Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

[DamianTV]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/01/17/2156204/obama-govt-shouldnt-be-hampered-by-encrypted-communications
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/16/obama-sides-with-cameron-in-encryption-fight/


According to an article at The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has sided with British Prime Minister David Cameron in saying that police and government agencies should not be blocked by encryption from viewing the content of cellphone or online communications, making the pro-spying arguments everyone has come to expect:

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” ... The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves. The Clinton administration fought and lost a similar battle during the 1990s when it pushed for a “clipper chip” that would allow only the government to decrypt scrambled messages.

(full article on 2nd link, 1st link is a Slashdot post)

Boy, I hope people have learned to not have any opinions about anything as that might cause a conflict and that conflict is obviously Terrorism!

Dont be Jewish
Dont be a Ron Paul supporter

There is no difference, the War is on Us.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Criminals hate honest people hiding from them.

[DamianTV]

Criminals hate honest people hiding from them.

All the better to know what they can STEAL from you.

[Ronin Truth]

Nor by silly things like the Bill of Rights.

[DamianTV]

To live without Privacy is to have every aspect of your life subject to the scrutiny of those who care to look.

You may not think this to be a big deal, who cares if people know what kind of kinky shit I am into. Until your Insurance Company finds out, classifies your kinkyness as a "high risk behavior" and jacks up your rates, followed by a knock on the door because you didnt know that the kinky shit youre into is classified as "illegal". Say the Nazis ever rise again, and you are Jewish. Being Jewish is not illegal. Nor is being a Ron Paul supporter. Or choosing the best parts of our Constitution as something to be valued. All of these things can cause the end of your life as you know it.

This should raise the biggest RED FLAG that a story can raise. This is a DIRECT THREAT to your personal safety and your very life. This is especially true for every member of this community.

Without Privacy, Revolution is impossible, even a Peaceful Revolution.

[Weston White]

I am not grasping this argument, which makes a very weak attempt at addressing skillfully encrypted hard-drives and USB storage devices, correlating that into phone calls and emails. These are entirely different things that have nothing to do with the other. How is requiring manufacturers to provide a governmental side-door into my encrypted HDD going to bear any relevance on the context of my phone calls and emails, both which the government is already accessing in-stream via ECHELON and PRISM? Email preservation requires ASCII to hexadecimal conversion, for example (which limits encryption possibilities), but a highly skilled scripter could generate their own conversionary salt-randomizing (or static) encryption-decryption, using 128-bit or greater AES or SHA (et al) cipher functions that would make it incredibly difficult to hack. (However, to further note this is still further limited during client to server transmissions, being limited by restrictive JavaScript encryption through the client-side to PHP on the backend through HTTP/HTTPS.)

My thoughts on this subject are that my own writings upon pieces of paper, drawings upon canvases, privately uttered words and conversations, or typed words onto hard-drives and portable storage devices should be thought of as mere physical extensions of my private mind, and should be legally afforded all the rights to privacy as if those very thoughts, feelings, depictions, or vocalizations remained within my mind; as nothing more than applying the advantages of modern conveniences through achievements in technology, which not ought warrant governmental intrusion into my private life, rights which both supersede and withstand terrorist threats and other such imagined boogiemen (i.e., we know that governments work in collaboration in order to stage terrorist events around the globe to garner continued support for the oligarchic agendas on problem-relation-solution.)

[DamianTV]

I am not grasping this argument, which makes a very weak attempt at addressing skillfully encrypted hard-drives and USB storage devices, correlating that into phone calls and emails. These are entirely different things that have nothing to do with the other. How is requiring manufacturers to provide a governmental side-door into my encrypted HDD going to bear any relevance on the context of my phone calls and emails, both which the government is already accessing in-stream via ECHELON and PRISM already? Email preservation requires ASCII to hexadecimal conversion, for example (which limits encryption possibilities), but a highly skilled scripter could generate their own conversionary salt-randomizing (or static) encryption-decryption, using 128-bit or greater AES or SHA (et al) cipher functions that would make it incredibly difficult to hack. (However, to further note this is still further limited during client to server transmissions, being limited by restrictive JavaScript encryption through the client-side to PHP on the backend through HTTP/HTTPS.)

My thoughts on this subject are that my own writings upon pieces of paper, drawings upon canvases, privately uttered words and conversations, or typed words onto hard-drives and portable storage devices should be thought of as mere physical extensions of my private mind, and should be legally afforded all the rights to privacy as if those very thoughts, feelings, depictions, or vocalizations remained within my mind; as nothing more than applying the advantages of modern conveniences through achievements in technology, which not ought warrant governmental intrusion into my private life, rights which both supersede and withstand terrorist threats and other such imagined boogiemen (i.e., we know that governments work in collaboration in order to stage terrorist events around the globe to garner continued support for the oligarchic agendas on problem-relation-solution.)

Fully agree that their argument doesnt make any sense.

They already have their foot in the door. This is their shoulder, and it is laying the framework for putting a camera in your house, or forcing you to get a Chip. Once they are completely inside your house to monitor everyone in all of their moments of expected privacy and secrecy, there will be no going back.

Eliminationg all Privacy is about one thing: maintaining their power over you.

[DFF]

"Obama agreed with Cameron."

How many times do these people disagree?

[DamianTV]

How many times do these people disagree?

Doesnt matter if they do agree or they dont, it is a Dog and Pony Show so we believe that they "care" about us when what they truly care about is controlling us.

---

Ron Paul himself took a stance on the Privacy issue:


...

The growth of the state necessitates government surveillance of all our financial transactions to enhance the collection of tax revenues. Because there is never enough money for the "do-gooders," the tactics of the tax collectors have become more vicious. Violation of our liberties is excused by the majority in order to ensure that all people "pay their fair share." When conditions deteriorate, capital controls are imposed to prevent moving assets out of the country. Our monstrous tax code reflects the hundred-years development of our income tax system and is one of the greatest invitations for our "caring" government to pursue the impossible goal of the fair distribution of all wealth.

...

U.S. Inner City Turmoil and Other Crises: Ron Pauls Predictions for 2015
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article48949.html

[idiom]

If the US Government can read your company's encrypted communications, then so can the Russian and Chinese governments.

Its a really simple idea, but it gets no traction.

[Occam's Banana]

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said.

If you actually do have "evidence of a terrorist plot" then all you have to do is get a warrant, asshole.

Of course, when Obama says "if we find evidence of a terrorist plot ..." what he actually means is "if we don't have evidence of jack shit ..."

[VIDEODROME]

If you actually do have "evidence of a terrorist plot" then all you have to do is get a warrant, asshole.

Of course, when Obama says "if we find evidence of a terrorist plot ..." what he actually means is "if we don't have evidence of jack shit ..."

I suppose that even if they follow due process and get a warrant, they may still not be able to de-crypt and read evidence mined from computers. That might be inconvenient for them, but to bad.

They might have a warrant to search a house, but that doesn't mean they should have a Master Key to just walk in to every home.

[DamianTV]

If the US Government can read your company's encrypted communications, then so can the Russian and Chinese governments.

Its a really simple idea, but it gets no traction.

Why stop at Governments? What happens when it is your Employer that can read every private thought you've ever had? What happens when it is our neighbors? What happens when it is our spouces that afford us zero privacy?

When every action and thought is subject to the scrutiny of another, we will end in nothing but conflict.

Thought Crimes.

---


If you actually do have "evidence of a terrorist plot" then all you have to do is get a warrant, asshole.

Of course, when Obama says "if we find evidence of a terrorist plot ..." what he actually means is "if we don't have evidence of jack shit ..."

+Rep

Emotional manipulation and Fear Mongering.

The easiest way to identify this is to look at the constantly evolving definition of Terrorist. What defined a Terrorist a hundred years ago will be completely different than what defines a Terrorist a hundred years from now. Today, posting an opinion or information online is grounds for getting labeled a Terrorist.

How much further will this be allowed to go? Will we allow Free Speech to be suspended indefinitely on the grounds of National Security? We know Privacy is being suspended indefinitely on the grounds of National Security, but how many other Human Rights will also succumb to National Security? Gun Rights? Housing Soldiers? Due Process? Torture? Travel? Rights such as Property or even Food and Water?

There is not one single Human Right that has not been superceded by National Security. And the only conclusion is that the existence of the State is far more important than what ever you may need to survive. The needs of the Parasite will always trump the needs of the Host, even when the Parasite eventually completely kills the Host.

[TheTexan]

The easy answer here is to only make encryption illegal for terrorists, family of terrorists, friends of family of terrorists, and acquaintaces of friends of family of terrorists.

Which I think covers everyone, so just make all encryption illegal.

[muh_roads]

Do as I say, not as I do.

(The red light on the phone means encryption)


https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YJUWnULfqSI/U8rPb4_dWqI/AAAAAAAAB0w/xMrQq56y4fo/s1600/airforceone-phone20140410-red.jpg

[idiom]

Why stop at Governments? What happens when it is your Employer that can read every private thought you've ever had? What happens when it is our neighbors? What happens when it is our spouces that afford us zero privacy?

National security should be an easy angle for Republicans. Being pro-NSA is being weak on defense.

[Weston White]

Of course, when Obama says "if we find evidence of a terrorist plot ..." what he actually means is "if we don't have evidence of jack shit ..."

Exactly, law enforcement does not want to be denied access to such private information that they may and will COVERTLY use against you, at least until they are able to fulfill their probable cause requirements to indict you—information for which without they would actually have to commit to working hard, coordinate, and strategize, in other words they would be required to do their damned jobs to earn their collars.

Honestly, if the case hinges on mere phone calls and encrypted digital devices then it must not be much of a case to begin with.

[DamianTV]

What is not just sad but really pathetic is that actual Terrorists are just gonna go deeper underground and become that much harder to catch. This does NOT do anything to actually prevent Terrorism what so ever. It is continued because there is a War going on, but it is not a War on Terror, it is a War on Us.