SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the nothing-to-hide-vs-none-of-your-business dept.
The New York Times published an interesting story about the fears of the current FBI director:
The director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, said Thursday that federal laws should be changed to require telecommunications companies to give law enforcement agencies access to the encrypted communications of individuals suspected of crimes.
... Mr. Comey warned that crimes could go unsolved if law enforcement officers cannot gain access to information that technology companies like Apple and Google are protecting using increasingly sophisticated encryption technology.
“Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,” he said.
Mr. Comey said that he was hoping to spur Congress to update the 20-year-old Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which does not require companies to give law enforcement direct access to individuals’ communications.
The F.B.I. has long had concerns about devices “going dark” — when technology becomes so sophisticated that the authorities cannot gain access to them. But now, Mr. Comey is warning that the new encryption technology has evolved to the point that it could adversely affect crime solving.
The kicker is this line:
“Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism, even with lawful authority."
Of course, it should be no surprise to the FBI why so many people are going "dark" and using things like Tails. For decades, the government has proven time and again that it can't be trusted to act lawfully and constitutionally. The FBI is responsible for more than its share of that. So naturally those who can are going to take steps to protect their privacy and Apple and Google, among others, are simply responding to that demand.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Friday October 17 2014, @11:56AM
From Director Comey:
"We are not seeking to expand our authority to intercept communications." "We are struggling to keep up with changing technology and to maintain our ability to actually collect the communications we are authorized to collect."
"Have we become so mistrustful of government and law enforcement in particular that we’re willing to let bad guys walk away?"
Wow ... I guess he doesn't understand that their interpretation of their current authority is what worries Americans, and that some of the biggest "bad guys" are in the government itself. Let's not forget that the FBI and Justice Department have truckloads of information about the banking industry and all the crimes they committed but the individuals responsible will never be charged, arrested or prosecuted.
You've already got more than enough criminals to go after with your current "authority". Why aren't you going after them?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jackb_guppy on Friday October 17 2014, @12:14PM
Further U.S. legal system is about letting the Innocent to go free, even if it means someone who is guilty goes free too.
U.S. legal system is not binary - Guilty / Innocent, but tri-state. Guiltiy / Innocent / None of your damn business (example: cannot be a witness against yourself).
Mr Comey seams to believe in "If you are Innocent, you have nothing to hide".
We all have something to hide. Cutting class to watch "Star Wars" on opening day. Driving too fast late at night, on a long bridge, with NO traffic. Those are minor infractions, but still we all have something to hide.
So think of the children! Protect their future and just say "NO", to Mr Comey.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday October 17 2014, @12:31PM
You don't even have to go to any gray topics. I hide myself every evening from my neighbors view by closing the curtains, I don't want to be seen on the toilet/in the shower/in the bedroom. Even in online world, if I were curious about socially not fully acceptable, yet entirely legal topics, I might want to hide myself. Getting informed about HIV? Getting informed about divorce-laws? I wouldn't want even my wife to know about such online activities, even if it is only for a friend or colleague I'm looking for info.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Insightful) by http on Friday October 17 2014, @03:16PM
Or for yourself, to maintain your ability to participate in an informed discussion. God forbid people have informed discussions.
Wait, does that mean Comey thinks he's GOD?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @04:58PM
That is interesting because around here there are a few very prolific contributors who look down their noses on any Anonymous posts, feeling that their comments are worthless and not even worth their time to read. One guy's sig talks about how wonderful it is to keep the browse threshold at "1". Another sig talks about how they won't even read, much less respond to an AC post. And I've seen comments from others who say they never up-mod an AC post, no matter how worthy it is. Sort of the "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" of the on-line world. Personally, I feel they not only not add value to this site, they in fact (especially the last example mentioned) remove value from this site.
Yet, these same people will rattle on about the police state and the oligarchy and all that other stuff if they are told that they should have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide on their cell phones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:12PM
They say stuff because the want to be heard, not necessarily because they believe a pov has merit.
(Score: 1) by http on Saturday October 18 2014, @04:46AM
There's a really one simple trick that decent moderaters use: when you have mod points, read at -1. This is a long-standing slashcode tradition that lets AC comments worth reading get modded up.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:41AM
Oh fuck you AC scum! It takes less than 3 minutes and you can input anything you like when you make an account, so don't feed us this horseshit about how limiting your ability to troll infringes on your "freedum" because IT IS BULLSHIT.
Put yourself down as the first black member of the Swedish bikini team if that gets you off, the point is NOT to ID you, which frankly NO system short of demanding photo IDs will ever have, the point is allowing others to see a history of your comments so that those of us that aren't admins can see when you are a shill or a troll! But of course this just shows what hypocrites trolls are, as they don't want ME to have the freedom to avoid their feces flinging, and dare to compare MY FREEDOM to avoid their rotting garbage to "show us your papers".
Go fuck yourself AC troll, anybody who wants to see what unfettered ACs gives you is welcome to go to slash on any article about operating systems or Apple products and see what a worthless shit flinging flamefest they are.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday October 18 2014, @10:05PM
I know that one of the reasons I don't respond to AC's is because when I post AC I never have any knowledge of a response to it. Likewise, I don't know if the responder is the original person or not.You can get an account here and still be an AC in all the ways you want. This is the only site that has working TOR capabilities too, as far as my browsing is concerned.
As for the other character assassinations, well they do sound pretty stupid, and as you said, they were quite few in nature. All in all, there is quite a bit more signal than noise on this site.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @02:31PM
Further U.S. legal system is about letting the Innocent to go free, even if it means someone who is guilty goes free too.
Don't they make government officials still take an oath of office or something? It seems like every faction in government these days has at least one fundamental aspect of the Constitution that they want to jettison.
(or is the Bill of Rights not technically considered part of the Constitution...you know what I mean)
"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, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Friday October 17 2014, @02:56PM
It's long been my contention that choosing between voting Democrat or Republican boils down to choosing which rights you're more willing to part with.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 17 2014, @07:04PM
Too bad there aren't any other options.... [wikipedia.org]
I cannot vote for somebody who is going to spy on me. I just can't do it. Not even if the other guy is going to spy on me more.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday October 19 2014, @05:36PM
Would you rather be hanged with a red rope or a blue rope?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:02PM
yes, and that oath has the force of law under it. Title 5 USC Section 7311, with punishment listed under Title 18 USC Section 1918. i have these memorized because its important to point out that these assholes aren't just authoritarian assholes, they're criminals under federal law. people must be informed that they are federal criminals, especially the "tough on crime" pricks who, who would have guess it, ignore these particular crimes and actively support the thugs committing them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:13PM
i know that there are authoritarians on the left, but its often the Second that its often thought that the Democrats are fundamentally against. i assure you, this is not the case; as its worded now, the Second Amendment states that firearms are for the purpose of the militia.
the Second Amendment must be amended to remove these words! it must be amended to simply state "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." anyone who's fine with somebody else "interpreting" the amendments to suit their agenda, especially if that 'interpretation' is counter to what it actually says, is fine with having their constitutional rights stripped away, because thats whats happened pretty thoroughly with a lot of the Bill of Rights at this point, what with "free speech zones" and other similar bullshit.
its time we take back our power over government. we start with amending the second to say, specifically, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and then continue from there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @06:44PM
To get all English Nazi up in this amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
does not in fact say that only the militia can bear arms. Either the former is an independent clause, in which case both must be able to stand alone; or it's a dependent clause, in which case the latter still must be able to stand alone.
[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first merely illustrates the reasoning behind the second. I'd be interested to see the argument where one interprets the sentence as "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms." Such a change doesn't seem justifiable to me from what was clearly written.
"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 tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:48PM
the fact that there's disagreement over what it states proves that it needs to be amended. the only reason i can think of for not wanting to push to amend it is fear of the people voting counter to your interpretation.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @07:29PM
Okay, I suppose I'd agree with that. Although of course "the people" don't really vote on such things.* They elect representatives who then largely ignore the will of the people in certain areas, of which I suspect this is one :P
*National conventions [wikipedia.org] are an interesting idea but have never worked* yet. I'm also a bit suspicious of the wording "at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states." Are said representatives actually bound to not simply ignore a request from their constituents?
"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 tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @11:12PM
yeah, i think this might be one of those not-really-important issues intentionally used to divide the country. somehow we need to push the message that we're sick of politicians "interpreting" our rights for us, because ever since the SCOTUS decided that to be part of their purpose, we've done nothing but lose rights, some even to the point where the interpretations contradict the amendments themselves. its going to keep happening too until we put a stop to it.
there's a lot to gain by amending the second, as it would preemptively kill all attempts at gun control laws and allow more and more easy weapon sales. it baffles me that the NRA hasn't tried to push it; fear of it being decided in a way that doesn't favor them is the only reason i can think of as to why (aside from its use to divide people and keep them focused on stupid, petty issues).
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:03AM
The Federal constitution through the First Amendment grants the citizens the right to petition their government. Because this right is in the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to honor it. (It should be noted that just because the Federal constitution contains a provision for some right or privilege does not mean that a state has to honor it, although most state constitutions do mirror the federal one in the important ways, sometimes granting greater rights than the federal constitution.) But the right to petition does not mean that a legislator can't wear ear plugs when the mob peacefully marches on the state capitol building. It just means that the people must have a way to communicate with the various organs of the government and their representatives. Of course, legislators who ignore their voters can quickly find themselves out of office if they piss off enough of them.
And those who piss off too many of them can end up dead. After all, Jefferson did say, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The last couple heads of the NSA and this idiot head of FBI would be a good place to start.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday October 17 2014, @11:45PM
They do, but the Constitution only applies to rich people or to people who are so savagely abused by the system that the ACLU or the EFF takes up their case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday October 17 2014, @12:15PM
"Why aren't you going after them?"
A rhetorical question, I assume, that the protectors of the oligarchy will never publicly answer.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @01:26PM
The money for building new "correctional facilities" are running thin. Especially if the comfort of those facilities would need to cater for the lifestyle of the banksters
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:35PM
Why cater to their lifestyle? Force-march them to the top of Mt. Erebus and drop them in.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Friday October 17 2014, @01:56PM
A story on the green site right now: "As Prison Population Sinks, Jails Are a Steal". Prison populations are falling, not rising. One example: Illinois built the Thompson Correctional Center, and it's still empty. Illinois sold it to the feds, we just don't have enough criminals.
Crime rates have been falling for years.
What did you expect when you voted for a convicted felon, peace and rainbows?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @02:47PM
The gradual decriminalization of marijuana will also increase the number of empty cells.
Marijuana a Thorn in Side of Private Prison Industry [projectcannabis.org]
The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal [republicreport.org]
Money, Not Morals, Drives Marijuana Prohibition Movement [opensecrets.org]
4 Industries Getting Rich Off the Drug War [reason.com]
Marijuana Legalization: Pharmaceuticals, Alcohol Industry Among Biggest Opponents Of Legal Weed [ibtimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday October 17 2014, @03:21PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:03PM
In Colorado where they legalized it completely, it wasn't just that they weren't jailing pot smokers, but other crimes, especially violent crime, dropped. Outlawing marijuana was insanely stupid.
What did you expect when you voted for a convicted felon, peace and rainbows?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @03:50PM
After all, you only have one governor at a time, and it takes a while to go from inauguration to conviction!
But more seriously, my concern about the drop in crime is that some of the so-called "law-and-order" types will react by trying to create more criminals by making things illegal that didn't used to be. Particularly if it's a law that can be enforced only against black and Hispanic men, like most drug laws currently are. There will also be an uptick in the already existing trend of treating innocent people as if they were criminals, up to and including summary execution by police (e.g. another unarmed black guy was shot in St Louis just last week, and it barely made the news).
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:10PM
Marrying female children is allready illegal.
So why complain about the rest.
The worst has allready been done.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:09AM
California jails and prisons are bursting to overflowing. Most people here know of the overcrowding in California prisons. They're still overcrowded, still filling gyms with bunks. I write to people in prisons and one of them lives in a gym, with bunks three beds high. The "realignment" law of a couple years ago shifted some people who would normally end up in prisons to county jails. It allowed some jails that were closed due to lack of funding to reopen but they too are bursting at the seams now.
Our society needs to get over this fetish with throwing the book at people and warehousing them in prisons. Many people would be better served by alternatives. There are some people who need to be locked away forever and the prisons are there for them.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:33PM
Amen x 10^500
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 17 2014, @01:47PM
Were it not for the revelations that your own government is spying on you the privacy apps would never have happened. And they're either stupid (or most likely disingenuous) to boot; they would have never gotten Al Capone convicted had the book keeper not handed over the encryption codes to the books. Note that there were no computers in the 1920s, so how is that any different?
What did you expect when you voted for a convicted felon, peace and rainbows?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @02:40PM
It's a damage control blitz by Comey. If encryption goes mainstream, the FBI's job gets harder. People are starting to see through his argument, but he is going to continue to whine about it in hopes of preventing adoption or other companies from following suit.
Criminals, drug lords, pedos, terrorists, murderers. If they don't get caught because of encryption or other security and anonymity technologies, that's just a sign that the technologies are working. Cry me the Potomac, Comey.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:08PM
Old Testament allows men to marry female children.
Read deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:26PM
yes, but back then puberty was your midlife crisis. the idea that something more than just puberty is required to be considered an adult is an extremely recent one, emerging along with life spans beyond ~30 years.
the "sex crime" laws are ridiculous though, with people getting convicted as a sex offender for sending naked pictures of themselves, and for turning 18 during a committed multi-year relationship, and for picking up a at a bar only to find out she was using a fake ID (why doesn't the bartender get charged for serving alcohol to a minor in these cases?). we need to get a handle on that shit before its too late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:18AM
Many in government are coming to a realization that the law has gone too far in the area of sex crimes. There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times recently that called for a new approach to dealing with pedophiles, treating them as people with a mental disorder, not necessarily as a sex crime.
Having said that, people ought to be held accountable for their actions, but child pornography laws are clearly overblown these days. The feds ought to be working hard at putting the people who produce that shit and those who run the distribution networks in prison, not necessarily its consumers. Treat the consumer as someone who needs psychological therapy.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday October 17 2014, @06:06PM
The problem is he had to add "even with lawful authority".
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:33AM
Very true and I would only add that Americans have ZERO reason to trust you when your agency has already performed assassinations of Americans on American soil [wikipedia.org] with no consequences for those that planned and ordered the hit. Your agency has a history of criminal activity and ignoring the rule of law and you expect us to trust you with MORE power? Really? Not no but HELL no!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.