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.
How can they call it "investigative reporting" if he didn't do any investigation? Actually, I think that also strikes the word "reporting". Just call it what it is, speculative fiction, and all is well.
Quantum encryption will be even worse, for their purposes. The encrypted data cannot be "cracked" or copied without altering the actual data itself, thereby making these acts meaningless. Even though the concept has been around for a long time, it doesn't seem like these golden key guys have even heard of it.
There's no chance that any legislation that mandated a "golden key/backdoor" solution would not also include full and infinitely retroactive immunity from prosecution for any and all parties involved in the case of a breach and/or loss of the "golden key".
A more honest analogy would compare phones to computers, which is basically what they are. While a warrant may give cops access to someone's computer -- allowing them to seize it -- it does not guarantee they'll be able to access its contents.
Excellent point. And I suspect strongly that this guy is not as stupid as he seems, he's probably already got the white paper written for "banning/not banning" PGP and VeraCrypt* from desktop computers. For reasons.
It's already somewhat questionable that we extend copyright after death, but to enable an organization to claim that someone else has had a copyright in a work decades after his death when he did nothing during his own life to claim it seems exceptionally questionable.