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: 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.