Obama Joins Cameron in Calling for the End of Privacy

[ringpriest]

"Because terrorism" of course.

"Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight"

President Barack Obama said Friday that police and spies should not be locked out of encrypted smartphones and messaging apps, taking his first public stance in a simmering battle over private communications in the digital age.

Apple, Google and Facebook have introduced encrypted products in the past half year that the companies say they could not unscramble, even if faced with a search warrant. That’s prompted vocal complaints from spy chiefs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Obama’s comments came after two days of meetings with Cameron, and with the prime minister at his side.

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.”

What an evil, stupid fucktard of an excuse for a president - sadly, that's not really prosecutable, so we'll just have to wait until the next presidential election. (Unless the otherwise pointless Republicans actually manage to impeach him on some petty piece of trumped up bullshit. At this point, I'm ready to wish them good luck.)

[Merkava]

What an evil, stupid fucktard of an excuse for a president - sadly, that's not really prosecutable, so we'll just have to wait until the next presidential election. (Unless the otherwise pointless Republicans actually manage to impeach him on some petty piece of trumped up bullshit. At this point, I'm ready to wish them good luck.)

Do you have a problem with this position?

The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.

[Masark]

Do you have a problem with this position?

Yes. Encryption with a backdoor is functionally not encryption at all.

[Wells]

Yes. Encryption with a backdoor is functionally not encryption at all.

That's kind of a weird position. Is the only worthwhile encryption flawless encryption?

[Merkava]

Yes. Encryption with a backdoor is functionally not encryption at all.

Not when an order from a judge is concerned, no. Do you have an issue with that?

[Deleted]

#thanksobama

[Darkrulerxxx]

Not when an order from a judge is concerned, no. Do you have an issue with that?

yes because it leaves the encryption invulnerable to such a backdoor when used illegally. Like Masark said, it's no longer an encryption, it basically destroys the notion of security knowing it can just be opened up with a master key they would own.

[oxymoronic]

title is misleading - most people dont even use such services. stupid title, very stupid and meant to distract.

[oxymoronic]

also i find it weird he blames the president. the next president will feel the same regardless if they do right now or not. its only logical and they dont have the comfort of listening to their emotions. too much at stake

[Darkrulerxxx]

title is misleading - most people dont even use such services. stupid title, very stupid and meant to distract.

i would say a lot of people DO use encryption software; the so called terrorists, i would argue, would be in the category of limited used of encryption software.

[Masark]

That's kind of a weird position. Is the only worthwhile encryption flawless encryption?

Basically. A cryptosystem with an intentional backdoor would be rendered utterly worthless as soon as some corrupt person sold the key to interested parties. You've got Snowdel et al releasing info out of conscience. How many more do you think would grab the key for money?

Not when an order from a judge is concerned, no. Do you have an issue with that?

Yes, I have an issue with that. If you think the backdoor key would remain secure and not be rapidly stolen by someone and sold to organized crime, I have several bridges and swaths of oceanfront property to sell you.

Also, the judges in your nation seem to have little interest in actual standards of evidence. The fact the term "parallel construction" exists is evidence of this.

[Deleted]

"Yes I want my government to further penetrate my private life and spy and tap into what I am saying because it only affects criminals so I have nothing to worry about, I can trust my government!"

[fengosa]

This isn't really new. BlackBerry had to comply with India and Saudi Arabia's security measures in order to operate there because criminals were using their encryption to avoid surveillance. In the they came to an agreement with both governments to allow access where needed.

I believe there's a legitimate need for privacy online but at the same time a completely unmonitored Internet is a dangerous thing. In the end the tech companies will find a solution that benefits most while allowing gov and law enforcement access when they need it.

[Barnabas]

That's kind of a weird position. Is the only worthwhile encryption flawless encryption?

It's a ridiculous position because if you allow a trap door for government then you also leave the trapdoor open for anyone else that learns about it.

[Wells]

Basically. A cryptosystem with an intentional backdoor would be rendered utterly worthless as soon as some corrupt person sold the key to interested parties. You've got Snowdel et al releasing info out of conscience. How many more do you think would grab the key for money?

This just seems an odd argument to me since no one ever says a safe or lock has to be flawless to be of value.

[Bullettime]

Basically. A cryptosystem with an intentional backdoor would be rendered utterly worthless as soon as some corrupt person sold the key to interested parties. You've got Snowdel et al releasing info out of conscience. How many more do you think would grab the key for money?



Yes, I have an issue with that. If you think the backdoor key would remain secure and not be rapidly stolen by someone and sold to organized crime, I have several bridges and swaths of oceanfront property to sell you.

Also, the judges in your nation seem to have little interest in actual standards of evidence. The fact the term "parallel construction" exists is evidence of this.

Yeah it's inevitable that the master key would be sold within mere months of the product release. If we could trust that wouldn't happen then sure but let's be realistic.

[ringpriest]

Do you have a problem with this position?

The President's position is fractally wrong. There's so much wrong with it that its hard to know where to begin. As Masark mentions, backdoored security is no security at all. America has already had this debate back in the 90s, before coming to the conclusion that trying to fundamentally break encryption is stupid. Obama's comments presume that "terrorism" is a major threat when it really isn't, that such backdoors actually help in terror cases, that they won't be abused, that the government has the constitutional authority to mandate such backdoors, that people (particularly criminals) won't find "illegal" encryption anyways, and ignores the damage such standards would do to US communications companies global markets. And that's just off the top of my head at the end of a long day. This is likely the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of coming out of Obama's lie-hole, and that's saying something. What a miserable, wretched, disgraceful waste of an office. While it won't be for this, I really, truly hope that SOB ends up squirming in front of the ICC someday in the not too distant future.

[oxymoronic]

Yes, I have an issue with that. If you think the backdoor key would remain secure and not be rapidly stolen by someone and sold to organized crime, I have several bridges and swaths of oceanfront property to sell you.

lol you watch too many movies.

[Masark]

This just seems an odd argument to me since no one ever says a safe or lock has to be flawless to be of value.

A backdoor is of far greater magnitude than a flaw.

Unless the backdoor key can be kept secure (and it can't), it render the cryptosystem broken as soon as it gets into the wild.

- - - Updated - - -

lol you watch too many movies.

Which part of my statement is unrealistic?

[Reeve]

I feel like this is one area the government has gone too far on. They shouldn't be able to read my personal messages without a proper warrant. And since they've shown themselves to be willing to take my data without an individual warrant, I'm happy to say they shouldn't be able to read them at all.