Is the FBI right in decrying the stronger encryption about to come to smartphones?

[The_Great_Unwashed]

@Smapti

To fight against the state is to fight against the notion of rights.

To admit only the rights “given” by the state is to admit none.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

Sure there is.

Yep.

Why not?

I get to decide whose business my health information, and other private information, is. You get to decide whose business your private information is.

Your health stopped being “private information” when you discussed it with your doctor.

No it didn’t. Private doesn’t mean it can’t be shared, it just means that I get to decide who it’s shared with.

[Smapti]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

1. The government can change the law. Some aspect of my perfectly legal activities right now could be deemed subversive if the congress passes a law tomorrow. And since they are monitoring me they will know right where to go.

This is true. Lucky for you, the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

This is no joke, did you know that many of the state Republican platforms currently call for all pornography to be illegal. What percentage of American men have some kind of pornography stored somewhere on their computer or phone?

Irrelevant.

2. Even legal information can cause damage. Take for instance the case of Martin Luther King Jr. As far as I know, he did nothing illegal but the FBI considered him (and wrote in a memo) that he was the “most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.”

Which, to be fair, he was.

Even though he was not a criminal the government surveilled him in an attempt to prove he was a communist, something they were never able to prove even though they installed wiretaps on his phones, in his home and in many of hotel rooms. They used the information they did find, on his personal, legal relationships to threaten him, to attempt to blackmail him, and in attempts to discredit him.

And they failed, because the power of his message was greater than the power of their countermessage.

How many erstwhile political leaders have been brought down through allegations of sexual but legal misconduct?

None who would have made effective leaders anyway.

Is this an acceptable use of government power?

Yes.

3. The chilling of political speech: Let’s say I know that my cellphone, texts, emails, etc… are being monitored. Rhetorical question: is there a possibility a reasonable person would censor themselves knowing this in a perfectly legal criticism of the current administration or legislature?

No.

Don’t you think that these kinds of fears could subvert our democracy? Any possibility?

No.

Should we not guard against this danger?

What danger?

4. Petty officials abusing their powers: If you want I could link to a dozen stories of government officials abusing their power. Do you need me to?

This is indeed a real concern.

Which is why I favor the death penalty for those convicted of bribery, corruption, public malfeasance, or other acts of petty abuse.

Think about what police departments could do with the current civil forfeiture laws if it had a good handle on everybody’s finances and social support structures.

…It could implement them more effectively?

Do you need more reasons why it is important to limit government power in this regard?

At least one would be nice.

Can you address the problems I have laid out here?

Apparently so.

[Smapti]

@Steve_MB

…act as a pathetic enabler when the people hired to do those jobs whine and moan “It’s too haaaaarrrrrd to do it within the rules made by We The People”.

We the People made the rules that you are now whining about.

[Smapti]

@The_Great_Unwashed

To admit only the rights “given” by the state is to admit none.

Who else do you think is giving you rights? Some imaginary wizard that will grant you superpowers when you die in exchange for obeying his arbitrary fiats?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Exsqueeze me? If this is a government of, by and for the people, then I(being a people) have every right in the world to put my two cents in when it comes to what my government does for/to me, and when enough people put their two cents into the pot it soon becomes apparent where the buck is going to stop eventually.

And yet the people have apparently decided that they approve of this security apparatus, which leaves you SOL.

[Smapti]

@Marley23

The government has been breaking the law left and right.

Cite?

Did you expect liberals to cheer for that?

I expect liberals to cheer for the entity that exists to protect and serve them over the entity that exists to exploit and profit from them.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

I expect liberals to cheer for the entity that exists to protect and serve them over the entity that exists to exploit and profit from them.

Would my government like a cheer, or would the raising of just one hand do?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Smapti

And they failed, because the power of his message was greater than the power of their countermessage.

And this somehow makes it justified.

[Morgenstern]

Does anyone really believe they will produce an encryption that the government won’t be able to bypass when needed? Given the resources the government has, it seems highly unlikely.

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Would my government like a cheer, or would the raising of just one hand do?

You tell me - you’re a part of it, after all.

[Smapti]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

And this somehow makes it justified.

The people who win get to write the history books about how they were objectively in the right all along, and promulgate the philosophical theories about how they were right and their enemies were evil, and write the body of law that retroactively declares their enemies to be criminals, and set up the school curriculae that teach the next generation of children the same propaganda.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

You tell me - you’re a part of it, after all.

I’m the part that’s saying “No.”

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

I’m the part that’s saying “No.”

And you’ve been outvoted.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

And you’ve been outvoted.

So the matter has been settled, Supreme Justice Smapti?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

So the matter has been settled, Supreme Justice Smapti?

Unless you’re aware of some secret Supreme Court ruling that overturned FISA and the Patriot Act, then yes, it has been.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

Unless you’re aware of some secret Supreme Court ruling that overturned FISA and the Patriot Act, then yes, it has been.

You’d think that if the matter had already been settled, then there wouldn’t be a public outcry and publicity campaign from the Fibbies because the phone companies would already have quietly capitulated. Apparently, somebody in government didn’t get the word that they have already won the battle.
Maybe you’d like to drop them a note?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

You’d think that if the matter had already been settled, then there wouldn’t be a public outcry and publicity campaign from the Fibbies because the phone companies would already have quietly capitulated.

They did quietly capitulate, and that would have been that if not for the treason of a certain bespectacled Putinist.

[Steve_MB]

@Smapti

And yet the people have apparently decided that they approve of this security apparatus

Well, then, nobody will buy the new phones, then.

@Smapti

I expect liberals to cheer for the entity that exists to protect and serve them

i.e. Apple and Google.

over the entity that exists to exploit and profit from them.

i.e. the three-letter snoop agencies.

[Steve_MB]

@Morgenstern

Does anyone really believe they will produce an encryption that the government won’t be able to bypass when needed? Given the resources the government has, it seems highly unlikely.

That’s precisely the point – they’ll have to start picking and choosing a small number of actual targets and present an opportunity for rebuttal in each individual case (i.e. obey the law).