It keeps amazing me that those in leadership positions who are supposedly intelligent keep thinking that there is a "secure" backdoor. It is a total fiction, as hackers have demonstrated. When will those proponents of a backdoor ever learn? Apparently never since this story keeps repeating.
Furthermore, the contention is made that backdoor are necessary to get those evil criminals. Two quick points.
1. The backdoor proponents seem to ignore the obvious fact that there a perfectly legitimate uses for unbreakable encryption.
2. In the name of "security and fighting crime", the encryption proponents ignore civil rights on the pretext of making it "easier" for law enforcement to do its job. We should not give-up civil rights to make life easier for law enforcement.
The Democrats can solve the problem of voter ID themselves. All they have to do is set-up a registry where those who lack the required documentation can have a Democratic operative pick them up and help them through the process.
If the Democrats are not willing to assist those who have problems, then the Democrats have no right to complain.
Obama, on national TV, when asked about illegals voting (nationwide) refused to explicitly state that non-citizens do not have a right to vote. His silence on this easy to answer issue can be assumed to imply that he would be comfortable with non-citizens voting.
Trick question, I obviously do not disagree with the concept of "making it easier to vote". But there is a slippery slope concerning the meaning of "easier to vote". How much "easy" should we have? There are rationale limits.
OK, in terms of voter fraud being a truth independent of the Democratic party, you have a point. But the reason for me stating it that way - is that this is a Democratic mime which they are now making a 180 on by demanding a recount to "verify the election". Obviously, if fraud is not a serious problem as advocated by the Democrats, the recount is unnecessary.
On your last point concerning so-called voter suppression, I will have to respectfully disagree. Voter suppression is simply a deplorable manufactured mime by the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats could easily overcome this so-called voter suppression by directly helping those who are being "suppressed".
"Lawyers from Southern Coalition for Social Justice asked a federal judge late Wednesday to reject a lawsuit questioning the verification of voters who used same-day registration to cast ballots. The filing was done by some of the same lawyers and advocates who successfully sued to overturn parts of a wide-ranging elections law enacted by Republicans in the General Assembly.
They're opposing a lawsuit filed this week by the conservative Civitas Institute. Civitas says the state cannot finish counting votes until it verifies addresses of voters who used same-day registration. A hearing is scheduled next week."
The Democrats have gone to great extremes to remove virtually all impediments to voting. Furthermore, the Democrats have advocated that voter fraud is inconsequential and would not have an adverse effect on voting. The Democrats have lost the election (in terms of the electoral college) and they are now outraged and want to "know the truth". Well, if they where really concerned about the "truth" the Democrats would not be so adamantly opposed to the creation of paper trails that would document the eligibility of the voters.
In North Carolina the Democrats are attempting to frustrate a Republican attempt at a recount concerning the Governor's election. If Democrats were really concerned about the truth, they would support the recount.
Trump won the election, so criticisms evaluating Trumps potential impacts on civil liberties and surveillance are germane. Nevertheless, had Hillary won; there would have been a high probability that an article similar to this one would have been written. Hillary, was unabashedly for "BIG" government. That simplicity implies greater erosion of civil liberties and greater surveillance.
On one occasion, Hillary was asked about encryption; her response indicated that she did not understand encryption and couched her answer in gobbledygook worthy of many science fiction scripts.
Blaming Russia is a distraction. It is part of a new "Red Scare" (not meant as a pun), where the DNC/Hillary/Obama are frantically attempting to vilify and denigrate anyone who opposes the Democratic party.
The Democrats were caught. They were forced into creating a bogeyman (which is the hacking) to mislead the public into blaming the Russians instead of the vile comments made by the Democrats. The issue really isn't the hacking but the content of the emails, which is disgraceful.
It seems that the Democrats, at least in California, are attempting to pass laws that achieve political goals. In another instance, the Democrats attempted to pass a law, which some assert, would allow criminal charges to be placed against someone who criticizes global warming.
Thankfully, the proposal has been dropped. What continues to amaze me is that the positive legitimate uses of encryption are purposely ignored by those proposing a so-called "back door".
The issue of encryption also raises "slippery slope" concerns. The argument is made that encryption has to be weak to facilitate law enforcement. By that train of logic, search warrants should be abolished as an impediment to "facilitating law enforcement".
I hope that those proposing a "back door" will finally give-up based on logic. Unfortunately, I suspect that after a suitable waiting period, those proposing weak encryption will once again hysterically start beating the war drums and foaming at the mouth.
The encryption issue demands that our personal/business information needs to be protected through unbreakable encryption. While watching TV today, I had one of those epiphany moments, in watching the LifeLock commercial.
Exactly how do they collect all the personal information to verify whether your identity is in the process of being stolen?.
They assert that they monitor xxx millions of transactions per second. For them to verify that the data does or does not belong to you implies that they must be sniffing un-encryptic packets. A security shortfall. LifeLock could be using other means too, but their ability to sniff would imply other security shortfalls.
The fact that LifeLock can somehow "monitor" you implies weak ineffective security. We need unbreakable encryption.
Given all the hysteria over the iPhone, it would seem that DRM needs to be implemented with a back-door so that the government can access the content at will. We don't want the terrorists to hide their communications behind a security wall. Once that "Key" is developed it will escape into the wild, so what will the owners of DRM encumbered equipment actually get in the way of a benefit?
The other night, Oliver North was on TV concerning the iPhone/encryption issue. Essentially he stated that attempting to break the iPhone encryption was a misplaced effort. That greater emphasis needed to be placed on gathering "human" intelligence (spies) and less on "signal" intelligence (iPhone).
Fox News went on its usual tirade. In this case showing the video of the three the supposed terrorists. Fox News lamented that if these people were observed on video before the attack, they should have been caught before the attack. Fox News then (inappropriately) asserted that security was lax. Unbelievable.
One of the concerns, with mass surveillance, that Fox News overlooked; watching video of people milling around is incredibly boring. It would be very difficult for anyone to endlessly watch this and they would rapidly lose interest out of shear boredom. It is highly unfortunate, but surveillance footage is probably only useful after the fact.
Oliver North, surprisingly said tonight, that attempting to break into the iPhone was a pointless activity. He said that "signal" intelligence (iPhone) is not substitute for "human" intelligence (spies). North recommended placing more effort into "human" intelligence.
Two points on this issue that seem to be overlooked.
1. Do we have any reason to suspect that there would be any useful information on that phone? Obviously, that can't be determined now, but there may be indirect evidence to imply an answer.
2. Next, all communications between the phone and the outside world would have been expected to go through the phone company. That would imply that the FBI can follow-up on those leads by getting information from the phone company. In turn, that would imply that breaking into the phone would really not be necessary as the FBI could do old fashioned footwork to interview those sending/receiving phone calls and text messages from that phone.