After Paris: Liberté demands unlimited encryption

[VileTouch]

Allowing back door access to encrypted communication would destroy privacy not only for people but also governments and businesses

 

 

The neocons are at it again: After the tragedies of the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday (and Beirut the day before), they're arguing that governments need to be able to access all communications from everyone, purportedly to protect us from future terrorist attacks. They're making their case in leading newspapers and TV networks. Now they want to be able to break into encrypted communications on demand, over such services as Telegram or Apple Messages. 

 

Using the Paris attacks as a pretext to create an Orwellian police state is morally perverse, and we should not let fear stampede us to living in a police state.

 

This is personal for me: Not only am I a dual French-American citizen, but my family remembers painfully how the Nazis rounded up Jewish neighbors and Résistance fighters in occupied France using the dossiers collected by the French authorities on its citizens -- never again.

The truth is the Nazis today would want the same access to encrypted communications as the U.K. government does and that many in the intelligence and police communities do worldwide

 

Everyone wants to spy on us, it seems

Evil people and criminals have long used technology to communicate secretly -- but so do freedom fighters, activists, and the persecuted. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and dozens of other dictatorships would happily agree with U.S. and U.K. policing agencies seeking such spying power to "keep us safe." China is pressuring tech companies to do exactly that. Is that what we really want?

In fact, governments that have nearly unfettered access to their citizens' communications can't stop it all, even if you agree that they should be able to spy on everyone to "keep us safe." There is no technology silver bullet. But there is a slippery slope we are already too far down on allowing governments (and corporations) the ability to see everything we do digitally.

The neocons have been trying to get this spying power long before the Paris attacks, using fear to gain unfettered access to everything we say and see. Paris is only the latest tool in their campaign to get blanket spying approval. Tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have been resisting, such as by creating encryption for which they don't hold the keys and can't be used as police proxies.

 

Still, the U.K. government is seeking a new law that gives the police the right to force technology providers to unlock encrypted communications. That means tech companies must build backdoors that they access themselves or turn over to the authorities.

 

BlackBerry, then known as Research in Motion, did that for multiple governments in 2011 so that they could spy on the encrypted communications of their citizens. And it wasn't "just" for autocracies like Saudi Arabia but democracies like India. You know that Western countries have the same access.

 

And the tech companies that are now opposed to government-required backdoors have long been complicit in providing governments -- domestic and foreign -- access to user data. It seems that they're finally waking up to the reality of how bad it has become and their role in enabling it.

Whether they can resist, such as Apple has been trying to do by eliminating its own ability to decrypt users' iPhones, is an open question. For example, would Apple really leave its second-largest market, China, over government demands to access citizens' data and communications? Or leave the U.K. market, whose proposed laws would put all new iPhones in violation of the decryption requirement?

 

We now know, thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, how deeply U.S. intelligence has infiltrated our communications systems, with hooks into the telecommunications, Internet, server, and social media services we all use.

 

The NSA has more resources than anyone, but every major country does the same. Some countries simply pretend less. For example, we are aware the Russians and Chinese spy deeply across the globe. So do the British and French, both of which have very permissive laws that enable spying -- Britain has cameras, microphones, and digital taps everywhere, while France requires no judicial permission for police to monitor anyone they suspect.

 

The dishonest argument that seeks us to give up our privacy

The neocons are now trying to blame Snowden for purportedly steering terrorists to encrypted services to avoid detection by intelligence agencies. That's worse than nonsense; it shows a fundamental dishonesty that should call into question all of their claims.

Snowden revealed the NSA's and others' abusive, illegal activities in 2013, yet intelligence agencies missed many attacks coordinated over channels they could spy on:

the attacks on Istanbul in 2003;

in Madrid, Beersheba, and Moscow in 2004;

in Tel Aviv in 2006;

in London in 2007;

in Madrid in 2007;

in Jakarta in 2009;

in Moscow in 2010;

in Mogadishu and Delhi in 2011;

and in Boston in 2013.

Clearly, Snowden didn't help the terrorists get past our intelligence agencies.

 

There can be no guarantee that we will catch all plots before they hatch, and while we should protect ourselves where possible, we can't trade security for loss of liberty. People, good and bad, will always find a way to work around authorities.

 

There's no such thing as a good Orwellian state

Ironically, intelligence, military, and police agencies use the same encryption technologies to protect their own communications from terrorists and criminals. So do presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors. So do people in oppressive countries like Iran, China, and Russia. So do rebels we support in places like Syria. 

Apple CEO Tim Cook is right: If you create access to encrypted communications for one party, you create it for all parties. The notion that somehow only the good guys would have access is nonsense. After all, the Iranians, Chinese, Russians, Saudis, Americans, British, French, jihadhis, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, Taliban, white supremacists, Rohingya, Uyghurs, Kurds, Tibetans, Chechnyans, Palestinians, oppressed religionists of all stripes, and so on all believe they are the good guys. Who gets to decide?

Don't forget that those backdoors will let criminals and terrorists spy on companies, governments, and people; governments on each other, on people, and on companies; and companies on each other, on people, and on governments. Essentially, no communication would be private or secure.

You don't have liberty if you don't have privacy, and you don't have privacy if anything you say, write, or watch is or can be intercepted by others. Orwellian governments are bad and can't be justified by security fears.

Encryption is one of the last methods available for protecting our privacy and thus our liberty. We must not give it up.

And we must not use an attack on the nation that has idealized liberté to justify its loss.

 

sauce

[Sylence]

3 hours ago, VileTouch said:

After all, the Iranians, Chinese, Russians, Saudis, Americans, British, French, jihadhis, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, Taliban, white supremacists, Rohingya, Uyghurs, Kurds, Tibetans, Chechnyans, Palestinians, oppressed religionists of all stripes, and so on all believe they are the good guys. Who gets to decide?

 

 

So the writer of this article can't see any difference between terrorists like ISIS/Daesh,Taliban,Jihadists and other countries like Britain, France, Russia and Iran, and apparently doesn't possess a sane mind to decide which one of the two groups is good and which one is bad (I.e bad and worse)

[VileTouch]

3 minutes ago, saeed_dc said:

 

So the writer of this article can't see any difference between terrorists like ISIS/Daesh,Taliban,Jihadists and other countries like Britain, France, Russia and Iran, and apparently doesn't possess a sane mind to decide which one of the two groups is good and which one is bad (I.e bad and worse)

i think that's what he's trying to convey. that good or bad, they all see themselves as the good guys, regardless of their alignment. if you were a jihadist, you too would see yourself as "fighting the good fight". i don't think any group really see their own actions as horrible and loathsome. it's always the others, the enemies, the infidels, the terrorists.

how else would you rationalize the senseless killings recently?

[vibranium]

31 minutes ago, saeed_dc said:

 

So the writer of this article can't see any difference between terrorists like ISIS/Daesh,Taliban,Jihadists and other countries like Britain, France, Russia and Iran, and apparently doesn't possess a sane mind to decide which one of the two groups is good and which one is bad (I.e bad and worse)

 

The writer is saying, quite correctly, that the technology doesn't discriminate. These tools are powerful, but they can serve any ends. Think "gun rights vs gun control" on a technological plane. The debate is fierce and will not end because both extremes (unlimited encryption vs encryption banned) are unpalatable choices and the middle balance is too arbitrary.

[Sylence]

1 hour ago, VileTouch said:

i think that's what he's trying to convey. that good or bad, they all see themselves as the good guys, regardless of their alignment. if you were a jihadist, you too would see yourself as "fighting the good fight". i don't think any group really see their own actions as horrible and loathsome. it's always the others, the enemies, the infidels, the terrorists.

how else would you rationalize the senseless killings recently?

 

But what do we think? we, as outsiders, can't decide which one of those groups are better than the other? 

 

terrorists aren't that stupid as you think they are. they know pretty well what kinda animals they are, they just ignore that feeling. you see, all those ISIS members killing other people, (beheading), they're all on drugs, both the killer and the victim. or else how would the victim stay so calm when his head is being cut?

 

and the rest of the members, when that killer is cutting the victim's head off, all say together "allahu akbar" and give each other confidence so that they'll try to ignore for a while what kind of action they're doing.

49 minutes ago, vibranium said:

 

The writer is saying, quite correctly, that the technology doesn't discriminate. These tools are powerful, but they can serve any ends. Think "gun rights vs gun control" on a technological plane. The debate is fierce and will not end because both extremes (unlimited encryption vs encryption banned) are unpalatable choices and the middle balance is too arbitrary.

 

Yes but Technology isn't the only intention of the writer, he multiple times has mentioned countries' names

[VileTouch]

2 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

 

But what do we think? we, as outsiders, can't decide which one of those groups are better than the other? 

 

people's opinion is also clearly divided as well. maybe you and me don't agree with them, but if this opinion was unanimous, ISIS,talibans, et cetera, wouln't have anyone to recruit, even from within US soil of all places...which makes me doubt their true motives are solely of religious nature.

as outsiders, we are just that: passive bystanders caught in the crossfire. a statistic.

 

2 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

terrorists aren't that stupid as you think they are. they know pretty well what kinda animals they are, they just ignore that feeling. you see, all those ISIS members killing other people, (beheading), they're all on drugs, both the killer and the victim. or else how would the victim stay so calm when his head is being cut?

 

and the rest of the members, when that killer is cutting the victim's head off, all say together "allahu akbar" and give each other confidence so that they'll try to ignore for a while what kind of action they're doing.

 

they too expect to go to heaven for their actions. so they must have a sense of self rightousness. not sure about drug usage. for one, Islam prohibits the use of drugs

Quote

The general rule in Islam is that any beverage that get people intoxicated when taken is unlawful, both in small and large quantities, whether it is alcohol, drugs, fermented raisin drink, or something else.

and for two,ISIS have been known to destroy drug plantations, warehouses,shipments etc. in their territory, which would make sense as the religious fundamentalists they claim to be. other groups might or might not adhere to this, but i don't know about that.

[vibranium]

2 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

 

But what do we think? we, as outsiders, can't decide which one of those groups are better than the other? 

 

Yes but Technology isn't the only intention of the writer, he multiple times has mentioned countries' names

 

The writer has backed up his arguments with some impressive technical facts. I find myself agreeing (mostly) with what he has to say.

 

The crux of his argument is captured in this brief question:

Quote

Who gets to decide?

 

He is saying that nobody can be trusted to wield absolute discretion. He uses the mantra "There's no such thing as a good Orwellian state". Although I would not use those words, I tend to agree with him. Pushed to that extreme, the power distribution would be dangerously asymmetrical and society will rip apart. History is our teacher.

[Sylence]

2 hours ago, VileTouch said:

people's opinion is also clearly divided as well. maybe you and me don't agree with them, but if this opinion was unanimous, ISIS,talibans, et cetera, wouln't have anyone to recruit, even from within US soil of all places...which makes me doubt their true motives are solely of religious nature.

as outsiders, we are just that: passive bystanders caught in the crossfire. a statistic.

 

they too expect to go to heaven for their actions. so they must have a sense of self rightousness. not sure about drug usage. for one, Islam prohibits the use of drugs

and for two,ISIS have been known to destroy drug plantations, warehouses,shipments etc. in their territory, which would make sense as the religious fundamentalists they claim to be. other groups might or might not adhere to this, but i don't know about that.

 

I agree with the first part, that's true

 

Yes they're on drugs when they do those things. don't act like you don't know it's not about religion at all. it's just an excuse for them, an excuse that the west tries to emphasize. ISIS destroys everything, cities, houses, museums, cars etc. not just drug plantations,ware houses or shipments.

[Sylence]

2 hours ago, vibranium said:

 

The writer has backed up his arguments with some impressive technical facts. I find myself agreeing (mostly) with what he has to say.

 

The crux of his argument is captured in this brief question:

 

He is saying that nobody can be trusted to wield absolute discretion. He uses the mantra "There's no such thing as a good Orwellian state". Although I would not use those words, I tend to agree with him. Pushed to that extreme, the power distribution would be dangerously asymmetrical and society will rip apart. History is our teacher.

 

 

Quote

We're all part of the same hypocrisy   - by Michael

 

[flitox]

it seems that isis/daesh fighter are using this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenethylline

 

i've also read that only one group there didn't use drug, it's al nosra which is close to al quaeda.

 

of course it could be all wrong, but when you know that most europeeans that went to join those groups are ex losers/drop out that smoke dope, drank, stole etc and never care about religion until recently, the chance this is right is pretty high

[straycat19]

1 hour ago, flitox said:

it seems that isis/daesh fighter are using this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenethylline

 

i've also read that only one group there didn't use drug, it's al nosra which is close to al quaeda.

 

of course it could be all wrong, but when you know that most europeeans that went to join those groups are ex losers/drop out that smoke dope, drank, stole etc and never care about religion until recently, the chance this is right is pretty high

 

That is why we lube our bullets with E213, a flavor enhancer.  It has a religious flavor effect, but only on jihadists.

[Sylence]

1 hour ago, flitox said:

it seems that isis/daesh fighter are using this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenethylline

 

i've also read that only one group there didn't use drug, it's al nosra which is close to al quaeda.

 

of course it could be all wrong, but when you know that most europeeans that went to join those groups are ex losers/drop out that smoke dope, drank, stole etc and never care about religion until recently, the chance this is right is pretty high

 

Nice, now that we know the chemical substance they're using, lets track down its manufacturers and suppliers 

[VileTouch]

8 minutes ago, saeed_dc said:

 

Nice, now that we know the chemical substance they're using, lets track down its manufacturers and suppliers 

i'm sure someone is working on that already. how effective that measure would be is yet to be seen, though.

[straycat19]

8 minutes ago, saeed_dc said:

 

Nice, now that we know the chemical substance they're using, lets track down its manufacturers and suppliers 

 

It's illegal so it is being made in makeshift labs.  Same problem as Meth in the US, any idiot can get the ingredients and make it.  Which makes tracking down the manufacturers and suppliers very difficult.  They even setup portable labs in cars and drive around while making the stuff.  I don't imagine that fenethylline is any different.

[Sylence]

25 minutes ago, straycat19 said:

 

It's illegal so it is being made in makeshift labs.  Same problem as Meth in the US, any idiot can get the ingredients and make it.  Which makes tracking down the manufacturers and suppliers very difficult.  They even setup portable labs in cars and drive around while making the stuff.  I don't imagine that fenethylline is any different.

 

Oh that's a smart move. they're also using Methamphetamine A.k.a Meth, A.k.a chalk, A.k.a ice, A.k.a crystal, which is so much more effective and addictive than fenethylline.

 

Source:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA05xX0H19o

 

[flitox]

drug dealers are getting death sentence in saoudia, i'd be curious to know if the royal family princes that got caught smuggling captagon will get decapitated too.

[vibranium]

That is a question that does not need to be asked...

[Sylence]

Because it's so obvious...

[flitox]

then Allah will not be happy

[Sylence]

1 minute ago, flitox said:

then Allah will not be happy

 

Since I'm in contact with him I know pretty well he will be happy 

[CODYQX4]

On 12/22/2015 at 5:09 AM, vibranium said:

 

The writer is saying, quite correctly, that the technology doesn't discriminate. These tools are powerful, but they can serve any ends. Think "gun rights vs gun control" on a technological plane. The debate is fierce and will not end because both extremes (unlimited encryption vs encryption banned) are unpalatable choices and the middle balance is too arbitrary.

But there is no middle balance on issues like that. You either have the right to do something, or a bunch or caveats, gotchas, loopholes, and restrictions that hinder your rights.

 

Encryption either is secure, or it isn't. 

 

You either have the right to go and buy a gun, or there's a law stopping you from doing that. Any law trying to prevent/reduce X takes someone's right to bear arms away.

 

You either have the right to privacy, and can encrypt all your communications so that only the recipient can read it, or you don't. Any law trying to deny 100% unbackdoored encryption is taking your right to private communication away.

 

People think either being unrestricted means the world will burn. Tell me, when all communication was being done by letter (and nobody was opening them up en-masse), and even an 8 year old could buy a gun, how come early USA didn't just wipe itself out? The rest of the world?

 

The problem is we breathe the same air as people who want to kill us, and people who want to control us, but some people want to outlaw objects, ideas, and software as if the world would just become a utopia and the government is good 100% and nobody with ill intent will work around any of it.

 

Pass these laws and ONLY criminals and terrorists will have privacy and guns. You will have chains and the fantasy that Big Brother will protect you and do you no harm, and that they've gotten rid of anyone who might one day be a threat.

[flitox]

23 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

Since I'm in contact with him I know pretty well he will be happy 

seems like there is something i've misunderstand..... so you think those saoudi princes will get killed??

[vibranium]

10 hours ago, CODYQX4 said:

But there is no middle balance on issues like that. You either have the right to do something, or a bunch or caveats, gotchas, loopholes, and restrictions that hinder your rights.

 

Encryption either is secure, or it isn't. 

 

You either have the right to go and buy a gun, or there's a law stopping you from doing that. Any law trying to prevent/reduce X takes someone's right to bear arms away.

 

You either have the right to privacy, and can encrypt all your communications so that only the recipient can read it, or you don't. Any law trying to deny 100% unbackdoored encryption is taking your right to private communication away.

 

People think either being unrestricted means the world will burn. Tell me, when all communication was being done by letter (and nobody was opening them up en-masse), and even an 8 year old could buy a gun, how come early USA didn't just wipe itself out? The rest of the world?

 

The problem is we breathe the same air as people who want to kill us, and people who want to control us, but some people want to outlaw objects, ideas, and software as if the world would just become a utopia and the government is good 100% and nobody with ill intent will work around any of it.

 

Pass these laws and ONLY criminals and terrorists will have privacy and guns. You will have chains and the fantasy that Big Brother will protect you and do you no harm, and that they've gotten rid of anyone who might one day be a threat.

 

The argument with guns is actually easier. There HAS TO BE a balance. Would you allow unrestricted gun ownership? Even for crazy people? Or how about normal, everyday people, mounting 50-calibre widowmakers on their SUVs? So, there has to be a middleground SOMEWHERE.

 

Encryption is more difficult. There is breakable encryption. You say that is useless. Well, in the past letters could also be opened, right?

 

So the argument is not so simple. Argument for either extreme, without admitting the possibility of a middle ground, will lead to an impasse.

 

 

[Sylence]

33 minutes ago, flitox said:

seems like there is something i've misunderstand..... so you think those saoudi princes will get killed??

 

Allahu Akbar ! of course not !!

Saudi* 

[CODYQX4]

4 hours ago, vibranium said:

 

The argument with guns is actually easier. There HAS TO BE a balance. Would you allow unrestricted gun ownership? Even for crazy people? Or how about normal, everyday people, mounting 50-calibre widowmakers on their SUVs? So, there has to be a middleground SOMEWHERE.

 

Encryption is more difficult. There is breakable encryption. You say that is useless. Well, in the past letters could also be opened, right?

 

So the argument is not so simple. Argument for either extreme, without admitting the possibility of a middle ground, will lead to an impasse.

 

 

The stable people aren't going on a shooting rampage though. Even if they have 6 miniguns on their car for shits and grins. For the unstable person, they could just go and run over people. You imply more guns turns people who don't want to kill into raving lunatics. Some guy in China stabbed more people than a lot of our mass shootings shot.

 

You want to kill a lot of people? Homemade bomb in NYC subway. Those are already illegal and it still happens.

 

They said the AR-15 is some school shooter super scary military gun, yet mine never walked over to the nearest elementary school and shot anyone.

 

I don't automatically become an online drug dealer just because of Tor and the Dark Web existing either.