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, @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.