Insanity Rules: Disgusting Politicians Push For More Surveillance And Less Encryption... Based On Nothing

from the make-it-stop dept

Yesterday we noted that the surveillance state supporters were quick to rush in and blame Ed Snowden and call for undermining encryption in response to the attacks in Paris last week -- and they did so based on no factual information whatsoever. There was, briefly, a NY Times article quoting anonymous "officials" claiming that the attackers had communicated via encrypted channels. That article eventually disappeared entirely (with no explanation from the NY Times). If that's true, it would not be surprising, because terrorist groups have long used encryption -- as have tons and tons and tons of law abiding folks. Blaming encryption seems particularly dumb.

And, indeed, on Monday it was made clear that no one actually has any idea how the planning was done and there isn't yet known evidence of encryption:
A U.S. security official said there is no evidence yet demonstrating that the Paris attackers used a particular method for communicating, or whether any technology they used was encrypted in a particular way.
Of course, that statement is as meaningless as the one from the anonymous official claiming they did use encryption, because it's just a random namely "official." And, of course, it wouldn't be surprising at all if they did use encryption, because that's how people communicate safely. And it's not because of Snowden. As we noted yesterday, terrorists have known to use encrypted communications for well over a decade.

Still, none of this has stopped the insane grandstanding on the issue. CIA Director John Brennan kicked it off by taking a potshot at Snowden along with privacy advocates and tech companies -- again, based on nothing:
"In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging," he said. "I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities."
Brennan also ridiculously claimed that the terrorists had "gone to school" based on the Snowden disclosures, which again, defies all logic and historical reporting of how widely encrypted communications were used prior to this.

And then all the usual fear mongerers started to pile on. Let's start with the surveillance state's number one defender, Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said she’s asked Silicon Valley companies to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies access communications that have been encrypted -- or scrambled to evade surveillance -- if terrorists are using the tools to plan attacks.

“I have asked for help. And I haven’t gotten any help,” Feinstein said Monday in an interview with MSNBC. “If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it’s at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that’s a big problem.”
But that's idiotic. Does she feel the same way about the telephone? Or paper? Or cars? These are all tools that terrorists use as well, but she's not calling for them to be broken. Blaming the tools is a ridiculous move -- especially for a politician who should know better.

But, of course, she wasn't the only one. Senator John McCain -- who once was a strong defender of encryption in the late 90's, has apparently gone to the other side as he's been taken by unrealistic fears:
Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on MSNBC Monday that "it’s time we had another key that would be kept safe and only revealed by means of a court order."
Except, of course, that doesn't work. And McCain has been told that won't work and will make everyone less safe... and yet he's still pushing for it.

Rep. Michael McCaul, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee got in on the stupid game as well:
“The dark space of the Internet is becoming a breeding ground for terrorist communications, recruitment and plotting,” said McCaul, a Texas Republican. “Our inability to monitor encrypted messages on social media apps, and the terrorists’ awareness of that, compounds the danger America and the West face.”
You know what would put us in even greater danger? Undermining encryption and giving up our keys.

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton also repeated the nonsensical claim that tech companies, in better protecting users from hackers, were somehow helping the terrorists:
Technology has been "purposefully designed by our manufactures so that even they claim they cannot get into their own devices after they’ve built them," Bratton said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

"They need to work with us right now," Bratton said. "In many respects, they’re working against us."
All of this is based on a weird kind of idiocy. It's wrong on so many levels: (1) strong encryption helps protect citizens, not harm them; (2) terrorists already know how to use strong encryption and they have for years; (3) backdooring encryption won't stop people from using non-backdoored encryption; (4) there's still little to no evidence that snooping on everyone's communications actually stops any terrorist plots. But a big tragedy happened and thus, politicians feel like they need to "do something" and that "doing something" seems to be to attack the technology that actually makes us safer. It's insanity on a massive level.

And the press is playing right into it. The NY Times may have dropped that original story, but came back with one claiming that the attacks had "reopened the debate on encryption." No, they did not. The debate is over. Undermining encryption is dangerous and bad news for everyone. As we noted, the intelligence community's top lawyer, Robert Litt, flat out said just a few weeks ago that he and his friends were waiting for the next terrorist attack in order to push for backdoors in encryption. This is the playbook that was planned all along and most of the press is falling for it.

Thankfully, there are a few exceptions. Kim Zetter at Wired pointed out how the whole narrative is wrong and that backdooring encryption won't help at all. And Alex Howard at the Huffington Post put up a similar story. But for much of the mainstream press, they're playing right into the surveillance state's game plan, repeating the stupid talking points on encryption, based on zero actual facts, and then insisting that the debate is somehow open again.

There is no debate. Yes, the surveillance state supporters want to undermine our security and undermine encryption, but there's no actual debate here. Actual experts know that this is a bad move and a dangerous one that will put many more people at risk. Exploiting an attack in Paris (right after France expanded its own surveillance efforts) is hardly a good excuse for undermining the safety of basically everyone.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:37am

    "What do you mean we can't force criminals to hand over their encryption keys?!"

    All of this is based on a weird kind of idiocy. It's wrong on so many levels: (1) strong encryption helps protect citizens, not harm them (2) terrorists already know how to use strong encryption and they have for years (3) backdooring encryption won't stop people from using non-backdoored encryption (4) there's still little to no evidence that snooping on everyone's communications actually stops any terrorist plots.

    Even if every single company was forced to cripple the encryption on their products/services, criminals would just move on to using encryption that was still intact, of which there would be plenty, so the spy agencies would be back to square one(well, at least with regards to spying on actual criminals).

    Smart criminals are always going to use the most secure method of communication that they can find, and they have no problem switching if one method is compromised, so the idea that forcing broken encryption is somehow going to do anything more than slightly annoy and/or inconvenience them is a joke. The only people who are going to be screwed by broken encryption is the public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:47am

    The whispered menace...

    “The dark space of the Internet is becoming a breeding ground for terrorist communications, recruitment and plotting,” said McCaul, a Texas Republican. “Our inability to monitor encrypted messages on social media apps, and the terrorists’ awareness of that, compounds the danger America and the West face.”

    Now, let's switch a few words, and see how well that logic holds up, shall we?

    “The dark space of private property, or public property without pervasive surveillance systems is becoming a breeding ground for terrorist communications, recruitment and plotting,” said McCaul, a Texas Republican. “Our inability to monitor whispered and in-person messages in public and private areas, and the terrorists’ awareness of that, compounds the danger America and the West face.”

    No, no that argument really doesn't hold up does it, unless he's going to argue that people should be forbidden from communicating in any way, shape or form that the police and/or government isn't allowed to listen in to.

    People have a right to privacy, and just because some use that right for illegal actions does not make it acceptable to strip it away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Quiet Lurcker, 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:40am

    If more surveillance and less encryption are the answer to terrorism, how is it that those terrorists got away with planning and executing an attack in Paris the other day?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ed Allen, 18 Nov 2015 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      Yes, show us the encrypted data that ANY one of these plot members sent or received, to anybody.

      You don't need to decrypt it, just show that encryption was used as a starting point to using Paris
      as part of the discussion.

      Otherwise references to Paris or "beheading children" are shown to be demagoguery.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jeff R, 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:42am

    The Men Who Stare at Goats

    Asking for encryption that can only be "broken" by the "good guys" is about as effective as asking for products based on Remote Viewing.. and for the same reason.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:44am

    Protection failure

    To protect you we will have to insist that you cannot keep us out, unfortunately that also mean you cannot keep the criminals out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:45am

    Beat them at their own game.

    Refuse to accept their premise, don't be terrorized

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/11/refuse_to_be_te_2.html

    Spouting inanities because it causes your personal funding to increase is not the way to beat them. Beat them by refusing to accept what they are selling.

    Which brings up an interesting question. Which companies benefit by terrorists winning? Who is paying to have this dreck spouted? What do they win? Encryption companies don't win by weakening their products, who does? It is not just law enforcement pushing these ideas, they don't have the money to buy congress. Do they?

    Or do they? That would be quite the circle, we get our funding from congress so that we can support those congresscritters that support us? We just hire a few defense contractors to do their usual nothing so that they can support the correct PACs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:57am

      Re: Beat them at their own game.

      > It is not just law enforcement pushing these ideas, they don't have the money to buy congress. Do they?

      Law enforcement unions have lobbyists hard at work constantly pushing the desires of the police state... so yes, kind of.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 11:29am

        Re: Re: Beat them at their own game.

        law enforcement unions are
        nothing compared against the military industrial complex

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:35am

      Re: Beat them at their own game.

      It is not just law enforcement pushing these ideas, they don't have the money to buy congress. Do they?

      A better question is does law enforcement have the information to be able to force congress to bend to its will; as law enforcement are the only ones who can protect themselves from mass surveillance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    thisworld (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:47am

    Madness!

    Do you think anyone is going to continue using internet banking, or buying on-line, if there's a back-door in the encryption? It's about time that banks, and on-line retailers, nailed their colours to the mast!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:58am

    Encryption has been around for thousands of years

    It has only been less sophisticated.

    Today we can crack yesterday's ciphers easily. But ciphers have always been used. Without computers, yesterday's ciphers were useful.

    With computers, the ciphers have become stronger along with the ability to attack them. Key sizes make brute force attacks impossible. So attacks focus on weaknesses in the algorithm, or key, or random number generators.

    Didn't the founding fathers of the US use encryption?

    Why is encryption suddenly bad?

    use a frictionless PRNG to avoid wear on parts

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 8:58am

    Here is what will happen by weakening encryption

    First, we are far more likely to be hacked than attacked. So the average Joe will have to risk identity theft, hijacked bank accounts and credit card fraud. Second, corporations will be at greater risk of hacks on a large scale like what happened to Home Depot, Target, Anthem Blue Cross. Third, we will be monitored by our own government which it will eventually abuse that monitoring as a form of control.

    Finally, the terrorists will stick to open source or even home built secure email, apps, etc and still avoid being caught. So we the people will be less safe on all fronts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:02am

    This seems like a debate based more on emotion, than facts. Which is how we ended up invading Iraq after 9/11 (which ended up breeding ISIS) and how the PatRIOT Act got passed. We're simply seeing history repeat itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:06am

    The NSA has gone to a lot of trouble & $$$$ to tap cables,

    siphon up emails, hoover metadata, etc.

    That Bluffdale, UT, facility cost as much (order-of-magnitude) as an aircraft carrier.

    But what if the NSA held a party and no one came?

    Of course, you'd blame Snowden/encryption/sequester/..., too.

    The whole point of grabbing access to a 'choke point' is to choke!

    So you then need to make sure that everyone is *forced* to use that choke point.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:08am

    At this point, all governments are interested in is having complete control over the internet, because it's something that can be used to undermine their authority.

    They'll talk about freedom all day long, but they're only interested in the freedoms they grant us, because those can be taken away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 11:10am

      Re:

      It's not even control over the internet, because that is outright impossible. They just want control over the masses. The masses use iOS, android, gmail, etc that use encryption. By breaking the encryption, the only thing that is gained is data and communications of the masses (possibly including some "dumb" criminals). Those who truly threaten national interests will use tools that the US has no jurisdiction over.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:13am

    “If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it’s at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that’s a big problem.”

    Seriously, fuck TOYOTA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:13am

    Electrolytes...its what plants crave.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:21am

    already i refuse to do any business over the 'net. .that's becoming difficult to do, but this talk of making all communication insecure in the u.s. is driving us to that.

    as said in an above comment, my bet is that everybody here quits doing anything sensitive in any way on the 'net once our lovely govt has its way on this, and american companies that have anything to do with the 'net will become curious fossils for future generations to poke and study.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:25am

    the politicians and certainly the various governments are not interested in going after terrorists because they would be wasting their time and their money! it's so much easier to hoover up as much information as possible about as many law abiding citizens as possible and throw a few of them under the bus, just to make out that something has been done and someone was caught and then punished!
    whoever thinks that anyone who wants to do something that is against the law is going to do so in as open and obvious method as those millions who dont want to do anything bad, is a total fucking idiot! talk about putting targets on backs! it matters not whether they want to rob a bank or carry out a murderous plot, there is no way that the plans are going to be done and exchanged in any way other than encrypted! all that is going on here, as anyone with a bit of sense knows, is that 'the people' are going to pay for the ridiculousness of the few, trying to get something that is hidden from the view of all except those who should be seeing it!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:36am

    The right to private conversation may be the most important tool we do not have to protect against oppression.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:46am

    Vote for me, and I'll protect you from terrorists,

    Ebola, cancer, diabetes, guns, climate change, micro-aggressions, gravity, entropy.

    And if I fail, I'll simply request more money.

    To show you that I'm doing something, I'll save you from a few *manufactured* crimes, too-large ammunition clips, giant cokes, etc.

    To survive as a politician, I don't actually have to do my job; I simply have to suck less at it than all the other losers who are running against me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:53am

    idiots in general

    Dianne Feinstein is a f'n IDIOT!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 9:56am

    Another problem is that you can encrypt communications without encryption. If you overheard me telling someone to meet me at the school where I first kissed a girl, and you wanted to find us, you would have no way of knowing where that is. Only my best friend and I would know. The girl might not even know for sure since she may not know if she was my first kiss. Just using a simple code can make communications impossible to break.

    The point is even with open communication people pulling off these kinds of attacks know how to communicate in ways that are secret. Yeah off the shelf secure communication software makes it a bit simpler for them, but destroying encryption and the safety of billions of people, just to make a small difficulty for a small amount of people is not worth is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:28am

    If they need back doors, then anyone able to write a java or c program will be able to stymie them with custom encrypted messages.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chris Brand, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:45am

    These same politicians...

    ...will tell you that if you implement gun control, then only criminals will have guns, right ? Do they not realise that if you ban secure encryption, only criminals will have secure encryption ? In fact it's far easier to copy the existing secure software than it is to copy the existing guns.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:03am

    Haystacks, haystacks, haystacks, haystacks.

    You know that like with almost any terrorist attack in the last two decades, the actors have explicitly been pointed out by foreign intelligence to the local authorities.

    What's the reaction? "Thanks for handing us a needle. We'll put a red dot in it and then throw it back into the haystack. Because we have specialized on haystacks in the past decades, that's the only way we'll be able to see this in context."

    They don't know yet how the terrorists communicated because, well, the needle with the red dot did not actually knock and shout. And it would have been cheating to observe the suspects in question rather than wait and see whether the red dot reappears during haystack processing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:44pm

      Re: Haystacks, haystacks, haystacks, haystacks.

      The problem with looking for needles in haystacks is that they are supposed to be looking for terrorists, not needles.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:14am

    Haystacks and astronomers

    An astronomy joke that never fails is the one about photos with jillions of stars that come complete with the little arrow or circle to show us exactly which star and/or galaxy to look at.

    The NSA plans to require that terrorists *register* (like lobbyists) and then *tag* all of their communications for easy selection. The penalty for non-registration and non-tagging will be quite severe.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:18am

    Be afraid, be very afraid. These fanatics in Washington don't even have the stones to declare war, so what is the purpose of supporting and keeping our sons and daughters stationed all around the world while putting the cost of doing so on the back of the individual American taxpayer. Deterrent doesn't work, we still have the highest per capita prison population in the world, and yes, on occasion, we still do execute prisoners. Possibly read the Art of War, and think about what you are reading, unlike what you did when you took your oath of office. Quit talking shit, and either shit or get off the pot. Don't give me a second thought though, I already used the trash can.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:37am

    Quite logical

    Technology has been "purposefully designed by our manufactures so that even they claim they cannot get into their own devices after they’ve built them," Bratton said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

    "They need to work with us right now," Bratton said. "In many respects, they’re working against us."

    Well, that's kind of a given if they are trying to serve their customers in the form of normal citizens and Bratton and his ilk are trying to abolish all rights of normal citizens and unwrite the Constitution.

    If NSA and CIA would stop fighting everything the U.S.A. is supposed to stand for, it would make it easier for companies trying to serve their customers to not impede the NSA and CIA. At least as long as anybody still cares about their constitutional rights, of course.

    But that can be changed with enough propaganda, and that's what we are seeing here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:12pm

      Re: Quite logical

      "purposefully designed by our manufactures so that even they claim they cannot get into their own devices after they’ve built them,"

      Shouldn't this be
      "purposefully designed by our manufactures so that even they claim they cannot get into their customers' private property after they’ve sold a product to them,"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Zonker, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re: Quite logical

        Yes, exactly. The first thing most people have the sense to do after buying a new home is to change the locks so that the previous owner cannot just come in whenever they like. Same thing with our phones/computers.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:57pm

        Re: Re: Quite logical

        "...claim they cannot get into their own devices..."

        Of course, this isn't true. The powers that be, and the companies which are a slave to them continue to project the illusion that a compromised algorithm (software) leads to compromised communications, while simultaneously trying to obscure the fact that compromised hardware (your physical device) always has, and continues to this day to refer your unencrypted keystrokes to federal agencies long before you hit the "encrypt" button.

        Consequently, you should encrypt your communications, regardless of the software algorithm, on a DDD (simply put, a Dedicated Disconnected Device), and then subsequently port the encrypted END RESULT to a connected device for transmission.

        Once again folks, that's PieDDD (Pre-Internet Encryption with a Dedicated Disconnected Device).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 8:17am

          Re: Re: Re: Quite logical

          "(your physical device) always has, and continues to this day to refer your unencrypted keystrokes to federal agencies long before you hit the "encrypt" button."

          Compromised hardware can indeed do this, but you seem to be saying everyone's hardware is compromised and doing this. That's demonstrably untrue, unless the hardware is using some communications channel nobody knows about.

          Lots of people, myself included, keep a very close eye on the traffic stream using standalone sniffers. The only remotely questionable traffic I've ever seen has come from operating systems and applications. I hear the same from many others who keep a paranoid eye on their traffic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Ed Allen, 18 Nov 2015 @ 9:42am

        Re: Re: Quite logical

        Why doesn't sombody ask, "If American companies _cooperate_ and provide American
        Government access won't Chinese companies be willing to provide encryption
        that only the owner and the Chinese can read ?"

        What prevents anyone from buying a Chinese encryptor and using that before using
        the American encryption ?

        So a "court order" gets you a look at encrypted text.

        How is that different from citizens having unbreakable encrytion ?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:27pm

    Boondoggle Nation

    Insanity Rules: Disgusting Politicians Push For More Surveillance And Less Encryption... Based On Nothing


    CIA Director John Brennan, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator John McCain, Rep. Michael McCaul and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton (etal) are not leaders. They are mentally-defective defenders of the status quo at all costs regardless of how many times their previous boondoggles fail to deliver.

    All these cretins know is more. More money squandered on war. More money squandered on surveillance. More money squandered on their lavish tax payer funded lifestyles. More money squandered on kidnapping, indefinite detention and torture. More money squandered on prisons. More money squandered bailing out their criminal banking benefactors.

    And for what?

    The only thing these so-called "leaders" have delivered over the past four decades, in the US, is a lower standard of living for tens of millions of hard working American citizens who now find themselves living in a dystopian nightmare of a nation which criminalizes all aspects of human activity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 12:44pm

      Re: Boondoggle Nation

      The only thing these so-called "leaders" have delivered over the past four decades, in the US, is a lower standard of living for tens of millions of hard working American citizens who now find themselves living in a dystopian nightmare of a nation which criminalizes all aspects of human activity.

      But they and their own are generally doing quite well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:29pm

    Given the dangers

    Given the dangers faced by that those who criticise the ideology of the terrorists, (Rushdie, Theo Van Goch) then undermining their abiity to remain anonymous is a disaster for our side of the argument. This is especially true for those who live in Islamic countries (eg the three Bangladeshi atheist bloggers who were recently killed).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:14pm

    I'm for backdoors.....

    But first I want to be safe, so we MUST put camera's with audio recording in each and every room of the house, senate,Capital building and White house... to be safe.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    New Mexico Mark, 17 Nov 2015 @ 3:08pm

    New Math

    The whole idea of legislating math is ludicrous. As soon as someone talks about regulating encryption, I know for a fact they have no idea what they are talking about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 4:25pm

    lETS SEE...

    Piliticos, wish to monitor and Watch us..
    And the only reasoning I can see, is to PROTECT THEMSELVES..
    This is as bad as AFTER President Kennedy..

    More laws, More surveillance, MORE protections for people, who are AFRAID to ride in an OPEN CAR..

    I wonder WHy a politician would be AFRAID of the people they represent...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 5:40am

    the system is politician-proof...
    it does not matter who you vote for, it keeps running as expected, to tyranny
    if you think left or right you are missing 1 dimension

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:39pm

    “If you create a product that allows activists and journalists to communicate in this way, to behead tyranny, that’s a big problem.”

    (PS: It's okay to behead adults.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.