That is why, in his address to the nation on Sunday, the President reiterated the Administration’s call for America’s technology community and law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials to work together to fight terrorism. American technologists have a unique perspective that makes them essential in finding new ways to combat it. They are the best and most creative in the world, and we need them to bring their expertise, innovation, and creativity to bear against the threat of terrorism.
As a card-carrying technologist, my input is this: technology cannot detect turrism. Also, there is no "safe" way to backdoor encryption.
He said the ability of terrorist groups to use encrypted applications while communicating is one of his biggest fears. "We cannot stop what we cannot see," he said in reference to recent attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and Paris.
Let's make a deal, Rep. Michael McCaul. Since we now know that none of the largely publicized terrorist attacks used encryption in any meaningful way, why don't you stop what you fucking well CAN see before you start fighting shadows? When you're able to stop terrorist attacks that don't use encryption on a reliable basis, then we'll revisit the subject of encryption, ok?
Re: but if we don't give up all our privacy, the terrorists will win!!
You are right of course, and most of us realize that this is about control and power versus "turrism". Unfortunately, the folks in power have, well, the "power" to frame this discussion, so we are forced to interact within the framework.
Because if sites like TechDirt don't dispute this garbage, lay people everywhere will accept the reality being created by people like Foges. And make no mistake, this is what they are trying to do: adjust reality to suit themselves and their agenda.
As an "illegal" organization, do terrorists even get copyrights on their materials? (Also, are any of them suing anybody for infringement?) In much the same was as criminals are not allowed to profit from their crimes, I would think the same concepts would apply here.
So, I detest censorship as much as the next guy, but I can actually see a small bit of value in this concept, *if* it is used as intended, to squash "public" sites for recruitment and/or glorifying terrorist actions. It would reduce the number of kids/teens/young adults that are exposed to their crap, some of whom seem bound and determined to join in on it. I'd be willing to bet that many, probably the majority, of those naive souls do not go digging much to see that sort of material, so if it is not actively available, I could see it reducing the number of fools that will recruit themselves to the "cause".
On the other hand, I have no doubt that this legislation will quickly be applied to things that have nothing to do with terrorism, thereby perverting the intent completely.