Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the tilting-at-windmills dept.

The new FBI Director Christopher Wray has been repeating the broken rhetoric of the Crypto Wars:

In recent testimony before Congress, the director of the FBI has again highlighted what the government sees as the problem of easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption.

In prepared remarks from last Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that encryption presents a "significant challenge to conducting lawful court-ordered access," he said, again using the longstanding government moniker "Going Dark."

The statement was just one portion of his testimony about the agency's priorities for the coming year.

The FBI and its parent agency, the Department of Justice, have recently stepped up public rhetoric about the so-called dangers of "Going Dark." In recent months, both Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have given numerous public statements about this issue.

Remember to use encryption irresponsibly, and stay salty, my FBI friends.

Previously: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
PureVPN Logs Helped FBI Net Alleged Cyberstalker
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
Great, Now There's "Responsible Encryption"
FBI Bemoans Phone Encryption After Texas Shooting, but Refuses Apple's Help
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:02PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:02PM (#608999) Journal

    * personal financial success

    Hmmm. Plenty of people seem to have that. And it does not seem to change as different parties come into power over the last 20 years.

    * practical personal safety

    I assume you're talking about guns. Has anything significantly materially changed in this regard over the last few decades? It still seems like any crazy mentally ill person can get a gun. That should change. I'm not saying to take away guns. Just be a bit more selective about who can get them. And I believe that gun ownership should be tied to a minimal level of proficiency in its use. End of stupid people shooting their foot off. Etc.

    * independent thought
    * "harmful" information

    I agree that the government should never protect you from this.

    * the possibility of harming others' feelings

    The government shouldn't play a role here in everyday things. But there is some line. I'm not sure exactly where it should be drawn. But there are crazy people in the world that can harass and make other people's lives miserable.

    * your own self.

    Maybe if you are a danger to your self you are a danger to others. If you are not a danger to others, and your actions won't cost me money to support your habit and crime when you try to get your next fix, then I don't have a problem with whatever you do to yourself.

    If there was any missing options, I don't seem them.

    --
    To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:01AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:01AM (#609119)

    If there was any missing options, I don't seem them.

    The two options we were obviously poking fingers at (you seriously, myself cynically) are "Republicans and Democrats". Rather than go at each other's throats over who gets to hold the Big Bat with which to strike the other about the head with, perhaps a third and better option is to question why there exists this Big Bat in the first place? Where did it come from; is it really a legitimate and legal creation this ~2.5 trillion dollar yearly monstrosity? What is its actual purpose; sure, its fun when you're the one wielding it, but you can't seem to maintain a grip on it and its no fun when you're the one losing teeth and eyeballs?

    Perhaps if we really think humans are special and worth caring about then we should look to treat other humans as special in that if we're not simple animals then perhaps trying to impose a paper-thin facade of "democratic" control over the animal kingdom's might-makes-right society is the wrong approach.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:36PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:36PM (#609252) Journal

      Ideally I would like the best of both worlds. A single party. With the Fiscal Discipline of the Democrats and the Social Progressiveness of the Republicans. Then I think we could all breathe a sigh of . . . um, relief?

      --
      To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.