SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the can't-they-find-a-new-excuse-to-steal-my-rights dept.
You have too many rights, so it's time for a little rebalancing:
Internet anonymity should be banned and everyone required to carry the equivalent of a license plate when driving around online. That's according to Erik Barnett, the US Department of Homeland Security's attaché to the European Union.
Writing in French policy magazine FIC Observatoire, Barnett somewhat predictably relies on the existence of child abuse images to explain why everyone in the world should be easily monitored. He tells a story about how a Romanian man offered to share sexually explicit images of his daughter with an American man over email. The unnamed email provider uncovered this exchange and forwarded the IP address of the Romanian to the European authorities and a few days later the man was arrested. Job well done.
Before we have an opportunity to celebrate, however, Barnett jumps straight to terrorism. "How much of the potential jihadists' data should intelligence agencies or law enforcement be able to examine to protect citizenry from terrorist attack?", he poses. The answer, of course, is everything. Then the pitch: "As the use of technology by human beings grows and we look at ethical and philosophical questions surrounding ownership of data and privacy interests, we must start to ask how much of the user's data is fair game for law enforcement to protect children from sexual abuse?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @05:45AM
The only "balance" to be achieved is for the government to follow the constitution completely. If they did this, they would realize that they cannot force encryption backdoors into existence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Monday February 01 2016, @06:19AM
Absolutely right. They cannot force encryption backdoors by law any more than they could keep anyone from cooking up a batch of hooch during prohibition.
Oh, yes, the law abiders would obey.
And anyone using "legal" protocols are basically in public with their pants down.
This will only drive "illegal" communication further underground. My guess is the next big wave of covert communications will be steganographic.
The people who wish to communicate covertly will pay no attention to the wagging of Congressional pens.
All Congress does is enrich the people who are more than happy to profit from the artificial monopolies created by Congress.
I can guarantee you, that while the law abiding citizen may have everything known about him ( especially the marketer's holy grail of knowing exactly how much anything is worth to him ), the people who want to communicate anonymously will continue to do so.
( economics: producer surplus vs. consumer surplus )
Life, as I know it, is a lot like poker. You come to the table. They want something. You want something. If he already knows you will pay $5 for something he paid 25 cents for, his price is $5. However he will sell the same thing to someone else for $1 if he knows the other guy will only pay $1 for it. He gets all the "producer surplus" and the consumer gets zero. Now, if I would have paid $5 for something, but I could get it for $1, then I was the one who got $4 consumer surplus, as it was worth $5 to me and I got it for a buck. This is one of the holy grails of market research... just how much will any given individual pay for something? And that's what you ask of that individual.
Having business know everything about me is almost like playing poker with transparent cards.
This law is just about as enforceable as a law about peeing in the pool or farting in the theater.
All it will do is foment less respect for all law... with all this IP stuff out there right now, I am already seeing respect for law and internal ethics taking one helluva hit.
The rich man takes what the little guy has... eminent domain ... the little guy takes what the rich man has ... theft! But it was the very same act!
How many other things are "criminal" for one guy to do, but perfectly legal for another entity to do?
The first three words of a famous pledge go "I pledge allegiance", and the last three words: "justice for all."
Just as I expect the laws of physics to be no respecter of persons, to me, "justice for all" means the other laws I am expected to comply with are also no respecter of persons.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:17AM
I disagree. Politely. The next wave will be massive data and metadata generation alongside Posion The Well.
I see a future where every user has multiple online identities, multiple simultanious proxies, etc etc so much so no one will be able to see anything in the muddy datastreams clearly enough to know for sure what anyone is doing without throwing significant resources at it. Multiplied by billions of people randomly bouncing connections off each other and punching through semistatic bridges and through local networks and they will have a hard time finding anything.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 01 2016, @05:28PM
I see a future where every user has multiple online identities, multiple simultaneous proxies, etc etc so much so no one will be able to see anything in the muddy data streams clearly enough to know for sure what anyone is doing without throwing significant resources at it. Multiplied by billions of people randomly bouncing connections off each other and punching through semi-static bridges and through local networks and they will have a hard time finding anything.
But they WILL throw significant resources at it. You make the mistake of thinking it actually is about keeping us safe and/or keeping us in line. It is not. It is about profit, and there are those that will profit greatly from the spending required to perform this surveillance, effective or not.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:53AM
> The only "balance" to be achieved is for the government to follow the constitution completely.
You sound like a biblical literalist. Seriously. If it were that simple, this wouldn't be up for debate. Unfortunately the constitution, like all documents created by man, has plenty off ambiguity in it. Just like the bible, a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction. That's why we have a judicial branch of government.
But that requires hard work and thoughtful judgment. So much easier to ignorantly stamp your foot and 'demand' that people follow an impossible standard. In the meantime the practical result is that by demanding the impossible you end up enabling the very people you say you oppose. But at least you can feel good and righteous, because that's what really matters to people like you.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Monday February 01 2016, @06:26PM
a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction
Could you provide some examples?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @07:21PM
You sound like a biblical literalist.
No, I just want a government that actually respects the fact that we're supposed to be a constitutional form of government. I want a government that does not have unlimited power.
Unfortunately the constitution, like all documents created by man, has plenty off ambiguity in it.
So what? Err on the side of individual liberties.
Just like the bible
I don't see what a book of fairy tales has to do with the constitution. The bible has contradictions no matter what you do, unless you deliberately ignore its contents.
a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction.
Such as?
That's why we have a judicial branch of government.
And the judicial branch of the government often fails when it comes to getting the government to follow the constitution.
But that requires hard work and thoughtful judgment. So much easier to ignorantly stamp your foot and 'demand' that people follow an impossible standard.
You shouldn't try so hard to play the part of some imaginary 'Reasonable Man Who Knows The Truth'; some fantasies only cause you to ignore reality.
In the meantime the practical result is that by demanding the impossible you end up enabling the very people you say you oppose.
Where's your evidence that I specifically have enabled the very people I say I oppose?
But at least you can feel good and righteous, because that's what really matters to people like you.
Do you feel good and righteous trying to play the part of a 'Reasonable Man'? That's what really matters to people like you.
See how easy it is to be a pretend mind reader? Sure, my conclusions are probably completely incorrect like when a theist says that atheists really believe in god in their hearts, but who cares about that?