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, 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.