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

[Deus Voltage]

10 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

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?

It's a very difficult decision to make for sure. It boils down to "do you want privacy or do you want safety?".

 

The bigger issue, I think, is who has the moral/ ethical authority to make such a decision for a large populace. There are a few problems, already, with the preceding statement. Morality/ ethics are very subjective. The other problem is that of "authority". Authority figures in the U.S. are not particularly trusted by the masses. 

 

I truly do not know the solution to this dilemma. 

 

Edit 1: actually now that I think of it, some have suggested to make Facebook and YouTube public utilities, but I'll need to research that proposition further to make a more rational assessment.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Deus Voltage

[Crab Puncher]

On 8/17/2018 at 4:57 PM, Deus Voltage said:

Let's keep politics out guys and gals! 

 

So I was originally notified by Reuters for this news, but the same article can be found on this site.

 

Essentially, the U.S. government is attempting to gain more access from Facebook's encrypted messenger for "criminal" related purposes

It’s not like the government doesn’t have all our information anyway. And Facebook is like an ea game if you pay money you can always win

[Deus Voltage]

6 minutes ago, Crab Puncher said:

It’s not like the government doesn’t have all our information anyway. And Facebook is like an ea game if you pay money you can always win

The fact that it's so brazen is what I think concerns people. 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Deus Voltage said:

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.

 

Which is why those systems increase quality of care, dont have rationing or long wait times for basic procedures, right?

 

Oh wait the exact opposite of that is reality, since it sets up perverse economic incentives that reduce quality of care and increase the number of people who abuse the system, making it worse for everyone.

[Deus Voltage]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Which is why those systems increase quality of care, dont have rationing or long wait times for basic procedures, right?

 

Oh wait the exact opposite of that is reality, since it sets up perverse economic incentives that reduce quality of care and increase the number of people who abuse the system, making it worse for everyone.

Let's stay on topic please

[Amazonsucks]

26 minutes ago, asus killer said:

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 

 

 

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

You totally missed the point of what i said. We didnt ban airplanes or make them inherently less secure as a result of that btw. The opposite was supposed to happen. And even with all the spying, look at all the shit terrorists do anyway. 

 

Apparently they cant catch these guys even when listening to everything on the internet as Snowden proved they do.

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

Just now, Deus Voltage said:

Let's stay on topic please

I didnt derail it. You did then said a bunch of nonsense, now you say for ME not to derail it so you can have the last word? Hmmm i wonder who that sounds like.

[Deus Voltage]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I didnt derail it. You did then said a bunch of nonsense, now you say for ME not to derail it so you can have the last word? Hmmm i wonder who that sounds like.

Okay

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

44 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

It boils down to "do you want privacy or do you want safety?"

Depends on what kind of safety. 

If by "safety" you mean that it'll make it easier to go through potential criminals and terrorists' phones, then yes it is a choice between privacy and safety.

 

However there's also all the safety that encryption provides, such as keeping dissidents safe from oppressive regimes, or securing your financial transactions and keeping hackers from obtaining your dick pics and sending them to all your coworkers. 

[asus killer]

10 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

Depends on what kind of safety. 

If by "safety" you mean that it'll make it easier to go through potential criminals and terrorists' phones, then yes it is a choice between privacy and safety.

 

However there's also all the safety that encryption provides, such as keeping dissidents safe from oppressive regimes, or securing your financial transactions and keeping hackers from obtaining your dick pics and sending them to all your coworkers. 

come on, this is the US. Oppressive regime? facebook and financial transactions? i'll concede on the dick picks, but hey sharing is caring, don't want them out don't take pictures of the bloody thing

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

44 minutes ago, asus killer said:

come on, this is the US.

I wasn't referring to the US, there's oppressive regimes and dissidents all around the world.  As a matter of fact I had several other countries in mind when I wrote that. 

But seeing as you are referring to the US, the CIA has been proven to spy on the senate committee that looked into their torture programs and even hacked into senate computers to remove documents.  If that's the kind of stuff the agencies in the US - the "good guys" - do, expect it to be worse in several other countries.  Do you really want to make it easier for such people to access your phones and PCs?

 

As for the financial transactions, those things happen more often than most people think and I wouldn't be surprised if they financially ruin more people than terrorist attacks do.  But of course it's not spectacular enough to make the news.

 

Actually I forgot another point in my previous post.  Journalists need to be able to protect their sources.  It's kinda hard to do that when the government (who might have their dirty laundry exposed as a result of the journalist's story) has free access to your entire digital life.  

 

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

I wasn't referring to the US, there's oppressive regimes and dissidents all around the world.  As a matter of fact I had several other countries in mind when I wrote that. 

But seeing as you are referring to the US, the CIA has been proven to spy on the senate committee that looked into their torture programs and even hacked into senate computers to remove documents.  If that's the kind of stuff the agencies in the US - the "good guys" - do, expect it to be worse in several other countries.  Do you really want to make it easier for such people to access your phones and PCs?

 

As for the financial transactions, those things happen more often than most people think and I wouldn't be surprised if they financially ruin more people than terrorist attacks do.  But of course it's not spectacular enough to make the news.

 

Actually I forgot another point in my previous post.  Journalists need to be able to protect their sources.  It's kinda hard to do that when the government (who might have their dirty laundry exposed as a result of the journalist's story) has free access to your entire digital life.  

 

the topic is about the US, but like i said before if you have a shady government facebook privacy is the least of your concerns. Its valid for the US for sure, vote for a change.

 

As to comparing the US to other countries, mine couldn't do some NSA thing even if they wanted to, no resources to do it. Besides they would not last a day if they were found doing what they do there. I bet this applies to most civilized countries.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

mine couldn't do some NSA thing even if they wanted to, no resources to do it. Besides they would not last a day if they were found doing what they do there. I bet this applies to most civilized countries.

hehe, I know that feeling.  Over here in Belgium the government is so up-to-date that I wonder when they'll discover the typewriter. 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

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.

If they don't know then they shouldn't get a warrant. You see the problem here is you either live in a country that already looks without your permission or legal right to, or you live in a country that wants to do that or you are deluded.   Either way, My stance is simple, no warrant = no evidence.  I don't really wish to entertain other speculation. 

 

6 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

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.

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.

You can leave assumptions/fears at the door.  I merely pointing out that as humanity evolves so do laws, as tech changes some laws become irrelevant and news laws need to be made.  This is a pretty simple concept that has been demonstrated over the entire history of the current legal systems in the western world.

 

If you think these laws don't address something important then write to your government and tell them. If you have found they contain no safeguards or limitations placed on authorities, then expose them,  tell your government and start a public awareness campaign.  If you can't do that then you don't live in a democracy and you references to Australian law are moot.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If they don't know then they shouldn't get a warrant. You see the problem here is you either live in a country that already looks without your permission or legal right to, or you live in a country that wants to do that or you are deluded.   Either way, My stance is simple, no warrant = no evidence.  I don't really wish to entertain other speculation. 

 

You can leave assumptions/fears at the door.  I merely pointing out that as humanity evolves so do laws, as tech changes some laws become irrelevant and news laws need to be made.  This is a pretty simple concept that has been demonstrated over the entire history of the current legal systems in the western world.

 

If you think these laws don't address something important then write to your government and tell them. If you have found they contain no safeguards or limitations placed on authorities, then expose them,  tell your government and start a public awareness campaign.  If you can't do that then you don't live in a democracy and you references to Australian law are moot.

I live in the USA, you know the country that basically owns all other 5 eyes countries, including yours. The same one that has a constitution with an actual bill of rights that actually includes the right of free speech?

 

Its not speculation. Its well documented leaks. You should probs get more up to date with your own country's willingness to spy on behalf of the USA. Youre one if the biggest helpers we have in that regard.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I live in the USA, you know the country that basically owns all other 5 eyes countries, including yours. The same one that has a constitution with an actual bill of rights that actually includes the right of free speech?

 

Its not speculation. Its well documented leaks. You should probs get more up to date with your own country's willingness to spy on behalf of the USA. Youre one if the biggest helpers we have in that regard.

 

 

If you think these laws don't address something important then write to your government and tell them. If you have found they contain no safeguards or limitations placed on authorities, then expose them,  tell your government and start a public awareness campaign.  If you can't do that then you don't live in a democracy and you references to Australian law are moot.

[Amazonsucks]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

If you think these laws don't address something important then write to your government and tell them. If you have found they contain no safeguards or limitations placed on authorities, then expose them,  tell your government and start a public awareness campaign.  If you can't do that then you don't live in a democracy and you references to Australian law are moot.

So literally repeating yourself as if that makes it true.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

So literally repeating yourself as if that makes it true.

repeating myself because it is the most appropriate response to your post, I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

[Amazonsucks]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

repeating myself because it is the most appropriate response to your post, I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Except i dont care to write your government to tell them their new law is pointless.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Except i dont care to write your government to tell them their new law is pointless.

??  I'm not sure if you worked this out, but it's YOUR government who wants facebooks help.  It's even in the title:

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