Obama at SXSW: ‘Absolutist view’ on digital privacy cannot prevail(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Obama at SXSW: ‘Absolutist view’ on digital privacy cannot prevail
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/obama-at-sxsw-absolutist-view-on-digital-privacy-cannot-prevail/
399 comments
What about a boycott?
The UK is fairly close to crossing a line which would require me to either stop working (and do everything under the radar), or leave the country.
It sounds like the US might be doing a similar thing soon.
What happens if all of the (semi-competent) developers suddenly either refuse to work or simply can't?
The whole situation is truly bonkers to me - there is no debate to be had at all. If you ban secure encryption I cannot stay in your country any more - it is the last warning sign I will accept, if I wait too much longer the borders will close before me.
It represents my elected government telling me that I cannot do a thing which I do every single day without fail. It's as if someone turns around and says to my grandmother 'knitting is banned'. That just isn't how it works.
The UK is fairly close to crossing a line which would require me to either stop working (and do everything under the radar), or leave the country.
It sounds like the US might be doing a similar thing soon.
What happens if all of the (semi-competent) developers suddenly either refuse to work or simply can't?
The whole situation is truly bonkers to me - there is no debate to be had at all. If you ban secure encryption I cannot stay in your country any more - it is the last warning sign I will accept, if I wait too much longer the borders will close before me.
It represents my elected government telling me that I cannot do a thing which I do every single day without fail. It's as if someone turns around and says to my grandmother 'knitting is banned'. That just isn't how it works.
> “[Technology can] empower individuals to do things they could have never dreamed of before, but also empower folks who are very dangerous to spread dangerous messages” President Barack Obama said today.
Behind every proposed restriction on speech is actually a fear of freedom of thought. As though there are some ideas or beliefs are so powerful, that mearly exposing an individual to those ideas can forever change their allegiance. It used to be communism and now it's terrorism. It's a very pessimistic and condescending view of the nature of humans that I personally don't believe to be true.
Behind every proposed restriction on speech is actually a fear of freedom of thought. As though there are some ideas or beliefs are so powerful, that mearly exposing an individual to those ideas can forever change their allegiance. It used to be communism and now it's terrorism. It's a very pessimistic and condescending view of the nature of humans that I personally don't believe to be true.
Obama: "Look, just because we've abused every other piece of technology we have access to, doesn't mean we'll abuse this one too. Sure, our law enforcement officers aren't above straight up murdering people they don't like and trying to cover it up, but I'm sure they'll be much more respectful towards your phone. Now, if you don't break your own encryption, just wait a bit and Congress will do it for you."
It needs to be pointed out more often that law enforcement still has all of the physical access methods that they've had for the past 200 years. If the government wants to break into your home or office, they can and will do so. No "technological advance" from Silicon Valley has made this type of investigation more difficult. This means that all of the investigative methods that were available 200 years ago are available now.
The government is demanding new powers: the power to search our communications. Perhaps the ability to conduct such searches will make their jobs easier, but keeping them from having this power does not make their jobs more difficult than the 200 year baseline. We are only asking them to do the same legwork that they've always done: look for suspicious behavior, track the purchase of dangerous materials, react to disasters and attacks when they happen, etc.
The government is demanding new powers: the power to search our communications. Perhaps the ability to conduct such searches will make their jobs easier, but keeping them from having this power does not make their jobs more difficult than the 200 year baseline. We are only asking them to do the same legwork that they've always done: look for suspicious behavior, track the purchase of dangerous materials, react to disasters and attacks when they happen, etc.
Here we go. I knew this sentiment had to be held at the highest level. Otherwise, the attorney general would not have pursued this case with such vigor.
Fortunately a few smart senators have gotten their heads around the issue already. Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1] and Mike Lee made great points too [2] in an oversight hearing this week. Dianne Feinstein is of course still clueless [3]
On balance, putting backdoors on encrypted devices is not the right way to maintain security. For Obama's understanding, I'll concede one circumstance under which I feel we ought to help unlock an iPhone.
In the incredibly movie-like scenario where the location of a nuclear weapon is hidden on an encrypted iPhone, then we should sick all our computers on decrypting that phone. I believe this is already done by the NSA program, Bullrun, revealed by Snowden.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E
[3] http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loret... (seek to 51:00)
Fortunately a few smart senators have gotten their heads around the issue already. Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1] and Mike Lee made great points too [2] in an oversight hearing this week. Dianne Feinstein is of course still clueless [3]
On balance, putting backdoors on encrypted devices is not the right way to maintain security. For Obama's understanding, I'll concede one circumstance under which I feel we ought to help unlock an iPhone.
In the incredibly movie-like scenario where the location of a nuclear weapon is hidden on an encrypted iPhone, then we should sick all our computers on decrypting that phone. I believe this is already done by the NSA program, Bullrun, revealed by Snowden.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E
[3] http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loret... (seek to 51:00)
I wrote long comment in the other thread about Obama at SXSW that is currently on the front page [1]. I don't know if it's within HN rules to copy/paste that wholesale here or not. Anyway, it's been suggested that I create a github repo of the sources I've collected so far (I have about 40-50 relevant links to video excerpts, news articles, briefs, etc.). I will do that and post back here.
So far I haven't seen any running list of events maintained by any blog or website that actually links to primary sources. Most websites link to themselves and are full of editorialization. I think if you line the facts up in the right manner and link directly not just to the primary sources but also to the relevant sections of those sources, then the story, equation and solution presents itself. And I think a github repo is a great way to do that. I'd welcome any help reformatting my current summary [2] (which right now is behind and does not include sources from my comment from the other thread), such as adding dates to events, recategorizing items, or adding significant new events. I do not intend to link to every blog post about the issue, just events from major participants such as Apple, the DOJ, politicians, and other public figures.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270745
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu...
So far I haven't seen any running list of events maintained by any blog or website that actually links to primary sources. Most websites link to themselves and are full of editorialization. I think if you line the facts up in the right manner and link directly not just to the primary sources but also to the relevant sections of those sources, then the story, equation and solution presents itself. And I think a github repo is a great way to do that. I'd welcome any help reformatting my current summary [2] (which right now is behind and does not include sources from my comment from the other thread), such as adding dates to events, recategorizing items, or adding significant new events. I do not intend to link to every blog post about the issue, just events from major participants such as Apple, the DOJ, politicians, and other public figures.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270745
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu...
I think he just needs to learn more about encryption.
It's not that nerds are being absolutists. It's that the technology is absolute, and nerds understand the technology.
I also predict that once he is out of office he will reverse himself on this issue.
It's not that nerds are being absolutists. It's that the technology is absolute, and nerds understand the technology.
I also predict that once he is out of office he will reverse himself on this issue.
"But think of the children!"
That is so predictable.
If he cared so much about children, he wouldn't be killing them with missiles from drones.
That is so predictable.
If he cared so much about children, he wouldn't be killing them with missiles from drones.
I find his attack on CryptoCurrency largely terrifying as well "If government can't access phones, 'everybody is walking around with a Swiss Bank account in their pocket'"
God forbid we lived in a world where people had privacy and THEIR own money?
God forbid we lived in a world where people had privacy and THEIR own money?
Doesn't the President speaking at SxSW kind of break the whole indie vibe of the event?
Maybe I'm being naive and that was gone a long time ago (I've never been), but typically tech or art-oriented events don't really care for politicians much.
I briefly peeked in on a talk Rick Perry gave at E3 2008 (promoting Texas to game developers), and the room was probably 95% empty. Tumbleweeds. Granted, I'm sure the President draws far bigger crowds, but it still strikes me as odd.
Maybe I'm being naive and that was gone a long time ago (I've never been), but typically tech or art-oriented events don't really care for politicians much.
I briefly peeked in on a talk Rick Perry gave at E3 2008 (promoting Texas to game developers), and the room was probably 95% empty. Tumbleweeds. Granted, I'm sure the President draws far bigger crowds, but it still strikes me as odd.
I'm not surprised... He's been a disappointment from a civil liberties perspective.
So when Obama vowed to stop the illegal wiretapping of US citizens in 2007, he was basically just promising to legalize wiretapping and tax it?
He very often applies this tactic of trying to make the other side seem unreasonable.
This is the most important issue of our generation. You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. There is no middle ground. You either support the right to privacy or you do not. There are only two options and you have to pick one.
This is the most important issue of our generation. You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. There is no middle ground. You either support the right to privacy or you do not. There are only two options and you have to pick one.
The position is actually a weak tactic that goes far back to original battles on crypto. It's even got a name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Far as the argument, it's weak because none of the claims they made last time came true. If anything, the U.S. is spying on and locking up so many Americans they might need to cut back so they can stop putting dangerous people back on the street. Prosecution is so one-sided in FBI's favor that plea bargain rate is 97%. Prisons are simply too full. Plus, they got a conviction almost every time they ran into encryption per their own documents. They're not "going dark" or at any disadvantage. That's straight up lies given their publicly released documents.
Far as backdoors, Bruce Schneier shows how retarded Comey and Obama's side is with a simple counter:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wo...
" But the problem isn't that most encrypted communications platforms are securely encrypted, or even that some are -- the problem is that there exists at least one securely encrypted communications platform on the planet that ISIL can use.
Imagine that Comey got what he wanted. Imagine that iMessage and Facebook and Skype and everything else US-made had his backdoor. The ISIL operative would tell his potential recruit to use something else, something secure and non-US-made. Maybe an encryption program from Finland, or Switzerland, or Brazil. Maybe Mujahedeen Secrets. Maybe anything. "
My own counter is that even North Korea can't lock down all covert communications in their country. Dissidents routinely get us info with cheap cellphones using towers planted on other side of border. China, which is more U.S. lawmakers' style, has all kinds of covert communications, organized crime, and so on. So, Bruce's argument is supported by the evidence, other surveillance states show surveillance won't protect us at all, and U.S. government's behavior up to this point indicate it's a power grab for a tool of control rather than protection. They abuse everything else routinely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Far as the argument, it's weak because none of the claims they made last time came true. If anything, the U.S. is spying on and locking up so many Americans they might need to cut back so they can stop putting dangerous people back on the street. Prosecution is so one-sided in FBI's favor that plea bargain rate is 97%. Prisons are simply too full. Plus, they got a conviction almost every time they ran into encryption per their own documents. They're not "going dark" or at any disadvantage. That's straight up lies given their publicly released documents.
Far as backdoors, Bruce Schneier shows how retarded Comey and Obama's side is with a simple counter:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wo...
" But the problem isn't that most encrypted communications platforms are securely encrypted, or even that some are -- the problem is that there exists at least one securely encrypted communications platform on the planet that ISIL can use.
Imagine that Comey got what he wanted. Imagine that iMessage and Facebook and Skype and everything else US-made had his backdoor. The ISIL operative would tell his potential recruit to use something else, something secure and non-US-made. Maybe an encryption program from Finland, or Switzerland, or Brazil. Maybe Mujahedeen Secrets. Maybe anything. "
My own counter is that even North Korea can't lock down all covert communications in their country. Dissidents routinely get us info with cheap cellphones using towers planted on other side of border. China, which is more U.S. lawmakers' style, has all kinds of covert communications, organized crime, and so on. So, Bruce's argument is supported by the evidence, other surveillance states show surveillance won't protect us at all, and U.S. government's behavior up to this point indicate it's a power grab for a tool of control rather than protection. They abuse everything else routinely.
In other words, it's not just this "one time" for this one "bad guy." The government wants a skeleton key. President Obama just said as much.
Crypto War II has begun.
Crypto War II has begun.
I'm glad Obama finally took a side. It's just unfortunate he took the wrong side. The truth is that he has always supported this side, though. Even before he got elected in 2008 and when he was campaigning on "ending warrantless mass surveillance", he still voted in the Senate for the Patriot Act extension.
On the encryption issue he has been cowardly hiding behind Comey and the DoJ "hey, it's not me saying that, it's the FBI. I do like strong encryption! In fact, some of my best friends use strong encryption."
So at least I'm glad that charade is over, so he openly admits that his "legacy" will be a president fighting to expand mass surveillance and to end strong encryption.
I didn't want to make this political, but time is running out and we can't afford to tiptoe around this anymore. As we speak Obama is working to legalize all the illegal NSA sharing with the DEA and FBI, and it's probably just a matter of time until local police departments have easy access to all of that data, too. We need to stop that NOW!
There's only one presidential candidate who actually has a track record voting against laws like the Patriot Act, FISA and CISA, beyond already promising to end mass surveillance (which anyone could do, just like Obama did) - and that's Bernie Sanders. If you care about not seeing your country turn into a police state (which is what will happen when NSA sharing with civil agencies gets legalized), then go vote for him in the primaries and tell all of your friends and family to do so.
This may be the last chance you get to stop encryption backdoors in the US and turn back the mass surveillance capabilities in a more significant way. I can't imagine what the US would look like after another 8 years with a president or presidents that are even more hawkish than Obama was on these issues.
But my guess it will look a lot more like China. The DoJ is already using the rhetoric that "Apple has been helping China unlock its phones this way, anyway, so why doesn't it help the US, too?" First off, that's false, and second you can see they don't want to make any distinction between China and US anymore on this issue. To them, what China is doing is the "ideal" that they strive for. There needs to be someone to change that culture in the government from top to bottom, and do it soon.
On the encryption issue he has been cowardly hiding behind Comey and the DoJ "hey, it's not me saying that, it's the FBI. I do like strong encryption! In fact, some of my best friends use strong encryption."
So at least I'm glad that charade is over, so he openly admits that his "legacy" will be a president fighting to expand mass surveillance and to end strong encryption.
I didn't want to make this political, but time is running out and we can't afford to tiptoe around this anymore. As we speak Obama is working to legalize all the illegal NSA sharing with the DEA and FBI, and it's probably just a matter of time until local police departments have easy access to all of that data, too. We need to stop that NOW!
There's only one presidential candidate who actually has a track record voting against laws like the Patriot Act, FISA and CISA, beyond already promising to end mass surveillance (which anyone could do, just like Obama did) - and that's Bernie Sanders. If you care about not seeing your country turn into a police state (which is what will happen when NSA sharing with civil agencies gets legalized), then go vote for him in the primaries and tell all of your friends and family to do so.
This may be the last chance you get to stop encryption backdoors in the US and turn back the mass surveillance capabilities in a more significant way. I can't imagine what the US would look like after another 8 years with a president or presidents that are even more hawkish than Obama was on these issues.
But my guess it will look a lot more like China. The DoJ is already using the rhetoric that "Apple has been helping China unlock its phones this way, anyway, so why doesn't it help the US, too?" First off, that's false, and second you can see they don't want to make any distinction between China and US anymore on this issue. To them, what China is doing is the "ideal" that they strive for. There needs to be someone to change that culture in the government from top to bottom, and do it soon.
I am disappointed in my president. Of all of his flaws, I think the worst is when he presumes to know both sides of an argument, sets up a straw man, then beats it down. He does this with far too great a regularity.
I believe its very clear, if it hasn't been before, that both major U.S. political parties are not in alignment with those of us in the tech community that understand the issues. At the rate we're going, encryption itself will be regulated before too long. What a Charlie Foxtrot.
I read this morning that some scientists wrote to the Department of Justice asking them to use RICO to investigate climate deniers. RICO, for those of you who don't know, is a draconian law passed in order to deal with large crime syndicates. We were told at the time that vast new powers were needed if the government had a chance against organized crime.
This is relevant because over and over again, we see encroachment on our liberties in terms of "Well, what if there was a ticking nuclear bomb", we adjust the legal system, then find those adjustments being used for political purposes. The same thing will happen with prying in your phone.
I know in my heart that we have crossed the line into a system that's unsustainable over the long run. I fear that this trend is accelerating. It certainly would be nice if we had some governmental body that was concerned with the proper structure and limits on governmental powers. I don't see anybody like that, however. Just a lot of rationalization.
I believe its very clear, if it hasn't been before, that both major U.S. political parties are not in alignment with those of us in the tech community that understand the issues. At the rate we're going, encryption itself will be regulated before too long. What a Charlie Foxtrot.
I read this morning that some scientists wrote to the Department of Justice asking them to use RICO to investigate climate deniers. RICO, for those of you who don't know, is a draconian law passed in order to deal with large crime syndicates. We were told at the time that vast new powers were needed if the government had a chance against organized crime.
This is relevant because over and over again, we see encroachment on our liberties in terms of "Well, what if there was a ticking nuclear bomb", we adjust the legal system, then find those adjustments being used for political purposes. The same thing will happen with prying in your phone.
I know in my heart that we have crossed the line into a system that's unsustainable over the long run. I fear that this trend is accelerating. It certainly would be nice if we had some governmental body that was concerned with the proper structure and limits on governmental powers. I don't see anybody like that, however. Just a lot of rationalization.
I wonder if reframing the debate a little might help everyone realize that what Apple is doing doesn't actually impede law enforcement, and that iCloud backups actually can help them (a lot).
This is simple:
1. Most people will not actually "go dark" because the consequence of going dark is you lose everything if you lose your password. That severe consequence for a relatively common human error is not a good fit for most people's personal records and photographic life memories.
The right fit for most people is
(a) unbreakable security on their physical devices so they don't have to worry about getting hacked if they lose them, plus
(b) cloud backup that can be recovered by a trusted custodian, so they don't have to worry if they lose their password.
And that is exactly what Apple is providing. Law enforcement will still be able to go after their backups.
2. As for the case where someone really does want to "go dark", weakening physical device security isn't going to stop them. They will simply use alternative encryption software. Law enforcement still can't get it. So why make everyone more vulnerable to the hacking of stolen devices?
Case in point: law enforcement did get access to the terrorist's last iCloud backup. And if he turned off backups with the conscious intention of going dark, then even if Apple made that impossible on the iPhone, he would have simply used a different solution (e.g. not use the phone for secret info or use a different, secure phone with open source software if necessary, etc.)
This is simple:
1. Most people will not actually "go dark" because the consequence of going dark is you lose everything if you lose your password. That severe consequence for a relatively common human error is not a good fit for most people's personal records and photographic life memories.
The right fit for most people is
(a) unbreakable security on their physical devices so they don't have to worry about getting hacked if they lose them, plus
(b) cloud backup that can be recovered by a trusted custodian, so they don't have to worry if they lose their password.
And that is exactly what Apple is providing. Law enforcement will still be able to go after their backups.
2. As for the case where someone really does want to "go dark", weakening physical device security isn't going to stop them. They will simply use alternative encryption software. Law enforcement still can't get it. So why make everyone more vulnerable to the hacking of stolen devices?
Case in point: law enforcement did get access to the terrorist's last iCloud backup. And if he turned off backups with the conscious intention of going dark, then even if Apple made that impossible on the iPhone, he would have simply used a different solution (e.g. not use the phone for secret info or use a different, secure phone with open source software if necessary, etc.)
All we need now is a piracy-style commercial to go along with the message:
Besides which, as soon as something criminal actually becomes criminal there's physical world, tangible evidence that cannot be encrypted -- the child, the explosive, the stacks of cash. And even if it's a purely digital crime, if there's sufficient suspicion of a crime, the government can get a warrant to install surveillance equipment to watch the device in question and watch the plaintext evidence.
"You wouldn't encrypt a child you just abducted. You
wouldn't encrypt potassium nitrate you plan to use to
make a bomb and blow up a bulding. You wouldn't encrypt
a stack of cash or a duffel bag of cocaine. So why would
you encrypt information you wish to keep private?"
Besides which, as soon as something criminal actually becomes criminal there's physical world, tangible evidence that cannot be encrypted -- the child, the explosive, the stacks of cash. And even if it's a purely digital crime, if there's sufficient suspicion of a crime, the government can get a warrant to install surveillance equipment to watch the device in question and watch the plaintext evidence.
The problem here is encryption itself. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I'm inclined to agree with him on the fact we need a compromise, before like he said something bad happens and a rushed solution is implemented that isn't optimal for either side.
However, I can't think of any of the government's proposed solutions as working. Someone who wants the security offered by encryption will just use a truly secure system, even if it means they buy the device or software on illegally or from a foreign country.
Where this is demand for true privacy, there will always be supply.
However, I can't think of any of the government's proposed solutions as working. Someone who wants the security offered by encryption will just use a truly secure system, even if it means they buy the device or software on illegally or from a foreign country.
Where this is demand for true privacy, there will always be supply.
The underwear drawer analogy highlights the schism here. On one hand, for people who don't think of their phone as "an extension of their brain" (to use a phrase I've seen here), it's puzzling to think we'd be on board with letting police search our most intimate places with a warrant, but not our phones. To those convinced that there is no way to allow reasonable access to law enforcement without allowing unlimited access to hackers, that position doesn't make sense.
> "if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, or the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there is no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer?
Won't somebody think of the children!!!
In seriousness though, the government and the the FBI have already show themselves capable of infiltrating and bringing down child pornography rings that use strong encryption.
There are ways to do that without backdooring everyone's phones 'just in case'.
Won't somebody think of the children!!!
In seriousness though, the government and the the FBI have already show themselves capable of infiltrating and bringing down child pornography rings that use strong encryption.
There are ways to do that without backdooring everyone's phones 'just in case'.
It's the digital age. I am recorded on video at minimum, I would expect four times a day. I'm not a criminal. I'm commuting to work. The digital age has eroded the privacy that generations before us were able to take for granted. Does Obama want to eliminate the only guarantee to privacy that still exists in the digital age? The fourth amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise that right, in any sense at all in the digital age, without encryption.
I am disappointed that he doesn't come out pro-encryption.
USA companies will end up losing business to foreign companies and organized crime (I include terrorists when I talk about organized crime) will have an easier time wounding both citizens and businesses via cyber attacks.
USA companies will end up losing business to foreign companies and organized crime (I include terrorists when I talk about organized crime) will have an easier time wounding both citizens and businesses via cyber attacks.
> "My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this," he said. "So if your bargain is strong encryption, no matter what, that we can and should in fact create 'black boxes,' then that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years, and it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can't be the right answer."
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/
> For more than 260 years, the contents of that page—and the details of this ritual—remained a secret. They were hidden in a coded manuscript, one of thousands produced by secret societies in the 18th and 19th centuries. At the peak of their power, these clandestine organizations, most notably the Freemasons, had hundreds of thousands of adherents, from colonial New York to imperial St. Petersburg. Dismissed today as fodder for conspiracy theorists and History Channel specials, they once served an important purpose: Their lodges were safe houses where freethinkers could explore everything from the laws of physics to the rights of man to the nature of God, all hidden from the oppressive, authoritarian eyes of church and state. But largely because they were so secretive, little is known about most of these organizations. Membership in all but the biggest died out over a century ago, and many of their encrypted texts have remained uncracked, dismissed by historians as impenetrable novelties.
Obama's claim should not be taken as anything other than a blatant lie he knows the majority of people are too ignorant to notice.
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/
> For more than 260 years, the contents of that page—and the details of this ritual—remained a secret. They were hidden in a coded manuscript, one of thousands produced by secret societies in the 18th and 19th centuries. At the peak of their power, these clandestine organizations, most notably the Freemasons, had hundreds of thousands of adherents, from colonial New York to imperial St. Petersburg. Dismissed today as fodder for conspiracy theorists and History Channel specials, they once served an important purpose: Their lodges were safe houses where freethinkers could explore everything from the laws of physics to the rights of man to the nature of God, all hidden from the oppressive, authoritarian eyes of church and state. But largely because they were so secretive, little is known about most of these organizations. Membership in all but the biggest died out over a century ago, and many of their encrypted texts have remained uncracked, dismissed by historians as impenetrable novelties.
Obama's claim should not be taken as anything other than a blatant lie he knows the majority of people are too ignorant to notice.
The good old trick of calling those you disagree with extremists, I mean absolutist...
Because not wanting the government to have full access to your phone is extremism.
Because not wanting the government to have full access to your phone is extremism.
He's also a President who implicitly expresses support for the view that "Snowden is a traitor", by refusing to "pardon" him (which should never even have been necessary).
Sanders may be the only current candidate to differ on that issue.
Sanders may be the only current candidate to differ on that issue.
And the last big measure that was "just to stop terrorists" they started logging everyone's emails.
We have way more information stored on these devices than ever before. They want it because it's there, not because they need it.
For example, the first mobile phones, could only store 10 text messages, you'd typically delete them after reading. Modern phones store years of messages, so the governments want that.
Further back, we communicated in person or the phone, for which there was no record of what was said (unless actively under surveillance). Now these conversations are stored forever Facebook messenger/What's app etc.
One solution would be to simply automatically delete messages after reading.
For example, the first mobile phones, could only store 10 text messages, you'd typically delete them after reading. Modern phones store years of messages, so the governments want that.
Further back, we communicated in person or the phone, for which there was no record of what was said (unless actively under surveillance). Now these conversations are stored forever Facebook messenger/What's app etc.
One solution would be to simply automatically delete messages after reading.
1. Criminals will still use encryption / get guns. Only lawful people will be harmed.
2. Compromises will just lead to defeat for the pro-encryption / pro-gun side.
3. If we want to stand up for all of our other civil rights, we need the right to encrypt / bear arms.
4. Consequentialism: the number of people being harmed by encryption/guns is smaller than the number of people who would be harmed by living in a world without encryption/guns.
Personally, I think these are all solid arguments that work for both guns and encryption, but I'm generally more libertarian than many in the SF tech scene.