already enough ammunition and ammunition reloading supplies out there to last a century.
There's also the fact that a large percentage of police and military would refuse and revolt against any such anti-2A push and take their weapons, equipment, and supplies with them. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, there are ways to do it without infringing on the bill of rights.
The many ways that are already built into our legal structure.
When someone is suspected of committing a crime a petition is made to a judge for a search warrant. THEN they can look at communications or tape phone lines etc.
Or are you talking about pre-crime?
It was a great concept in a fictional movie. It's absurd for reality.
And illegal.
But nothing seems to be able to stop the current administration from breaking any law they choose. (yes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also until the governments can guarantee the collection of this unencrypted data will not be used to the determent of public safety by governments, or other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its never too early to godwin anything.
the important thing is if is you are on target or not.
nice song.
"I'm going to hell for blaspheming John Lennons song."
Lennon hated religion... why would you be burning in hell for making a little truth out of his song? He was either right and is just dead, dead... no after life, OR he pissed the true religion off and is frying like a fucking steak.
Re: (Score:2)
He may of just been reborn. We'll never know how or if he was judged so therefore unlikely we will ever know if he became a house cat to a rich person or a dog with no companion in El Salvador.
Re: (Score:2)
"Won't someone think of the children?"
They do... why do you think they host honeypot CP?
Remember... it's okay when the government does it!
Literally why people seek positions of power... so they can abuse it!