A rule-of-law society cannot allow sanctuary for those who wreak harm.
It's kind of circular, since as soon as you start to do mass-surveillance (or stripping away the rights to communicate without being monitored), you're basically turning everyone into suspects, which makes you not a rule-of-law society anymore, thus undermining the very premise you started with.
So you would declare some of your own population as "enemy combatants"?
You do realize that by revoking them their rights without due process, you'd place them outside the law? And you can't hold them responsible for killing your own military personnel, because, you know, they're now "enemy combatants". (You still could hold them responsible for killing civilians, but I doubt camp guards would qualify as civilians).
Of course google is better in patent research than the patent office.
Because a) they are pretty good at search b) they have an interest to really find prior art
I don't care what clueless congresspeople infer from that. Last time I heard there's a load of them that don't care about science, and believe in things like "backdoors only law enforcements can use", "global warming is not produced by human actions" and "intelligent design is a valable theory".
Well, it would be rather ironic, if the breach at OPM had happened through a vulnerability which was known to the NSA or CIA, but which hadn't been disclosed because they had wanted it to use for attacks/surveillance purposes.
Anyway, it will only be a question of time until exactly this scenario will happen.
Because you can either have security, or surveillance.
Re: Sorry to disturb Teamchaos's prejudices but....
The opposite of conservative is progressive, and the opposite of liberal is authoritorian.
And "liberal" is not a word that applies to any of the US governments in the last decades. And I'm also not sure "conservative" does.
The only thing you can say is "more liberal than", or "more conservative than". Like "Bush Senior was more liberal than Bush Junior or Obama". Or "Bush Senior and Obama are more conservative than Bush Junior".
In the broader spectrum, Obama and Bush Jr. are of course extremely authoritarian.
The trouble with Germanys current "anti-nazi" legislation is, that it's mostly a "anti-nazi-symbol" legislation.
They should know better, but german politicians are currently trying to re-enact the GESTAPO (yes, they're not alone, most countries are trying to do exactly that), while depictions of the Hakenkreuz get investigated by the police, even if in a anti-nazi or historical context.
What I really don't understand is how this FBI guy could even _mention_ the idea of banning crypto. I totally understand that some fuckwit like Cameron (like his predecessor Fox who likes to play into the hands of tyrants and features the same spine) is babbling somesuch nonsense.
But I'd actually expect the head of the FBI to at least get informed by its own department that this is a very bad idea, and prevented from making himself the laughing stock of security and law-enforcement professionals.
Since the bright guys at the FBI couldn't manage to keep their boss from blathering such nonsense, and couldn't have him removed immediately after he did it, I can only surmise that a) he's either convinced it's really a good idea, which put him on par with people that think the odds of winning in russian roulette are quite good, or b) he knows exactly how bad this is and supresses any sane voice within the FBI, because he's actually craving for the next Führer.
Henlons razor states that you should never attribute malice for things that can adequately explained by stupidity, so I must assume Mr. Comey is not a fascist, but instead must conclude that he is is just utterly, abysmally, stupid.