SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.
While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts.
And while this will likely weaken secure data storage and communications – by introducing backdoors that hackers and spies, as well as the cops and FBI, can potentially leverage to snoop on folks – it will be a price worth paying. And, after all, what do you really need that encryption for? Your email and selfies?
"We are not talking about protecting the nation's nuclear launch codes," Barr told the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University. "Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. There have been enough dogmatic pronouncements that lawful access simply cannot be done. It can be, and it must be."
Related: DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
FBI Director Calls Encryption a "Major Public Safety Issue"
FBI Director: Without Compromise on Encryption, Legislation May be the 'Remedy'
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Problem "Infects" Law Enforcement and Intelligence Community
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:16PM (46 children)
> "Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations ..."
Let's pretend for a minute that I buy the bullshit this idiot is spouting. I still have some questions. Never mind the technical details. He clearly is incapable of grasping those concepts (or is unwilling to). Right now, today, I have Windows 10 at home and a personal iPhone. At work I have a Windows 10 laptop and a corporate issued iPhone. Without getting technical it is pretty safe to assume that both computers use the same encryption tools and while the iPhones might use different encryption tools than the Windows computers, surely Apple doesn't have "corporate" and "personal" encryption tools depending on whether a company or a person buys an iPhone?
Is he expecting that Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Google are all going to make separate "corporate" and "personal" products that use completely different technology? But, then, maybe he is.
So, then what is going to prevent me from buying the "corporate" version of a product? I mean sure I might have to pay an extra $200 for the "professional" version of Windows 10 right now but that's completely within the budget of most middle class Americans. And it is certainly within the budget of organized crime. Or is this about persecuting poor people, not stopping serious crimes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:19PM (2 children)
The workaround will be to pay the $x per year ($200? $400) to register as a business so a 'business phone' which will just be exactly the same phone with some features enabled can be used. Expect a multitude of people creating small businesses with their friends and family all getting onboard this way.
First step is look for obvious loopholes.
Here in Australia our own minister stated on the record that people should use a VPN. Go us!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:21PM (1 child)
> Here in Australia our own minister stated on the record that people should use a VPN. Go us!
So ... the same people (Australian government) that are trying to put up an Australian firewall are also advocating the tool to bypass those same controls? And I though our government was a mess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:38PM
Malcolm Turnbull, the Communication Minister of Australia, suggested quite a few back doors to avoid metadata retention. [hide.me]
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/minister-for-encryption-metadata-avoidance-app-wickr-shoots-to-top-of-charts-after-malcolm-turnbull-revealed-as-a-fan-20150303-13tgxy.html [smh.com.au]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/that-time-when-probably-malcolm-turnbull-showed-maybe-australian-police-what-a-vpn-was/ [gizmodo.com.au]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:23PM (4 children)
Watch any congressional session, no one knows what they are talking about at all. The entire federal government is a huge waste of money.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:48PM
soylentnews: where basic common sense is modded "troll"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:22PM (2 children)
Huge waste of money: yes.
Still necessary: unfortunately.
Once upon a time, in a land far away, Unix started out like the US government. A few essential services.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @08:41PM (1 child)
Well, if you can ask whether Guam is going to capsize if a 10k troop military base is built on it and still get reelected to congress multiple times afterwards I think things have gone far beyond "a few essential services".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:44PM
You can't have light without the dark, you can't have smart without stupid.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:23PM (33 children)
Yes...yes, it is.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:46PM (32 children)
Being poor is a crime!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:48PM (30 children)
Existing is a crime. Rich people just have better lawyers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:46PM (29 children)
We need a 'Fucking Brilliant' mod.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:09PM (22 children)
When is it politically correct to suggest that perhaps the existing white house administration should be voted out?
This site is sort of conservative and seems to get offended if tribal loyalty is threatened in some way.
Complaining in blogs won't stop whats happening.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:44PM (17 children)
Always. (And no, that's not a dig against Trump. I haven't been happy with a single White House administration in my lifetime.)
Meh. There are quite a few posters here who lean liberal too. Lots of libertarian (which doesn't always mesh with "conservative" on all issues). I'll admit that there are lot of prominent voices here that get defensive about conservative politicians. (Note that I don't identify with either "side" here -- I think it's an oversimplification that does more harm than good, and I don't think either "side" tends to typically have a consistent ideology anyway.)
Well, you're right about that. But I'm not sure the problem is only with our "existing white house administration." The Clinton and Obama administrations sought to regulate encryption and find ways to have backdoors just as Bush and Trump have. It's basically been an issue ever since personal encrypted devices/software became common. Granted, Obama pretended to play "Good cop" [sophos.com] on the issue, but behind the scenes his administration was working hard to negotiate some sort of backdoor to encryption too with tech companies.
I don't think "voting out" the White House will do anything unless it's to put in someone truly knowledgeable about technology who also promises to protect these sort of rights. I doubt any such candidate could succeed these days, as the other side will simply argue that someone who doesn't want to break encryption will "let the terrorists* win."
(*NOTE: Replace with evildoer of choice -- child porn distributors, human traffickers, corporate execs who want to get away with criminal activity, Russian hackers, etc., etc.)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:25PM (8 children)
IIRC, it was Clinton when encryption first became classified as a munition.
A chicken move in order to apply desired restrictions that could not otherwise be applied.
So if I were to carry a printed textbook, such as Applied Cryptography, across the border, does that qualify as munitions export? Would they be willing to pull the trigger on that can of worms?
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)
Are we supposed to take you seriously after you used caps to yell "applied cryptography"? lolz
jkjk
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @01:23PM
I believe it is proper to capitalize the title of a book, movie, music, or other work.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:18PM (4 children)
I don't know where people keep getting this from. You're the second person to claim this here. As I pointed out in an earlier post further down this thread, it was under Clinton (later in his second term) that much of common encryption technology was reclassified as no longer under the Munitions List but rather now the province of the Commerce Department.
I don't really have time to research this, but it was my understanding that encryption technology was basically classified as "munitions" since WWII. It's harder to pull up documents from pre-1992 on the internet, but a quick search pulled up this in one of my first search hits [nist.gov], a document from a conference on data encryption from 1977. Page 120 in a Q-and-A clearly states that such tech at the time would be assumed to be regulated by the Munitions List, specifically:
I know that it was concern over growing computerized encryption tech in the 1970s that caused the government to get more interested again, as more licenses had to be granted now for common business use than was possible with previous levels of tech before then. Maybe the 1970s led to the specifically being on the "Munitions List" -- I don't know. But export of such technology had certainly been strictly regulated by the U.S. government since WWII.
Perhaps people remember Clinton because there were some revisions earlier in his term to this stuff, combined with the fact that suddenly use of encryption in personal computers became so common as to make these regulations ridiculous, leading to more public interest and backlash from the tech community. But it certainly wasn't Clinton who came up with this classification.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @01:24PM (2 children)
Thank you.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 26 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
No prob. (I like researching things to verify them -- it's a way I try to keep myself honest. If I'd have found something counter to my belief, I would have shared it with you too...)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @08:10PM
I think I'm conflating a number of facts.
I seem to recall that under Clinton the Clipper Chip was going to be a big fight. But it never seemed to happen. Basically government mandated cryptography with secret sauce baked into hardware.
That is probably why I connect Clinton's administration with the encryption as munitions nonsense.
I now suddenly realize 1992 was a long time ago.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:46PM
Because "CLINTON!"
I would not have believed you 10 years ago if you told me he conservatives would bring up Clinton and Obama for every tiny thing that goes wrong, no matter how crazy.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:19PM
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:48PM (6 children)
I may well be that the problem is not "liberals" or "conservatives" but the rich v everyone else.
Unfortunately you guys have a system run by and for the rich. The solution is to buy your own damn government.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:20PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 25 2019, @11:20PM (4 children)
That is not entirely true.
Where I live at least the government is not for sale in quite the way it is in America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @11:47PM (3 children)
Where, pray tell, do you live that is so special?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @01:30AM
The Shire.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 26 2019, @01:47AM (1 child)
Where I live is not that special, it is just that most Western democracies don't have the level of corruption that the US has.
We also tend to have more political parties, so they help to keep each other in check.
You guys should try it, it's not perfect but it's better than what you have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:24AM
They enjoy being miserable and abhor revolution. They're redcoats.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday July 26 2019, @09:29PM
The problem is we only rarely "vote out", not from the level of president down to the lowest local official. We should be giving officials one term on probation, and if they clamber on board with bad ideas toss them out and try the next one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:58PM (3 children)
Why stop at the White House? Fire all of Congress, too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 26 2019, @10:29AM (2 children)
With real fire.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:49PM (1 child)
Today my hope that TMB gets a fancy white coat with extra long sleeves edged that much closer to reality.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 27 2019, @02:11AM
You really don't interact with actual people very much, do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:26PM (5 children)
There's been (apparently false) quote attributed to Hitler, something to the effect of: it is most convenient to run a country in which everyone is breaking the law.
In my younger days, I felt the roads were run like this. Virtually everybody breaks the speed limit, so even if you're not breaking the speed limit, it's your word against the cop's and he can definitely pretense his way into stopping you because you were driving too fast, or too slow, or erratically, or whatever. Having stopped you, he can now look inside your car and find probable cause for a deeper search in which he can "find" all manner of things that he could plant there. And, how, exactly, would anybody stop this sequence of events?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:55PM (4 children)
while not perfect, it is heartening how many cops have been caught planting evidence on body cams. Perhaps the control needs to be taken away from the cop and automatically activate every time they step out of the patrol car?
I do find it amusing however that someone who KNOWS they are wearing a camera would still commit the crime.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:13PM (2 children)
I'm all for transparency and while I like the concept of privacy, I think it's largely an illusion that will need redefinition in the coming age...
All public servants, especially cops, also military, and definitely politicians, should be 100% video recorded in high quality and archived for public access any time they are performing public service, exceptions for national security, yadda, yadda.
In ANY situation where a publicly recorded servant is not recording, the courts should degrade their sworn statements in preference of any who proffer conflicting testimony. Recordings to be provided in full, otherwise the assumption is that the redacted segments also are as damaging to the state's case as conceivably possible, etc.
Good luck getting this rolled out, but (assuming civilization doesn't fall in the meantime) it will get out eventually, and I think the world will be a much better place for it.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:50PM (1 child)
Far simpler to expand to cameras on the full population. That way any non govt criminals can be found out too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 26 2019, @11:04AM
Cameras are already focused on the population - what needs to be ensured is that they are deliberately focused ON public servants, not away from them. Otherwise, in my opinion, these "public servants" are having the public serve them, instead of them serving the public.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday July 27 2019, @07:45AM
It's amusing because the cops get away scot free. Why would they care about being caught committing a crime on camera? Who's going to sue them? You? Haha.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by fliptop on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:11PM
"In a society that worships wealth, the poor are guilty of being poor." - Michael Savage
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
Well, this has little to do with "serious crimes" and a lot to do with government power and spying potential. I thought that would be obvious to anyone paying attention.
But you make an interesting point about the "large business enterprises" that apparently may still be allowed to have encryption "to protect their operations." Huh. I suspect in this case it's the result of something similar to what is often said about Facebook, etc. here. You are not the "customer" of Facebook; the people running the ads are. Therefore, don't expect Facebook (and similar media companies) to conform to your expectations about service or privacy or whatever -- you're not paying for the service; the ad companies are.
In a similar fashion, elected officials of the U.S. government don't view you as their "customer." (And yes, I know the Attorney General is not elected, but he is appointed by someone who is and approved of by a bunch of people who are.) Sure, if you write a letter to your Congressman about some issue, you might get a letter back. If it's some weird personal miscarriage of justice, they might help you just to take the credit. But most government officials win elections by using money from big donors. They are courted by lobbyists and promised big salaries in similar industries after they end their "public service."
Bottom line is that you as an individual taxpayer have about as much power with the government as you do influencing the policies of Facebook or Google. Yes, theoretically you have a vote. But just as Facebook knows most people "go with the crowd," so your protest of just quitting Facebook or using another service will be ineffective, so most voters "go with the crowd" (particularly with lobbying efforts), so your protest of voting for someone else is about as effective.
I don't mean to make things sound so dire, but they pretty much are. We chant the words of "greatest democracy," but the U.S. is governed mostly through the influence of corporations and the wealthy. Those apparently will be granted exemptions by this to use encryption "to protect their operations..." The poor never had a chance for that in our system.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mer on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:12PM
Ah yes. Let's gaslight the citizens into thinking it's immature to think their private business is worth anything near corporate business.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:40PM (1 child)
The level of encryption your company is allowed to use will be directly proportional to the amount of political contributions your company makes. The more you contribute the less the government wants anybody else to find out.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:50PM
woah! that's deep. "0_o
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:24PM (1 child)
Nice and accurate dept there, chromeass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:24PM (2 children)
I demand Backdoored Encryption too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:27PM (1 child)
You can call here whatever you like. Kissing is extra. Naming her isn't. For the hour anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:33PM
s/here/her/g
$#%%#$ autocorrekt
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:56PM (5 children)
Now I can demand his resignation for being stupid as well as disrespecting liberty. I doubt that has a chance of succeeding, but I can dream.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:52PM
I demand that somebody punch this twat (William Barr) in the face
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:19PM (3 children)
To be fair, this has been the standard line of like the last 12 attorneys general.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:15PM (2 children)
True, but the standard line before has also been to respect when industry Yodaizes, "Encrypt. Or encrypt not. There is no 'partial'." Complaining about it is one thing, and I understand the challenge this makes. Demanding change like a three year old is something new.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:56PM
Well, it's new in this particular venue of politics, it's not exactly new for the administration at large.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:29PM
This particular administration seems to specialize in three year old tantrums, and I'll hold the country's breath until I get my weigh.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:08PM
and there is no any kind of smell, radiation, or any trace or hint that some data somewhere is encrypted with no backdoor. We are talking math, knowledge. It is accessible to virtually anyone. And this ruining it for everyone is not going to make any difference in the end. Even if criminals and other no-gooders would be left without secrecy in their computer operations, they are completely capable of planning their schemes traditional way and storing important details in their own heads. Informatics and "total situational awareness" are overrated BS on individual and small group levels. Finally, this will push everyone towards steganography, and then this same school of thought of big brains like this geezer will erupt with paranoia on the McCarthyism scale, and *that* will just push everyone over the red lines and there will be a huge political blowback soon enough. But do we have to repeat these cycles of poking fingers into eyes of public every few decades or so?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:37PM (1 child)
What about the human right to privacy, or doesn't that exist?
And if he's just concerned about petty things like he says, why make such a fuss about it?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:08PM
I think it is misguided to take anything a stooge like Barr says. He has no credibility. He is carrying a message, announcing to everyone in the united states the new Total Information Awareness policy of no personal computers, it must all be a cloud and connected.
They are trying to end the personal computer but no one besides me is just going to come out and explain it for you, everything they are doing is through doublethink and changing language itself, classic totalitarian tactics. Once you know you are dealing with a totalitarian you need to really stop trying to argue with them, it's not a political party anymore, it's a cult.
Barr is not intelligent enough to understand what he is talking about anymore than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, oir Troompaloompa is.
They are hydra like faces of a system, we can only derive it's true nature, the system will not come out and give us an instruction manual to it because this part of the system is oppositional to us as are all systems of tyranny.
It's not unitary, there are lots of actual federal judges and representatives who are fighting against the system that bar represents, but they just control the 3 channels everyone still relies on, and that defines an overton window where clear impositions of a totalitarian agenda are treated as reasonable ideas.
Without encryption there is no privacy. Without no privacy there is no constitutional right to privacy being enforced. With no constituational right to privacy being enforced, Barr is not the attorney general, he is a traitor as are anyone who defends him.
But as Noam Chomsky has noted, we would be in actually OK shape if the laws and enforcement tactics were applied equally on the president and his stooges as they are on Chelsea Manning and Barrett Brown and Jeremy Hammond.
The real reason to oppose this is if you put back doors into everything, that itself is a huge engineering project, and what are you then going to use to protect your database of 256 bit master key to all microsoft products? Which employee is going to turn down the 1 billion dollar bribe for handing that puppy over? Which government agency is going to defend it from artificial intelligence on the network?
I mean, this is essentially what IME is, what any processor made in especially Israel or China represents. I'm american I want to think AMD isn't a NSA operation but I just don't quite have the patriotism at the moment. It would also be one thing if they were like 'and here is your apple computer, now with government backdoor 8.0, only $3000!' ? Like who would buy that shiz? They are gaslighting us too, they want us to live in a world where it may or may not be, we may or may not be important enough to watch, etc etc etc.
Which is to say it is a dark pattern, an actual attempt to break down your consciousness and brainwash you into compliance.
If we are in a panopticon and on display all of the time, we should be paid to have the computer, because we are actually performing for them and helping them do their jobs of protecting us. No one spying on me is protecting me. Like someone said on Schneier recently, all of these tools will be misused, spread around, lost, and the people affected by these things will have no way to know, no legal recourse, no rights.
Which is, if I had to boil it down what Mr. Barr is announcing, it is that no Americans have any rights. Which is to say the first way you can know that someone thinks you are their subordinate, inferior and slave is if they do not allow you to send private messages, i.e. making your encryption a crime.
But hey, I am using a nordvpn and steam and protonmail on intel with systemd at the moment, all services that are more than 50% likelihood simply different branches of some government anyway.
But is it a government, or is it a cult? I'm starting to think it's a cult, but I know for sure it's not friendly, doesn't care about anyone's rights despite many oaths to the contrary, and uses all manner of stasi scientologist zersetzung tricks to secretly attack those with whom they would rather not argue.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:39PM (2 children)
WHY?
Terrorists? Ohhhkay. But it always boils down to controlling thought and communications.
Sure, today it is terrorists that really shoot people up, and that is bad. But tomorrow it may be any idea that the government doesn't like. The sad thing is, they probably will get their way, at least some aspects of it.
The other day I was watching some new crap sci-fi TV show that supposedly takes place hundreds of years in the future. A lot of the action involved people sneaking around, breaking in to things, keeping secrets - the sort of thing that is common in older TV shows. But a lot of what was going on would be very difficult or even impossible today, due to the amount of surveillances, and tracking.
In the real future, you won't be able to raise a finger without it registering in dozens of different systems, where that action is analyzed, aggregated, monetized, scanned for possible government, social, and corporate imposed "undesirable actions", with either an immediate or long term response deployed.
Today, businesses are already getting their share with consumertards happily handing over private data for analysis. What is going to stop government from getting their share eventually?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:33PM
No. Mass data aggregation for financial gain (just think of the trades you could make if you had better data on who is shopping than anybody else), and dirt on political rivals.
Real terrorist threats and state level actors will use something they can audit, something worth the hassle. One-time pads and ham radio. Boom! Terrorists win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:58PM
i'm not saying i wouldn't kill them, but there's no such thing as terrorists. only fighters with less resources and therefore different tactics. never mind that those resources and tactics are many times shaped by the tightening noose around their neck held by their adversary.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fnord666 on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:52PM (18 children)
What part of the 4th Amendment does this idiot not understand? Either that or he does understand it and is deliberately trying to subvert it.
If it is the latter case, then he is in violation of 5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office, an oath he took when he took office.
He should be removed from office immediately.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:11PM (7 children)
I assume the argument all these jerks make is that "papers and effects" somehow doesn't cover communications and personal data in the 21st Century.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:38PM
Let's all get together and send Barr a case or two of this.....as the first of many, many targets.
https://constitutiontp.com/ [constitutiontp.com]
Too bad their kickstarter failed.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:55PM (5 children)
Yeah. Somehow electronic communications devices aren't covered by the 4th, yet somehow an M134 minigun capable of firing 2000-6000 rounds per minute, is covered by the second.
But what do you expect? The US govt has blatantly ignored the Constitution since Eisenhower ignored the 1st with his directive to add space-fairy references to the pledge of allegiance and their currency.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:55PM (2 children)
You obviously aren't actually familiar with federal firearms laws, as any new automatic weapon is flat-out illegal to own. Now, theoretically the M134 was made early enough that a few years production is technically viable, but I can't think of anyone who'd actually be able to get through the certification process to buy one of the things.
Well, maybe Feinstein.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:16PM
The M134 originated in 1963. I wouldn't call 23 years worth of production "a few". And while the background process is indeed a bitch, one can and does see M134's listed occasionally with six figure prices. And there were plenty of full automatic weapons made prior to 1986. Not that I agree with the arbitrary line in the sand.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday July 26 2019, @12:32AM
A class III license is very difficult, but not impossible to obtain. Jesse James, the motorcycle builder turned gunsmith even builds them legally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl-MrDw8ahg [youtube.com]
1:52 for machine gun.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:37PM (1 child)
It's more like trying to argue that speech on the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment. It's just absurd on its face.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 26 2019, @02:57PM
Well if "on a computer" is enough to make a patent unique, than "on the Internet" must mean it's not speech /s
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:24PM
I vote for "deliberately subvert", by the usual technique of claiming that "with a computer" makes everything TOTALLY different. Your online calendar is not a paper calendar, so it's not "papers" in which you have a right to be "secure". The entire current administration should be removed for the same reason, plus "conduct unbecoming an officer" in about half of the cases.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:30PM (3 children)
There's no need to wave around the constitution for this one. Congress and big business won't let government have this much power since it will be used against them.
More importantly, Barr knows this so I'm guessing making this statement must be him establishing plausible deniability for some on-going or future financial fraud / tax evasion investigation into why he didn't follow up on some accusations against whomever friend of his.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:43PM (2 children)
I disagree, they will just add a subsection or a 'legal opinion' that it can't be used against sitting or former members of congress, their children, associates etc.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday July 25 2019, @08:05PM (1 child)
Look here now, just about the only borderline lesser-evil remaining in the corrupt fascist pay-for-justice United States of America is the fact it's still being run by merchants and industrialists and their interests tend to occasionally align with the people's interests. So, you can bet your ass each and every one of those rich scams will be threatening their -as in, on their payroll- congressman that they'll pull back funding if they even humor such laws.
In fact, if he was serious and will actually push for this, Barr's statement was probably enough to sign his political death warrant.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:33PM
Oh, I absolutely HOPE you're correct.
Just in 60 years, hope has evaporated from my psyche almost completely.
Thanks for blowing ever so slightly on the embers of hope that they may persist for at least a bit longer. (:
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:20PM (4 children)
So the most obvious retort to this is that what if a warrant is issued and it is perfectly fine and legal that the hard drive or iPhone is seized. What then?
Maybe what he's asking for is that there be a method when the due process is adequately satisfied that a device is accessible.
This is still a stupid and dumb idea because it opens up the possibility of having that system compromised like the TSA travel lock scheme, or also used unlawfully or unconstitutionally. I'm not advocating for the idea and saying it is possible. Just that protesting it on 4th Amendment grounds isn't equal to saying that security of persons etc. is unlimited and never can be broached by due process. It's the wrong argument.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:40PM (3 children)
That's not in the Constitution, though. Nowhere does it mandate that the government's job must be simple and easy, and that people have a duty to make sure that that is so. The fourth amendment only gives the government the power to try to seize what they need when the proper warrants have been issued; it does not impose a duty on citizens that they must make it easy for the government to actually succeed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:57PM
In a free society, the job of the police is to make the lives of the citizens easier.
In an authoritarian society, the job of the citizens is to make the lives of the police easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:30PM (1 child)
No, but even an outright ban on using encryption (like that could work) does not subvert the 4th Amendment. The fourth says the government cannot search or seize your possessions without a warrant specifying a probable cause for it. (For which there are recognized exceptions, like the vast majority of the constitutional amendments since rights are never absolute). But it says not one damn thing about the government guaranteeing you that you have a right that your possessions can be made to not be searchable nor that they can't be seized. To the contrary, the law could well be constructed that your possessions must be searchable and the 4th would not have a damn thing to say about it, other than whether or not a warrant was used when a government search was executed. (Or any of the numerous exceptions the Supreme Court has defined for that). That's what Barr is threatening and I believe that is a serious threat that would withstand constitutional scrutiny in a court - the only standard that matters. Thus, as I said, the 4th is a thin reed to rely upon in this case.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday July 26 2019, @06:03AM
Nice strawman. The government doesn't have to guarantee you that right. Your electronic documents can be encrypted beyond their ability to decrypt with or without a government guarantee.
Now that's an interesting interpretation and a more relevant point. I could see it being argued that way given the courts ability to demand the production of documents. It certainly wouldn't be more of a stretch than some of the things they have done under the commerce clause.
Many countries already have laws saying you must decrypt on demand. I don't know of any cases yet in AU of people jailed for refusing, but I'm fairly sure the UK has had some under their RIPA.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:16PM (1 child)
Backdoor encryption sounds like porn of the future. Instead of a pizza delivery boy it's now the IT guy delivering backdoored encryption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:33PM
Why the future? Add a Vol1 on the end to make it an easy win for anal porn involving an IT girl
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tokolosh on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:29PM (9 children)
The USA (Hi, Bill Clinton) attempted to prevent the export of cryptography know-how on the basis that it was "arms". So, I assert my right to bear arms. You can pry my public keys from my cold, dead brains.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:13PM (6 children)
Indeed. I assume many here may be familiar with it, but if not, take some time to read "My life as an international arms courier" [epic.org] written in 1995 by someone who attempted to "follow the law" when traveling internationally by getting a license for his encrypted devices.
If the government can treat encrypted devices as "arms," why can't we make a 2nd Amendment argument against them?
(Note that I haven't looked into relevant law, and I suspect this is just a joke that we can laugh about. But the funny thing is these sorts of technicalities are sometimes what ends up overturning a court ruling... Also, the invocation of Bill Clinton isn't necessarily apt here, as he inherited Cold War era restrictions and actually eased them [wikipedia.org] by reclassifying encrypted devices from military "munitions" to regulation by the Commerce Department, though still with far too cumbersome restrictions.)
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:24PM (5 children)
Dangerous turf, because it is already upheld as legal that some types of arms and accoutrement (automatic firearms, SBRs, suppressors) may be restricted by requiring tax stamps and approval, and local jurisdictions may enable further regulation. If anything, that supports Barr's argument that the government has a legitimate interest in restriction - can see it now that you have to pay a tax for encryption and part of getting whatever it is approved is to have a backdoor in it.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:30PM (1 child)
All true... though as I said, it was mostly a joke.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:45PM
Yeah, I guess my humor module is burnt out when it comes to anybody in the current administration. Should try to cultivate it more to give the crying some sharp relief.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:07PM (2 children)
i know they require tax stamps for some things, but what court cases are you referring to?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:01PM
Primarily United States v. Miller [wikipedia.org] held that the National Firearms Act, which imposes a transfer tax as well as registration requirements for the devices above plus others, was not a violation of the Second Amendment.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:03PM
And an example of the tax stamp can be seen here [wikipedia.org].
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:13PM
Careful! I wouldn't be at all surprised if Barr would happily take you up on that proposition.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:40PM
Obligatory xkcd https://www.xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Touché) by stretch611 on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:19PM
...is President Trump.
Trump and Jared Kushner need to stop using apps like Telegram to communicate with people like Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and probably Putin as well.
While I agree with the prior poster about securing your papers and property with encryption being a constitutional bill of rights issue, that does not apply to official communications of public officials and freedom of information requests that will never be possible in the future.
Clean up your own shit before even trying to tell law abiding citizens what to do.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 4, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:36PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:47PM
One that can unite all of SN! No partisan bickering here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:11PM
any employee paid with tax dollars who even suggests forcing backdoors in everyone's encryption should be arrested for sedition. If they took any action to make it happen they should be found guilty and executed in a live stream.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:16PM (1 child)
No defense for your favorite administration's latest fascist move?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:19AM
You'd have more of a point if Bareback's administration didn't dream up the exact same thing.