U.S. Seeks Facebook's Help to Wiretap Messenger

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, LordOTaco said:

Yeah to me its fairly simple.  Apply the existing amendments get a search warrant with probable cause.  Now what I would have a problem with is having a government have unfettered access to monitor you and access anything and everything they want to on you WITHOUT probable cause and WITHOUT a warrant.  That is a problem to me. 

Usual problems with back-doors aside, I have no problem with them gaining access with a proper search warrant. It should follow the same rules as telephone tapping did.  Tap the phone without an order and the whole case falls apart, read someones txt's/PM's without an order and watch them walk free.  Due process exists for a reason, I don't see why it can't be applied to modern communications where possible.

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Good thing I don't live in one of those countries then.   If you are really afraid of it, then vote out your government or start a new party to fix the issues.  The US must be one of the few governments that people could argue is slipping from a free nation to a dictatorship.

Oh it definitely was before 2017. Not so much these days.

 

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

don't blame me for America not having independent judges. Beacon of democracy and all that

Thats clearly not what the issue is. The issue is that weakening encryption or security in any way isnt just subject to your own government abusing it, but any criminal or foreign government.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Usual problems with back-doors aside, I have no problem with them gaining access with a proper search warrant. It should follow the same rules as telephone tapping did.  Tap the phone without an order and the whole case falls apart, read someones txt's/PM's without an order and watch them walk free.  Due process exists for a reason, I don't see why it can't be applied to modern communications where possible.

Because of the very things you just threw aside.

 

If the device or service is insecure by design, why use it? 

 

Modern communications arent like standard phones that could literally be wire tapped. You either have to pwn the device with malware, an exploit to unlock it, or you have to have a backdoor to the device or its encryption protocol.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Because of the very things you just threw aside.

 

If the device or service is insecure by design, why use it? 

 

Modern communications arent like standard phones that could literally be wire tapped. You either have to pwn the device with malware, an exploit to unlock it, or you have to have a backdoor to the device or its encryption protocol.

 

I didn't throw anything aside, I merely said current legislation has to keep up with technology.  You may not like it, but the fact is we all live on the one world and you don't know everything. 

[handymanshandle]

I've always hated the adage "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" While on the surface seems very reasonable, I'm don't really wanna give up privacy and the right to privacy over the common good. I feel like that's an unalienable right.

 

At any rate, I feel like while social media is "free" service paid for by advertisement and other methods like offering games and in-game purchases, it should be extended protections of the 4th amendment.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I've always hated the adage "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" While on the surface seems very reasonable, I'm don't really wanna give up privacy and the right to privacy over the common good. I feel like that's an unalienable right.

 

 

I would prefer if the authorities touted this instead: "if you have done nothing wrong, then we can't get a warrant to search you or your data".

[handymanshandle]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

I would prefer if the authorities touted this instead: "if you have done nothing wrong, then we can't get a warrant to search you or your data".

I know right, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but nowadays they almost have to go about as if guilty until proven innocent. smh

[ArchieKun]

Law enforcement dose not need the encryption broke to do this anyway. They are just trying to do it easier which could be against current standards of privacy which is a good enough reason why it won't come to pass. With that said if they are dealing with a particular dangerous cyber threat, or someone using fb to send threat sd then they can ask fb to provide this info at that time, or get a warrant for the search of the phone to which the offender is sending the messages in question. If they had this info prior to the probable cause phase then this would in my mind be unconstitutional.

[Arika]

As if facebook doesn't already give away all it's users data to anyone with a big enough bank account

[asus killer]

9 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

Thats clearly not what the issue is. The issue is that weakening encryption or security in any way isnt just subject to your own government abusing it, but any criminal or foreign government.

this discussions always loop. Then police shouldn't be able to access it just because someone else may also access it. You effectively make bad guys live easy because you are afraid someone may eventually abuse it. Makes no sense but ok.

 

Again as to the "own government", vote for other people if you live in a place with such a shady government.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

this discussions always loop. Then police shouldn't be able to access it just because someone else may also access it. You effectively make bad guys live easy because you are afraid someone may eventually abuse it. Makes no sense but ok.

 

Again as to the "own government", vote for other people if you live in a place with such a shady government.

So, because some criminal may misuse something, we should ruin that thing for EVERYONE? Thats a really smart idea...

[Amazonsucks]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I would prefer if the authorities touted this instead: "if you have done nothing wrong, then we can't get a warrant to search you or your data".

Except they dont know whether or not you have, hence they collect data on everyone and engage in bulk collection and analysis of everything they can.

 

Then they can determine if they need to get a rubber stamp warrant to make something stick. If you think thats not how its been done for decades youre living under a rock.

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I didn't throw anything aside, I merely said current legislation has to keep up with technology.  You may not like it, but the fact is we all live on the one world and you don't know everything. 

And as i said in the other thread, these laws dont address the problem in any other way than to act as a stepping stone toward actual backdoors.

 

If the messages are secure, no warrant can unlock them. If theyre not, no criminal with half a brain would use them.

[Jito463]

On 8/17/2018 at 4:18 PM, Delicieuxz said:

rabid McCarthyism and of making false allegations against innocent people

Funny historical side note, but McCarthy was pretty much spot on with all of his allegations.  He wasn't a very good guy, but that didn't make him wrong.  The Soviet Union had numerous spies in almost all levels of government.

17 hours ago, asus killer said:

don't blame me for America not having independent judges. Beacon of democracy and all that

Except that we're not a "democracy", we are and have always been a representative republic.  One can argue at length about whether our representatives actually represent us anymore, but it's a definite fact that we are not a democracy (something the framers actually despised).

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

The US must be one of the few governments that people could argue is slipping from a free nation to a dictatorship.

Bull.  Our government may be more overbearing than the Constitution actually permits (something 'We The People' admittedly need to rein in), but it would require a complete collapse of our system for it to turn into a straight up dictatorship.  And in that case, there'd be another civil war before we ever permitted that to happen.

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

If the messages are secure, no warrant can unlock them. If theyre not, no criminal with half a brain would use them.

As to the topic at hand, I don't agree with the premise that they should put in a backdoor for police to use.  A backdoor is a security risk, because there is no way to guarantee that someone nefarious (including corrupt authorities) won't gain access.  Also, criminals will always find a way to communicate securely, even if it means going low-tech.  They could just make up their own code with a decoder, and then the police couldn't understand even if they could read it.

 

Putting intentional backdoors into secure, encrypted software is only going to hurt the law abiding citizen.

[Deus Voltage]

19 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Bull.  Our government may be more overbearing than the Constitution actually permits (something 'We The People' admittedly need to rein in), but it would require a complete collapse of our system for it to turn into a straight up dictatorship.  And in that case, there'd be another civil war before we ever permitted that to happen.

The U.S., in my view, is an exquisitely soft dictatorship based on an alliance between corporate entities such as pharmaceutical and media conglomerates and high vectors of the government such as the military industrial complex. 

The alliance reinforces cultural/ social (and the nasty "p word") delineations rather common grounds in terms of policies such as free healthcare. Gallup reported in 2016 that 58% of Americans support federally funded healthcare (that number is over 60 now according to pew-research) 

 

Democracy is an illusion, an exceedingly powerful one, a trick by the masterful puppeteers so that the wolves can decide the fate of the estranged and alienated waifs. A trick so that we can continue to segment, fragment and foolishly divide ourselves into well propositioned sizes that are easy to manage and neutralize when necessary.

 

I salute humanity for its perverted foolishness. 

[Jito463]

11 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Gallup reported in 2016 that 58% of Americans support federally funded healthcare (that number is over 60 now according to pew-research)

Polls - like WCCFTech - should be taken with a massive grain of salt.  Depending on the wording of the questions, the sample size and the sample area where the polls are made, the results can be skewed to mean almost anything.  As Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain) is reputed to have said, "There's lies, d*** lies and statistics".  I'll let you guess which is the most insidious of the three.

12 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Democracy is an illusion

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Polls - like WCCFTech - should be taken with a massive grain of salt.  Depending on the wording of the questions, the sample size and the sample area where the polls are made, the results can be skewed to mean almost anything.  As Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain) is reputed to have said, "There's lies, d*** lies and statistics".  I'll let you guess which is the most insidious of the three.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Spot on for the second part, but I disagree with your first assertion. I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis. This poll in particular is quite credible in my view, here's what it entails:

 

 

The first question in particular is quite clear in my view. The mainstream media of course was completely against the idea during the 2016 elections. I'm tempted to go deeper, but I shouldn't let politics overshadow the central issue that should be discussed, balancing privacy and security in the digital age. 

[Amazonsucks]

33 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

The U.S., in my view, is an exquisitely soft dictatorship based on an alliance between corporate entities such as pharmaceutical and media conglomerates and high vectors of the government such as the military industrial complex. 

The alliance reinforces cultural/ social (and the nasty "p word") delineations rather common grounds in terms of policies such as free healthcare. Gallup reported in 2016 that 58% of Americans support federally funded healthcare (that number is over 60 now according to pew-research) 

 

Democracy is an illusion, an exceedingly powerful one, a trick by the masterful puppeteers so that the wolves can decide the fate of the estranged and alienated waifs. A trick so that we can continue to segment, fragment and foolishly divide ourselves into well propositioned sizes that are easy to manage and neutralize when necessary.

 

I salute humanity for its perverted foolishness. 

That just says that 58% of people, or the majority, are ill informed as to the increased cost of that system. To implement that system, it would an extra >$30 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

 

Where do they expect that money to come from? Just wondering...

[Deus Voltage]

16 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

That just says that 58% of people, or the majority, are ill informed as to the increased cost of that system. To implement that system, it would an extra >$30 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

 

Where do they expect that money to come from? Just wondering...

Incorrect.

 

In fact, a recent study by the libertarian Mercatus Center found that while Sanders' plan would cost 32 trillion over 10 years, the total cost of healthcare would be lower than the currently implemented system for the same project amount of time.

 

Furthermore, the U.S already spends trillions on healthcare, while other first world nations spend far less per capita. The U.S. has no problem spending money on foreign wars too, so you cant really argue it's a money issue, that point in my view is moot and irrelevant, a trick, a distraction. 

 

Business Insider (not exactly the most socialist site out there) reported the findings from Mercatus Center. The debate is much more nuanced than one might initially think.

 

[Jito463]

14 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

the total cost of healthcare would be lower than the currently implemented system for the same project amount of time.

We're starting to get well off the original subject, so I'll just end with this.  Even assuming that is true (and that presumes the the government cost projections were accurate, which is rarely - if ever - the case), there still remains the question of what happens to the quality of health care under such a system.

And so the mods don't start deleting posts and closing this topic, I'll leave it at that.

[Deus Voltage]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

We're starting to get well off the original subject, so I'll just end with this.  Even assuming that is true (and that presumes the the government cost projections were accurate, which is rarely - if ever - the case), there still remains the question of what happens to the quality of health care under such a system.

And so the mods don't start deleting posts and closing this topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

Crowder is a highly manipulative and untrustworthy source of information. I won't go further because as you've stated, we are derailing from the main topic.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

the question of what happens to the quality of health care under such a system

 

Well ...

 

 

 

Anyway, this thread will be locked soon unless we get back to the topic.  So let's do that.

 

US bad, facebook bad too.

[Deus Voltage]

Yup, my apologies to the mods for the brief derailment. I hope the conversation can continue outside the domain of politics.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

The big problem indeed is that you can not let one group of people have access to secure communication without making it insecure for everyone. 

So the big question is : do we want to make all communications insecure to catch a couple more bad guys or do we want to make it slightly harder for police to gather evidence but keep everyone secure from hackers?

[asus killer]

double post. sorry

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

Except that we're not a "democracy", we are and have always been a representative republic.  One can argue at length about whether our representatives actually represent us anymore, but it's a definite fact that we are not a democracy (something the framers actually despised).

 

democracy in the same you have free elections and all. But i get your point, it's not a traditional democracy, your election system is over engineered 

 

 

4 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

So, because some criminal may misuse something, we should ruin that thing for EVERYONE? Thats a really smart idea...

misuse?! crashing planes into building, that misuse? It's a tool to catch criminals like anything else

 

like having license plates removes your privacy, but we don't drive without them, even if he don't all drive badly