Actually, an egomaniac like The Donald probably wouldn't bother picking up his bullhorn if he didn't get personal attention. That's yet another way "Lance Ulanoff" is wrong -- use of real names is as likely to encourage attention-seekers as to dissuade them.
I'd say if they give a minor child a smartphone and don't take basic precautions (i.e. insist that she give them the password as long as she lives under their roof and they pay her phone bill), that's negligence on their part.
This would be the "let's hope for the tragic death of a child" plan
To be blunt, the tech companies need to take the same hardass attitude as the gun industry (i.e. "dead-child shmed-child") and pull enough strings to make it officially not their problem (again, just like the gun industry did).
American ingenuity is great, so I don't really believe all these FBI directors who say that it's "too hard" to catch all the bad guys. I think they haven't really tried.
Actually, we know for a fact that they aren't trying. There are several well-known ways to bypass encryption no matter how strong it is (plant hardware or software bugs to directly intercept keystrokes and display output, intercept EM noise emissions to remotely reconstruct keystrokes and display output). The FBI prefers to pretend that these alternatives don't exist because they're too much work and effectively limit them to individual targeted surveillance (i.e. what they're supposed to be doing) rather than mass surveillance (i.e. what they want to do, laws to the contrary be damned).
The simple fact is that the "going dark" problem does not exist. There are several ways to bypass encryption no matter how strong or well-implemented it is -- plant a hardware or software bug in the user's keyboard to capture message prior to decryption (and, for that matter, capture the user's password); bug the display output line to capture messages as they are read; intercept EM noise and reconstruct keystrokes and display images.
The problem from Big Brother's viewpoint is that this is too much like work and requires a significant investment in specialized training and equipment. Thus, it only works for legitimate surveillance of a select specific targets, and can't be scaled up to mass surveillance. Of course, the proper response is "too damn bad", because the government is supposed to be limited to the former in any case, and technologies that enforce that limitation are problematic only to politicians and bureaucrats who wish to abuse their power (i.e. the ones who give the other 2% a bad name).
There's currently a Supreme Court case (King v. Burwell) that hinges on precisely the issue of whether a technical flaw in the legal language invalidates what the legislature clearly intended to pass. It's a lose-lose for the right wing (either their last-ditch Hail Mary to get rid of Obamacare fails, or the Patriot Act sunset provisions really did expire without being replaced with the "USA Freedom" versions).
If you mean "actually stopping terrorists", then sweeping up everything makes their job harder (e.g. the clear red flags about the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, the Garland shooters, etc got lost in the information overload).
If you mean "collecting a paycheck until you can collect a pension", well, then, yeah, being able to sit at a computer instead of wearing out shoe leather makes their job easier.
All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.
Nonsense. Keyloggers and other bypass methods are well-known technologies. Of course, they need to be installed one device at a time, which is a bug for the Feds (who want to spy on everybody) but a feature for us (who want the Feds to obey the law).
This isn't about banning any sort of genuine scientific "research". It's about banning use of government resources to commit fraud. It's like (for example) banning government chemistry labs from trying to develop a chemical to mask melamine detection so that crooked businesses can sell poison pet food.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the **AA apparatchiks who made noises about not giving Obama any more money heard the GOP candidates fall all over each other to be more anti-SOPA than the rest. (Exception: Santorum was squishy on it, and a brief perusal of right-wing commentary boards shows that he's catching flak for that.)
Yeah, these guys are going to sit back and let the Republicans win, you betcha!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SteveMB.