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"
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The FBI's director says the agency is collecting data that he will present next year in hopes of sparking a national conversation about law enforcement's increasing inability to access encrypted electronic devices.
Speaking on Friday at the American Bar Association conference in San Francisco, James Comey says the agency was unable to access 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months.
Comey says encryption technology makes it impossible in a growing number of cases to search electronic devices. He says it's up to U.S. citizens to decide whether to modify the technology.
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-chief-calls-national-talk-over-encryption-vs-safety-n624101
The new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Christopher A. Wray:
The Senate easily confirmed President Trump's pick to lead the FBI on Tuesday, following the abrupt firing of James Comey earlier this year.
Senators voted 92-5 on Christopher Wray's nomination to lead the bureau. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) voted against the confirmation.
EFF picked his record apart last month:
During his tenure as Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Wray vocally defended a range of controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act—including Section 215, which would later provide the basis for the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata.
When Wray went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 to defend the PATRIOT Act, a Department of Justice document indicated that Section 215's business records provision had never been used. Wray insisted that was a sign of restraint: "We try to use these provisions sparingly, only in those instances where we feel that this is the only tool that we can use." In fact, as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) made clear in its report on the bulk metadata program, Section 215 was sitting fallow because the Bush Administration was already collecting much of that data—without statutory authorization.
Granted, Wray didn't have all of the information about that secretive wiretapping program until 2004, which we'll get into below. Still, his insistence that Section 215 was just an effort to bring counterterrorism powers in line with ordinary criminal authorities reflected a concerning lack of skepticism about the risk of abuse. The same holds for his defense of a range of other PATRIOT Act provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants that allow law enforcement to search first and serve notice later; a reduced bar for obtaining a FISA warrant that one district court later found inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment; and a vaguely worded expansion of the kind of Internet data, some of it potentially very sensitive, that can be collected with a pen/trap order.
The FBI will not have to disclose the name of the vendor that it paid to hack into an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists:
A federal court ruled yesterday that the FBI does not have to disclose either the name of the vendor used or price the government paid to hack into the iPhone SE of mass shooter Syed Farook, according to ZDNet. The device became embroiled in a heated national controversy and legal standoff last year when Apple refused to help the FBI develop a backdoor into it for the purpose of obtaining sensitive information on Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, both of whom participated in the terrorist attack that left 14 dead in San Bernardino, California in December 2015.
The Justice Department originally filed a lawsuit against Apple to compel it to participate by creating a special version of its mobile operating system, something Apple was vehemently against because of the risk such a tool posed to users. But very soon after, the government withdrew from the case when a third-party vendor secretly demonstrated to the FBI a workable method to bypass the iPhone's security system. Three news organizations — the Associated Press, Vice News, and USA Today — filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in September 2016 to reveal details of the hacking method used. Because it was not clear how many phones the workaround could be used on, and whether the FBI could use it surreptitiously in the future, the lawsuit was seeking information that would be pertinent to the public and security researchers around the globe.
Previously: Washington Post: The FBI Paid "Gray Hat(s)", Not Cellebrite, for iPhone Unlock
FBI Can't Say How It Hacked IPhone 5C
Meeting Cellebrite - Israel's Master Phone Crackers
Cellebrite Appears to Have Been Hacked
Senator Dianne Feinstein Claims That the FBI Paid $900,000 to Break Into a Locked iPhone
Related: FBI Resists Revealing its Tor User Identification Methods in Court
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A Massachusetts man was arrested late last week on suspicion of conducting a cyberstalking campaign against a female former roommate, her friends, and family. Court documents reveal that logs, obtained by the FBI from privacy service PureVPN, helped the prosecution. Until now, PureVPN had always maintained it carried no logs - almost.
[...] if one drills down into the PureVPN privacy policy proper, one sees the following:
Our servers automatically record the time at which you connect to any of our servers. From here on forward, we do not keep any records of anything that could associate any specific activity to a specific user. The time when a successful connection is made with our servers is counted as a ‘connection’ and the total bandwidth used during this connection is called ‘bandwidth’. Connection and bandwidth are kept in record to maintain the quality of our service. This helps us understand the flow of traffic to specific servers so we could optimize them better.
This seems to match what the FBI says – almost. While it says it doesn’t log, PureVPN admits to keeping records of when a user connects to the service and for how long. The FBI clearly states that the service also captures the user’s IP address too. In fact, it appears that PureVPN also logged the IP address belonging to another VPN service (WANSecurity) that was allegedly used by Lin to connect to PureVPN.
I think I'll stick with PrivateInternetAccess who've had their lack of logging stand up in court.
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/purevpn-logs-helped-fbi-net-alleged-cyberstalker-171009/
FBI failed to access 7,000 encrypted mobile devices
Agents at the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been unable to extract data from nearly 7,000 mobile devices they have tried to access, the agency's director has said.
Christopher Wray said encryption on devices was "a huge, huge problem" for FBI investigations. The agency had failed to access more than half of the devices it targeted in an 11-month period, he said.
One cyber-security expert said such encryption was now a "fact of life". Many smartphones encrypt their contents when locked, as standard - a security feature that often prevents even the phones' manufacturers from accessing data. Such encryption is different to end-to-end encryption, which prevents interception of communications on a large scale.
Cyber-security expert Prof Alan Woodward at the University of Surrey said device encryption was clearly frustrating criminal investigations but it would be impractical and insecure to develop "back doors" or weakened security.
In a time when the government is committing criminal acts, is it not advisable for citizens to do what they can to protect themselves from that crime?
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1
Trump's Department of Justice is trying to get a do-over with its campaign to get backdoors onto iPhones and into secure messaging services. The policy rebrand even has its own made-up buzzword. They're calling it "responsible encryption."
After Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein introduced the term in his speech to the U.S. Naval Academy, most everyone who read the transcript was doing spit-takes at their computer monitors. From hackers and infosec professionals to attorneys and tech journalists, "responsible encryption" sounded like a marketing plan to sell unsweetened sugar to diabetics.
Government officials -- not just in the U.S. but around the world -- have always been cranky that they can't access communications that use end-to-end encryption, whether that's Signal or the kind of encryption that protects an iPhone. The authorities are vexed, they say, because encryption without a backdoor impedes law-enforcement investigations, such as when terrorist acts occur.
[...] "Look, it's real simple. Encryption is good for our national security; it's good for our economy. We should be strengthening encryption, not weakening it. And it's technically impossible to have strong encryption with any kind of backdoor," said Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), when asked about Rosenstein's proposal for responsible encryption at The Atlantic's Cyber Frontier event in Washington, D.C.
Source: Great, now there's 'responsible encryption'
At a press conference, an FBI spokesman blamed industry standard encryption for preventing the agency from accessing the recent Texas mass shooter's locked iPhone. Reuters later reported that the FBI did not try to contact Apple during a 48-hour window in which the shooter's fingerprint may have been able to unlock the phone. Apple said in a statement that after seeing the press conference, the company contacted the FBI itself to offer assistance. Finally, the Washington Post reports (archive) that an FBI official acknowledged Apple's offer but said it did not need the company's assistance:
After the FBI said it was dealing with a phone it couldn't open, Apple reached out to the bureau to learn whether the phone was an iPhone and whether the FBI was seeking assistance. An FBI official responded late Tuesday, saying that it was an iPhone but that the agency was not asking anything of the company at this point. That's because experts at the FBI's lab in Quantico, Va., are trying to determine if there are other methods, such as cloud storage or a linked laptop, that would provide access to the phone's data, these people said. They said that process could take weeks.
If the FBI and Apple had talked to each other in the first two days after the attack, it's possible the device might already be open. That time frame may have been critical because Apple's iPhone "Touch ID" — which uses a fingerprint to unlock the device — stops working after 48 hours. It wasn't immediately clear whether the gunman had activated Touch ID on his phone, but more than 80 percent of iPhone owners do use that feature. If the bureau had consulted the company, Apple engineers would likely have told the bureau to take steps such as putting the dead gunman's finger to the phone to see if doing so would unlock it. It was unclear whether the FBI tried to use the dead man's finger to open the device in the first two days.
In a statement, Apple said: "Our team immediately reached out to the FBI after learning from their press conference on Tuesday that investigators were trying to access a mobile phone. We offered assistance and said we would expedite our response to any legal process they send us."
Also at Engadget.
Related: Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
Apple Engineers Discussing Civil Disobedience If Ordered to Unlock IPhone
Senator Dianne Feinstein Claims That the FBI Paid $900,000 to Break Into a Locked iPhone
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
"We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he [Rod Rosenstein] told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption."
[...] In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption."
"I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption."
[...] He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable."
[...] Rosenstein closed his interview by noting that he understands re-engineering encryption to accommodate government may make it weaker.
"And I think that's a legitimate issue that we can debate—how much risk are we willing to take in return for the reward?" he said.
The Washington Post has a story which says:
FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Tuesday renewed a call for tech companies to help law enforcement officials gain access to encrypted smartphones, describing it as a "major public safety issue."
Wray said the bureau was unable to gain access to the content of 7,775 devices in fiscal 2017 — more than half of all the smartphones it tried to crack in that time period — despite having a warrant from a judge.
"Being unable to access nearly 7,800 devices in a single year is a major public safety issue," he said, taking up a theme that was a signature issue of his predecessor, James B. Comey.
Wray was then quoted as saying:
"We're not interested in the millions of devices of everyday citizens," he said in New York at Fordham University's International Conference on Cyber Security. "We're interested in those devices that have been used to plan or execute terrorist or criminal activities."
He then went on to promote the long-disparaged idea of key escrow:
As an example of a possible compromise, Wray cited a case from New York several years ago. Four major banks, he said, were using a chat messaging platform called Symphony, which was marketed as offering "guaranteed data deletion." State financial regulators became concerned that the chat platform would hamper investigations of Wall Street.
"In response," Wray said, "the four banks reached an agreement with the regulators to ensure responsible use" of Symphony. They agreed to keep a copy of their communications sent through the app for seven years and to store duplicate copies of their encryption keys with independent custodians not controlled by the banks, he said.
To me this is more of the utter nonsense the government has spouted. When will they understand that key escrow only works when one trusts the government and the keeper of the keys?
Intelligence agency heads have warned against using Huawei and ZTE products and services:
The heads of six major US intelligence agencies have warned that American citizens shouldn't use products and services made by Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE. According to a report from CNBC, the intelligence chiefs made the recommendation during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday. The group included the heads of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the director of national intelligence.
During his testimony, FBI Director Chris Wray said the the government was "deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks." He added that this would provide "the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage."
These warnings are nothing new. The US intelligence community has long been wary of Huawei, which was founded by a former engineer in China's People's Liberation Army and has been described by US politicians as "effectively an arm of the Chinese government." This caution led to a ban on Huawei bidding for US government contracts in 2014, and it's now causing problems for the company's push into consumer electronics.
Verizon and AT&T recently cancelled plans to sell Huawei's Mate 10 Pro smartphone.
Don't use a Huawei phone because it's too Chinese. Don't use an Apple phone because strong encryption is not "responsible encryption". Which phone is just right for the FBI?
Previously: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei
Related: FBI Director Christopher Wray Keeps War on Encryption Alive
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying
(Score: 5, Informative) by Scrutinizer on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:33AM (47 children)
With the FBI et al making so much noise over the "problem" of easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption, this suggests that people who value the ability to keep their data and communications private should earnestly pursue and encourage development of more of this easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption.
There are existing projects claiming to work on a new design for the Internet based on the very concepts the FBI seems so afraid of, and several of them are detailed over at youbroketheinternet.org [youbroketheinternet.org]. The YBTI work includes a focus on the replacement for the broken Certificate Authority system (where any trusted CA can issue a signed certificate for use in a man-in-the-middle attack against HTTPS) and encrypted replacements for many modern Internet tools.
Of similar importance is hardware that the user can own and control, hardware without the equivalent of Intel's IME [libreboot.org] or AMD's PSP [libreboot.org] "backdoor computer in your CPU". One potentially-promising producer of such hardware (making use of the EOMA68 standard) is Rhombus Tech (project's successful crowdfunding page [crowdsupply.com] and primary website [rhombus-tech.net]). None of these systems I've yet seen are capable of equivalent processing power to the mainstream offerings of Intel/AMD... and they never will be unless a market develops between producers of open hardware systems and willing customers who value privacy and security more than bells-and-whistles.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:47AM
Although it might not be enabled.
The ARM TrustZone stuff dates back to at least the A20 era hardware and I believe earlier.
The real solution at this point is coming up with VHDL/Verilog/etc chip designs, then process specific designs, then a set of unit tests against each with integrated support for fuzzing the inputs.
If the chip can successfully pass a few months of fuzzing without unintended operations it should be considerable as a success and so long as each new manufacturer or mask revision gets similiar scrutiny shoudl ensure that no chips end up backdoored in an easy to exploit manner.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:53AM (39 children)
From the link [youbroketheinternet.org]:
Fuck this guy! Taxation is theft, pure and simple.
Keep your greasy little paws off *my* money, motherfucker!
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:26PM (30 children)
How cute... this concept of you... *your* money...
Here kid, have a nickel and buy yourself some clues... it's only *yours* if *your* autograph on it validates its value (and if other people think the same).
The supply of money (the bills, coins etc... not necessarily the concept) is in fact an almost perfect example of WHY taxes are needed to provide things for the 'greater good'.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:46PM (29 children)
Funny. Bernard von NotHaus [wikipedia.org] was doing so well without resorting to taxes that the taxing powers picked him up and threw him in a cage for *snrk* counterfeiting. I'd be laughing harder except that there is, you know, an innocent human rotting away in a cage...
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:06PM (28 children)
So, tell me: How did he get to the point of being able to start all this? Oh yeah... taxes that co-provided for his upbringing, education, health, etc. etc...
Although from the page you provided, it seems his mental health could use some improvement. But that's probably a matter of opinion.
Besides, pretty stupid of him to use rectangular pieces of paper and round pieces of metal... Those would not be my choice if I were inclined to mint a currency.
The outward appearance simply looks too similar to regular money. So the counterfeiting charge and conviction seem about right.
Really, pissing of the system that actually enabled you to be where you are today is not the best way to change it.
You simply don't shit where you eat.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)
Taxpaying begets taxpayers, in other words. You were born a taxpayer, and so it remains justified in using any force necessary to keep you a taxpayer. Feel free to substitute in the word "slavery" if it helps.
But now I see that you were just being facetious all along. Well played! Well played.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:32PM
Just you keep thinking that.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:09PM (24 children)
I agree with the AC. This is the language of the slave master. I did this thing for you way back when. So now, I should own you for the rest of your life. He got to this point by making his own choices. Sure, the things you mentioned helped to some degree, but it was his choices that got him where he was.
FTFY.
In a democracy, doing or giving stuff without a mutual agreement (and no, "the social contract" doesn't count) creates no obligation in the people you do it for. If you don't like the consequences, then the only real choices are to accept that or to change how you do such things. Those other people have no obligation to change their behavior, merely because you have an opinion on what they should be doing.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ewk on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:31PM (17 children)
Not slavery, just simply being part of the social framework/contract (sorry... still using that word, even if you do not like it) that enabled you to achieve something (I assume nobody put a gun against your head to get an education and so on)... So really, like if you don't like it, just GTFO... Rumour has it Somalia still has plenty of room and possibilities.
As for democracy... that ship already sailed with the Romans, about 2000 years ago.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:54PM (13 children)
I would find it more convenient if you GTFO instead. Love-it-or-leave-it is fine when your dudes are in power. But in a genuine democracy, that won't always be the case. It's better to have a society that can handle dissent, including unlawful dissent, rather than one that tries to cleanse society of ungoodthink.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:44PM (8 children)
No one is cleansing anyone, what is wrong with you??
Racists and bigots are now shunned quite heavily, the majority of people now realize that such prejudice is DUMB! Please, elaborate on the cleansing for "ungoodthink", I'm curious as to what stories I've missed that could possibly be so construed.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:24PM (1 child)
He's angry because calling people Nazis when they wear Nazi regalia and call for blacks and Jews to be killed is allowed. Hallow is fucking nuts; just read his post history.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:45PM
Yes, read my post history [soylentnews.org] rather than take someone's word for it.
Moving on, what happens when the unpopular people aren't racists, but people who want to use strong encryption? Or who merely want to be free? And the "GTFO" strategy only works, if the authorities will allow you to leave. That is one of the first things taken away in a tyranny.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:32PM (5 children)
I quoted the relevant statement. Love it or leave it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:44PM (4 children)
Sooooo having a negative opinion about someone else is "cleansing"? Trigger harder little snowflake.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:02PM (3 children)
Why do you think "if you don't like it, just GTFO" merely means having a negative opinion? It's passive-aggressive for "We don't want your kind here, get out." We already have groups that have gone beyond that sentiment to actually advocating for other groups to leave. For example, I have a whiny AC [soylentnews.org] who wants to deport "whiteys" because "you all" want to deport Mexicans from North America. Seriously.
And this sentiment applies to any behavior that is considered deviant such as the topic of the story. Want to use strong encryption? Somalia's open.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:11PM
Geez Louise, Khallow! Some mouth-breathing netizen tells you to "get out" and you assume that it's huge conspiracy? Who is this "we" of which you speak?
Haven't you taken your haldol yet today?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:25PM (1 child)
You do realize that someone saying "deport whiteys" is an attempt at getting you to realize what "deport mexicans" sounds like? For all the vitriol that comes from conservative groups it is shocking how thin your skins are. Would your feelz be better if we changed it to "If you don't like it GTFO or support legislation for change". Is that better? Do you feel less threatened?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:04AM
Perhaps you should use plain language then, rather than try to resort to mental tricks which have a high probability of backfiring on you. Likewise, I don't recommend teaching people not to hit others by punching them in the face.
Not really. That's akin to being in a casino and being told that if I don't like the odds on the game I find myself playing, my choices are to 'GTFO or ask for a rules change'. The option to simply stop playing never seems to cross your lips...
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:15PM (3 children)
Dude, believe me... I am most definitely NOT one of those in power. Trust me, if I were in power things would be soooo much different :-)
But lately I am getting just a wheee bit irritated about seemingly over-privileged whiners that take the investment society made in them for granted and assume they can only cut the cords THEY want.
Sorry, but it does not work that way.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:41PM (2 children)
One of the costs of "investment" is that they have no obligation to show gratitude. To accept the investment is to accept the costs of the investment. It's something like the "love it or leave it" argument that happened earlier in this thread. Choices come with consequences. If you choose to have a certain public service, then you need to accept the consequences of the public service, much as if you choose to live in a place with laws that you don't approve of, you have a variety of choices (including illegal disobedience and GTFO), but also consequences associated with those choices.
It is only fair that if they have to face consequences for choices, so should you.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:18AM (1 child)
Thank you for proving my point about the whiners who take everything for granted.
It is indeed a choice to be a leech.
It seems we really do have a difference of opinion here about how one should behave in society.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:15PM
My view is the more things your society/government does to people for which they hypothetically should feel gratitude, the less gratitude which will be received in turn.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)
Not sure what country we're talking about here, but in the US they pretty much do -- dropping out before age 18 is illegal and if you do it then *someone* is going to end up in jail. More likely the gun would be to your parents' heads, but that seems a pretty minor distinction...
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday December 14 2017, @09:50AM (1 child)
Really? Having to "visit an educational institution" equals "getting an education" ?
They might force you (indirectly) to do the first, but the second?
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:22PM
Really? You think a child as young as six years old is going to make a conscious decision to just ignore what they're being told for around eight hours per day every single day for the next twelve years? They're surely going to absorb *something* in that time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:49PM (5 children)
You apparently don't understand what Democracy is and instead confuse it for complete and total personal freedom.
It is truly difficult to understand how a person gets to such a ridiculous point. But then again people believe Jesus resurrected and we celebrate his "rebirth" with rabbit eggs??? lol. So I guess it is easy to understand, all humans can be stupid and sometimes unbelievably so.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM (3 children)
Does civil disobedience have a place in Democracy. Yes or no?
Well, it helps if you try to understand other viewpoints.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:52PM (2 children)
Civil disobedience has a place anywhere it is called for. Unjust laws should be pushed back. The price of such disobedience is always some form of punishment, and it is up to the rest of society to either agree that your punishment is justified or not. None of this has a bearing on Democracy. Go ahead, disobey the IRS, we will see how much support you get for it.
I understand your viewpoint entirely. I find it incredibly naive. I would say "stupid" but it is obvious you are capable, so I'll stick to naive about how the human society works. All I can figure is that you operate on some very basic principles that you think would magically work our for the best. I also presume understanding human social behavior is not your strong point.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:31PM (1 child)
Pretty mealy mouthed way to say that civil disobedience you don't agree with should be punished. The rest of society is not always going to be on your side. And it has quite the bearing on democracy because protest, even of the law-breaking sort, is a key way to communicate and generate support for your beliefs.
The problem here is that in democracies, people and do have different opinions on how things should work. Naive or not, their ideas aren't discredited merely because you disagree with them.
What is there to understand here? The state cracked down on a guy for protesting by not paying taxes. There's no social behavior complexity in that.
My story starts with the pathetic rationalization for that action:
This is one of the classic way abuses of the state are rationalized: we raised you, we own you. Maybe this particular guy's protest was complete bullshit, but the logic applies to all tax protests, not merely the bullshit ones. I bet this most tax protesters would disagree on the efficacy of government spending on their childhoods.
A final remark is the complete absence of any consideration in this thread for why there are tax protests: maybe the protesters don't want to pay for corporate welfare, maybe they don't want to pay for wars, maybe they don't want to pay because other people can't get their shit together. It's remarkable how blithely people speak of the good of taxation while ignoring the grievance problems of it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:22PM
Have you ever participated in any civil disobedience? Going to jail is often an integral part of the strategy. And that doesn't work if you go to jail and nobody cares -- it really only works if the general public think it's unjust that you're going to jail for it, and are prompted to take action as a result. So yeah, he's correct on that, democracy is majority rule, and if the majority doesn't back you then your civil disobedience is just a crime. There's a difference between civil disobedience and regular protest -- if it's not illegal, it's not disobedience.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:12PM
Representative tyranny is not going to stop the use of strong encryption. #Resist
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:41PM
You're a well programmed dipshit, none of us chose to be a part of this system.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:43PM
Gladly. And just because a project's PR is stating one thing, it doesn't necessitate that the stated words are held truly by some or even all of the project's participants.
If you were working on projects that could be used to undermine the power of a crazed, murdering lunatic, would you be open and upfront about how you viewed the lunatic's diktats especially if some applied to your work?
I'll worry about the YBTI projects being tainted by theftmongers when they, say, start doing work exclusively for the IRS.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:22PM (6 children)
If you don't like taxes, please go live on your own private sovereign island without depending on any services, support or protection from the government.
Unix is like the government. It started out as a few essential services.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:28PM (5 children)
The poster your replied to fell afoul of Poe's Law since his vitriol would have been muted by the addition of smiley faces or sarcasm tags...
... but would one of those services and protection from government be keeping you safe from that nasty, wicked easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption? ;)
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:34PM (4 children)
It depends on who is currently in power.
At present, yes, your government will keep you safe from:
* strong encryption
* science
* education
* starving children at school (if school doesn't provide education, why should it provide food?)
* non-white people
* non-christian people
* an open neutral internet free of packet discrimination based on packet content or source / destination
But it will not keep you safe from:
* child diddlers running for office
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:51PM (3 children)
Man, a choice between protecting from all that versus being protecting from:
* personal financial success
* practical personal safety
* independent thought
* "harmful" information
* the possibility of harming others' feelings
* your own self
Ehh... was there a third option we missed somewhere?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:02PM (2 children)
* 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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:01AM (1 child)
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
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.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:54PM (5 children)
In my parents' day, the FBI and similar organizations enjoyed a huge amount of respect. Today, as soon as they open their mouths, we call them out for the corrupt, power-hungry idiots that they have become. Never talk to the FBI [popehat.com], FBI entrapment [businessinsider.com], etc, etc, etc.
How did it come to this?
Is it just Pournelle's Iron Law, i.e., a powerful bureaucracy wanting to preserve and expand its power, at the expense of its actual mission? It is the 1% living in their own bubble, having no idea that the rest of us view them with all the tenderness we reserve for leprosy and the Black Death? Or is it an actual, active conspiracy - a desire to grow government power, to prevent democracy from actually functioning, so that those in power remain in power?
I don't know, but thanks to the Internet we are (for the moment at least) able to see and discuss the proposals pushed by our governmental
diseasesrepresentatives.Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:53PM
I bet its a combination. There are active conspiracies, the problem is that the word was deliberately tied to craziness. Even saying the word conspiracy makes people look at you funny. Why do you think that is?
Many conspiracies don't require entire departments be in on it, just those at the top. Even small actions that seem weird but not a big deal can lead to nefarious actions. The gov has near total transparency on citizens these days, I think the best way to bring balance back is to bring total transparency to government officials.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:18PM (2 children)
I'd throw Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] into the mix as a major contributor as well.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:26PM (1 child)
Hanlon's Razor has long since lost its edge in cases like this. When stupidity leads to national problems, it's malice.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:45PM
I hear you, but you give people far too much credit, Azuma. In this caes, I'm not talking about willful ignorance either.
As George Carlin pointed out [goodreads.com]:
That's not to say there aren't malicious scumbags out there, but you can't fix stupid.
And I said it was a major contributor -- not the sole reason.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:28PM
The difference is access to information. It's harder to respect them today because it's harder for them to keep their bullshit secret.
Because their actions certainly aren't new. This is the organization that routinely threatened civil rights leaders; that routinely arrested thousands of innocent men in witch hunts for anti-war protesters and "communists"; that broke into the offices of senators they suspected of merely wanting diplomatic relations with foreign powers; that ran secret wiretaps on Supreme Court justices....the FBI has been a criminal enterprise since the day it was founded; the only difference today is that we occasionally hear about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:27PM (12 children)
Banks. Credit Card Companies. Payment Processors.
These (and other) parties will demand strong encryption.
People who don't want their computers / laptops / phones / tablets hacked into will demand strong encryption. Or the vendors will demand this on their customers' behalf.
The morons will be forced to face the reality that the choice is binary: secure or insecure. Pick one. If you pick insecure, the consequences are predictable. I hope we don't, but even if we (as a society) "choose" to go down that path, we will most definitely suffer the consequences until the morons realize "we told you so!".
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:29PM (11 children)
Banks. Credit Card Companies. Payment Processors.
These (and other) parties will demand strong encryption.
Those institutions and various others will be granted a license, with the appropriate backdoors of course.
There is insufficient public resistance. In fact, most people are for the restrictions. Look how easy it is to pass things like the "patriot" act. If liberalism were alive, all these fascist politicians wouldn't be winning the election. Majority rule has hit a brick wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:00PM (9 children)
Incorrect, it isn't a problem with Democracy, it is the age old problem of corruption. No matter what system you have it can be corrupted, the current problem is that the system has become so corrupt that individual action hardly matters. Majority rule would work very nicely if citizens actually had some method of getting good leadership that isn't totally trounced by our craptastic two party system.
I for one would like to ban all types of political advertising. Have a government hosted website where citizens can register their intent to run for office, and allow a single campaign website. All info in one convenient place, fair and balanced. No campaign contributions, no glory. Just service to your country with a good sized paycheck for taking on a difficult job. Lots of things we can do to make democracy work again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:10PM
The corruption is in the voters who reelect corrupt politicians because they, too, want a piece of the action (bring home the bacon). The voters can choose not to do that if they want. Don't try to externalize personal problems. Besides you won't get any of those so-called "reforms" anyway until the corruption is voted out to begin with, and then you will have solved the problem, right?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:30PM (7 children)
What? Are you some kind of Communist? We all know that one of the most important ideals of the US Constitution [wikipedia.org] is "One dollar, one vote." [wikipedia.org]
Money is speech, as it should be, according to the Golden Rule [economicsociology.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:48AM (6 children)
You should stop with that nonsense. You're not going to change legislation without changing the legislator. You don't have to reelect them, you know. It's not difficult to turn your back on their expensive propaganda, and turn all that money of theirs into confetti. It's not the money's fault if you are dazzled by it. It's just another bathroom or munchie break, and there's lots of channels to flip through. Sorry, but you're just going to have to seek out the independent yourself. Sure you can pay someone to do it for you, but you are already witnessing the result of doing it that way. Democracy is high maintenance.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:08AM (5 children)
So what's your point? That money doesn't matter in our current system?
I'm not dazzled by it, I'm sickened by it. Mostly because it (in just about every single case) wins elections. Because the voters are being sold a *brand* not a platform. Marketers and advertisers have been honing these techniques for decades. And guess what? They work.
I try to take a measured view of what's going on and attempt to be reasonably well-informed. You say that's really easy to do? Then why is it that so many voters buy it all, hook, line and sinker?
The problem is that most people actually buy the bullshit these guys are selling.
Until the voters replace top-of-mind awareness and name recognition for a focus on the issues and problems facing them, they will continue to vote for the folks with the most money, the best marketers and the best ground game.
That requires knowledgeable and well informed voters. Many (if not most) politicians and their flacks have succeeded in convincing a fairly large segment of the voters that they should ignore the issues and the facts reported and only listen to them or the propaganda and outright lies they promote as "the truth."
Have you looked at Twitter? I try not to as it's a cesspool of bullshit, lies and half-truths that get bandied about incessantly. And people eat that shit up.
And don't even get me started on Facebook. It's *designed* to sell you shit and Zuckerberg, et al. use every marketing too they can to make, whatever misinformation or biased crap someone *pays* to get you to believe, seem like it's coming from trusted sources.
I don't use either of those cesspools.
As a result, we don't have a well informed electorate. We have a well propagandized electorate. As long as that persists, democracy will suffer.
And the incredibly huge amounts of money that goes toward advancing the agendas of those with large amounts of resources (on all sides) is poured into every level of our political system, from political and propaganda advertising, to groups like ALEC writing regressive and anti-competitive sample bills for state legislatures, to the PAC money for directly supporting candidates, to the direct contributions to candidates at the local, state and Federal levels.
It's all awash in money. And that crowds out folks whose agenda is to help their neighbors and themselves create a society of which they can be proud.
So yes, money is an issue. Is it the only issue? No. But the money exacerbates the other problems considerably.
Sure. We should absolutely get the folks who aren't representing the *voters* in their districts/states out of office and replace them with folks who aren't beholden to the monied interests. That's not news. But the folks who are empowered to make such changes to our elections and political system are the same people who benefit most (and use it to retain their power) from the current system.
You claim that everyone should just suddenly say "Oh, I see it all so clearly now! I'm going to reject the propaganda and bullshit that's bein spewed at me online and from every other medium and get informed!" That's a wonderful idea.
I'd love to know how you think it can be done. If you have ways to make that happen, please share them. I'd enthusiastically work toward implementing them. Do tell!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:02AM (4 children)
We're all aware of the psychological bullshit. You're only helpless (and/or tribal) as you want to be. Official congressional voting records are trivial to look up. Public financial records will tell you who your candidate/congressman serves. You don't need to hear the hysterical reporter read it to you. And Twitter and Facebook?! You're not serious! Stop making excuses. You are responsible for your vote. Don't blame others for the choices you make.
Your post was very long winded, yet offered nothing, not even the slightest hint of a remedy, merely redundant contradiction we've all heard before, and it's bunk. Do you advocate surrender, or what? Unless you* make the the changes, they simply aren't going to happen. Life is simple that way.
*collective
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:26AM (1 child)
Really? what exactly should I do, oh wise one? I don't see you making any relevant or worthwhile suggestions yourself.
I have voted in every election (primary and general) for candidates that I've chosen through my own research and information gathered from multiple sources (including voting records and stated positions) and, you know, actual facts, for more than thirty years.
I don't buy into the builshit. In fact, I called it out by name. which is more than I can say for you. You can't even be bothered to make an coherent argument as to how to help our fellow Americans to educate themselves and make better choices. That I do so is good. You haven't even claimed to do so, although you implied as much. And if we were the only voters, that would be great. How do you propose convincing the other ~235 million eligible voters to do so as well?
I actually did make some suggestions, but you apparently chose to ignore them.
Your posts added nothing of value except to complain about me. That's not a reasonable discussion or argument. And when asked what *you* would do about the issues, you just make a fact-free and completely contradictory attack:
It's clear you don't wish to have a measured, reasoned discussion. Or even a discussion. You, apparently seem to feel the need to be negative with others. Is that due to a trauma in your past? If so, I'm sorry for you.
I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, if and when you actually wish to engage in a constructive way. Until then, please be good to yourself [pelicanparts.com] and try to keep your blood pressure in check.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday December 15 2017, @04:14AM
I don't see you making any relevant or worthwhile suggestions yourself.
I told you already, it's on the voters' back to look out for themselves. They are the root of the power. Only they can reduce the value of the campaign dollar to exactly zero. Propaganda works by choice. The voters choose to believe against all evidence, don't blame the liars for their success.
Whatever you do personally, I never claimed to know, and I don't care. I responded to your post. And you don't explain how you're going to implement your agenda and who is going to do it. So the internet is full of bullshit, so what? What's yer plan, Stan? Are we going to play the Handicapper General?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:35PM (1 child)
Personally, I voted for Jill Stein for president. And how much has that helped us?
You don't fix the system by changing one vote out of millions. The problem isn't how do YOU choose a better candidate; the problem is how do you get OTHERS to do the same? I've literally known people who make their vote based purely on physical appearance. How do we convince THOSE voters to start doing some actual research?
The ads exist because they work. The money gets spent because it works. Just telling one person to try to ignore it isn't going to change a single goddamn thing.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday December 15 2017, @04:43AM
Just telling one person to try to ignore it isn't going to change a single goddamn thing.
I responded to a post. More than one person can read it. And I really hope you're not being as absurd about that as it sounds.
the problem is how do you get OTHERS to do the same?
No, the "problem" is to make them know they are responsible for their choices. Yes, appealing propaganda works, but it's time for humans to transcend the psycho bullshit and think rationally. Otherwise we stagnate at the talking chimp level of our evolution. The *devil didn't make them do it*. There is no gun to anybody's head. The choice to believe is personal. That's what nobody will accept, because it applies to them also. This whole blame game is just so tiresome. I don't expect calling people out on it to go over very well. But that's just too damn bad.
Aside from that, the other more immediate problem is how to protect ourselves from letting the majority drive us off the cliff.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:11PM
If getting caught using disallowed strong encryption is better than getting nailed for the information you are protecting (such as evidence of tax evasion, murder, sexcapades, etc.) then strong encryption will live on.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]