FBI wants to require Facebook, Skype, etc to allow wiretapping

[ryancolecreate]

this erosion will continue though, as most americans are too dense to see past their own suburban driveway. Somehow in the US this mindset that no great disruptive event can ever occur to the country. That dispute all the evidence, the government really can't be torturing people or locking them up without trials. That kind of stuff is just unthinkable to the normal person. However that is exactly this shit that is happening, increasing at a slow pace. The situation is such that even talking about things like that get you labeled as a wacko, even by normally liberally minded people. It's just unthinkable.

[roasty]

I wonder about the technical nature of the proposed backdoors. How would they not be exploitable by hackers also?

[gmanyo]

Making backdoors in programs is a fucking terrible idea.

[roasty]

Indeed: http://www.wired.com...eration-aurora/

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-23/opinion/schneier.google.hacking_1_chinese-hackers-access-system-google?_s=PM:OPINION

[roasty]

If anything, this could start a new wave of cyber-terrorism innit

[eugene]

freedom from fear/security is just as essential, if not more, as others freedoms and rights.

surveillance is obviously an effective tool in crime and terrorism prevention.

 

so the problem is the cumbersomeness of the current methods and the mistrust in the government, i guess ?

i don't think that everything should stop at constitution, things change and so should the thinking.

[goDel]

For those interested, here's a recent TEDtalk on cookies:

 

On the whole FBI-discussion: they're not the bad guy, per se. They should be trying to do everything which is within the law to try and protect civilians. Simple as that. If they're violating people's privacy, blame government. They're writing the rules. The FBI's only role in the game is to push the limits in playing within these rules. Taxpayers money is spent on them to do so.

 

On the "you're not qualified to make a judgement because you don't know everything" issue: Everyone's allowed to make a judgement. However, the judgement of someone with more (inside) knowledge tends to be more qualified. It's pretty simple really: there aren't many people here who'd count as qualified enough to have some authority on this issue. And that's not because those qualified are the people behind the curtains. There's a lot of people working for the government. There's just not too many here. So please stick to the facts and keep on having an opinion. But don't go apeshit about it.

[delet...]

On the whole FBI-discussion: they're not the bad guy, per se. They should be trying to do everything which is within the law to try and protect civilians. Simple as that. If they're violating people's privacy, blame government. They're writing the rules. The FBI's only role in the game is to push the limits in playing within these rules. Taxpayers money is spent on them to do so.

 

On the "you're not qualified to make a judgement because you don't know everything" issue: Everyone's allowed to make a judgement. However, the judgement of someone with more (inside) knowledge tends to be more qualified. It's pretty simple really: there aren't many people here who'd count as qualified enough to have some authority on this issue. And that's not because those qualified are the people behind the curtains. There's a lot of people working for the government. There's just not too many here. So please stick to the facts and keep on having an opinion. But don't go apeshit about it.

 

The under J edgar Hoover the FBI worked outside the law with warrentless surveillance etc., for a long time. They just had secret authorization from the president if you can call that legal. So it seems the laws are finally catching up with what's always been going on.

 

Sure, if it was a normal case like your kidnapped daughter or the mafia or whatever. They would obey the laws on the books. But for gathering information on those that might effect the power structure,they have never bothered deferring to laws.

 

As, they are the law.

 

[SR4]

yup, well said dleet.

 

The FBI has abused the powers given to them from day one.

 

If you give a government a power out of desperation...why on earth would they ever give it back to you?

[SR4]

goDEL: am I "qualified" to know how much giving someone certain powers over what I do protects me from danger? No, I don't. But I am qualified in growing up in a society where we are taught from a young age that the right to privacy is one of the many cornerstones of a successful functioning democracy, and things like this threaten to seize pieces of a right that is supposed to be inherently a right of the individual.

[goDel]

The under J edgar Hoover the FBI worked outside the law with warrentless surveillance etc., for a long time. They just had secret authorization from the president if you can call that legal. So it seems the laws are finally catching up with what's always been going on.

 

Sure, if it was a normal case like your kidnapped daughter or the mafia or whatever. They would obey the laws on the books. But for gathering information on those that might effect the power structure,they have never bothered deferring to laws.

 

As, they are the law.

 

I'm not sure how the American system works, but as far as I can tell, the FBI are not the law. They're an institute gathering information to be able to bring suspects in front of a court. The court is the law.

 

If the FBI got authorization to do things outside the law, blame the institutes which granted them those authorities. Again, the FBI is not the law. Sure, there will be examples of FBI doing things without authorities and whatnot. But a couple examples don't automatically represent a valid proof for the idea the total institute being outside the law.

 

Again, blame government for allowing the FBI to "abuse" their powers. (They were authorized, weren't they?)

 

goDEL: am I "qualified" to know how much giving someone certain powers over what I do protects me from danger? No, I don't. But I am qualified in growing up in a society where we are taught from a young age that the right to privacy is one of the many cornerstones of a successful functioning democracy, and things like this threaten to seize pieces of a right that is supposed to be inherently a right of the individual.

 

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I haven't said anyone was not qualified. The only thing I've said is that to have some kind of informed discussion, people with knowledge tend to be more qualified. If that rubs you the wrong way, so be it. If the shoe fits and all.

 

What I do think, is that the way people are being treated like poop just because they're representing the opposite side of the argument is pretty pathetic. And ironically, it's totalitarian in itself. But hey, some opinions apparently carry some religious qualities and are not allowed to be questioned.

[delet...]

The under J edgar Hoover the FBI worked outside the law with warrentless surveillance etc., for a long time. They just had secret authorization from the president if you can call that legal. So it seems the laws are finally catching up with what's always been going on.

 

Sure, if it was a normal case like your kidnapped daughter or the mafia or whatever. They would obey the laws on the books. But for gathering information on those that might effect the power structure,they have never bothered deferring to laws.

 

As, they are the law.

 

I'm not sure how the American system works, but as far as I can tell, the FBI are not the law. They're an institute gathering information to be able to bring suspects in front of a court. The court is the law.

 

Well then, shouldn't what i said bring you great concern dear boy. Certainly doesn't invalidate what i said.

[goDel]

What is there to invalidate? Other than that the FBI is the law? My only claim was that the FBI are not the bad guys per se. Which you in a way confirmed by giving the Hoover example.

 

So there. Everybody happy.

 

edit.: or concerned

[lumpenprol]

freedom from fear/security is just as essential, if not more, as others freedoms and rights.

surveillance is obviously an effective tool in crime and terrorism prevention.

funny thing is, your first sentence there could be used to support exactly the opposite argument to the one you're making

[Redruth]

now now, we all know this is coming. the more we fail to organize and see things in the unified way that supports the elemental aspects of our lives as human beings (food, shelter, health, clean water, clean air etc), the more we will be taken advantage of by the those who's sole motivation is money and control, with no attention to their cause or effect and the repercussions of their actions.

[eugene]

freedom from fear/security is just as essential, if not more, as others freedoms and rights.

surveillance is obviously an effective tool in crime and terrorism prevention.

funny thing is, your first sentence there could be used to support exactly the opposite argument to the one you're making

im not sure if i get you, do you mean the notion that surveillance and stuff actually create more fear ?

what i'm mainly going against is that popular quote - "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.", i think is idiotic.

[chenGOD]

goDel - the FBI has a long history of being all too happy to ignore the law when it suits them. You are correct in that the government should slap them down. But the FBI are definitely not what one could call "good guys" by any stretch.

Hoover initiated the wiretapping as far back as the Truman administration, and it was Hoover who went to Truman and his aides, not the other way round.

 

eugene: the only person who can stop you from living in fear is yourself.

Do you fear dying in an automobile accident? dying from cancer? dying from natural disasters? You should, cause your chance of dying from those is much higher than dying from terrorist attack or insurgent warfare, yes even in Israel.

[eugene]

i'm afraid of all of those thing you mentioned and i expect the government that i pay taxes to to do their best to prevent them.

[chenGOD]

How do you expect the government to prevent an automobile accident?

[chassis]

How do you expect the government to prevent an automobile accident?

 

This was the point I was going to make in the beginning. The chances of being killed by a terrorist vs the chances of being hit by a car.

 

CARS ARE FUCKING EVERYWHERE.

[goDel]

goDel - the FBI has a long history of being all too happy to ignore the law when it suits them. You are correct in that the government should slap them down. But the FBI are definitely not what one could call "good guys" by any stretch.

Hoover initiated the wiretapping as far back as the Truman administration, and it was Hoover who went to Truman and his aides, not the other way round.

 

eugene: the only person who can stop you from living in fear is yourself.

Do you fear dying in an automobile accident? dying from cancer? dying from natural disasters? You should, cause your chance of dying from those is much higher than dying from terrorist attack or insurgent warfare, yes even in Israel.

Fair. I wasn't calling them the good guys though. But why brand them as the bad guys, if it's the government which allows them to. The FBI don't give a shit about what people think about them. If government gives them the space, they'll be glad to (mis)use it. To a certain extent, misuse of powers is inherent to the secrecy surrounding their activities (obviously). It's the governments responsibility to keep them in check. Blame them.

[eugene]

How do you expect the government to prevent an automobile accident?

not a particular accident, but you know, better driving education, better enforcement maybe, better roads etc.

[chenGOD]

goDel - the FBI has a long history of being all too happy to ignore the law when it suits them. You are correct in that the government should slap them down. But the FBI are definitely not what one could call "good guys" by any stretch.

Hoover initiated the wiretapping as far back as the Truman administration, and it was Hoover who went to Truman and his aides, not the other way round.

 

eugene: the only person who can stop you from living in fear is yourself.

Do you fear dying in an automobile accident? dying from cancer? dying from natural disasters? You should, cause your chance of dying from those is much higher than dying from terrorist attack or insurgent warfare, yes even in Israel.

Fair. I wasn't calling them the good guys though. But why brand them as the bad guys, if it's the government which allows them to. The FBI don't give a shit about what people think about them. If government gives them the space, they'll be glad to (mis)use it. To a certain extent, misuse of powers is inherent to the secrecy surrounding their activities (obviously). It's the governments responsibility to keep them in check. Blame them.

It's easy to brand them as bad guys cause they have shown they are more than willing to exploit the law even without government approval. Even after they've been smacked down by the public, the press, and the government.

Like i said, i agree, the government needs to hold them accountable, but the FBI and all those 3 letter agencies need to have some serious self policing.

 

How do you expect the government to prevent an automobile accident?

not a particular accident, but you know, better driving education, better enforcement maybe, better roads etc.

 

Better drivers ed - ok, although my own personal experience with drivers ed is that the instructors are very competent, extremely cautious people (who deserve some fucking medals for doing what they do - for real). But sure improving standards are good.

Better roads absolutely - that's an awesome improvement to a public infrastructure.

Better enforcement? Better enforcement of what? distracted driving? sleepiness? weather? speeding? drunk driving? aggressive driving? All of those (and I'm sure they are not all possibilities) are causes of car crashes. Of the 6 causes - how many of those come down to personal responsibility. All of them - although I will give a caveat to bad weather. How do you expect a government official to enforce not driving when sleepy?

 

The better roads example is instructive - it is an improvement to public infrastructure that all can benefit from. Secret wiretapping with no oversight is of benefit to no one, and is no improvement at all. In fact it could be considered making the service worse, because if there are backdoors, then criminals will be able to exploit them.

[eugene]

all of those "personal responsibility" causes for accidents can be reduced with the help of technological means if you use some imagination, and it's nothing futuristic really. (save for distraction maybe, can't think of anything to prevent it atm)

 

i haven't really started arguing anything about how the wiretapping should be implemented yet, for now i'm simply coming against this religious attitude towards civil liberties and constitution and such.

[awepittance]

for now i'm simply coming against this religious attitude towards civil liberties and constitution and such.

 

you're either not trying very hard or you have not read the constitution. I continue to be amazed by your lack of understanding of why certain Americans would want to hold onto some of these values, like privacy.

However since you seem to believe everything your government tells you, hook line and sinker. I'm not surprised you would also make apologies for the United States.