Weapons are good when they convince robbers and rapists to do something else (e.g. change their underwear) or, failing that, to stop doing something else (e.g. emitting greenhouse gases and 310K blackbody radiation).
Maybe "As Expeditiously As Possible" Isn't The Best Strategy
When Edward Snowden handed over his amazing trove of documents to journalists to release as they thought best, he also placed a huge responsibility on their shoulders to do so as expeditiously as possible.
Continuing the steady drip-drip-drip approach may be more effective in the long run. It had the advantage of driving the cycle:
1. Disclose X 2. Three-letter apparatchik denies X 3. Disclose evidence for X 4. Three-letter apparatchik admits X, but double-pinky-swears that it's only X and not Y 5. Disclose Y 6. Lather-rinse-repeat
This is one of those situations that evokes an observation from Robert Heinlein's first published story ("Life-Line", in which the insurance industry freaks out about a device that predicts how long someone will live):
There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
It's quite easy to construct a scenario that would provide evidence for the government's position:
1. Government agents find encrypted smartphone. 2. Investigation flails around in circles for a while. 3. Smartphone owner or friend thereof steps forward, "Oh, yeah, the password is...." 4. Evidence on smartphone cracks case open. 5. Profit!
Get back to us when something like that actually happens.
There is no evidence that it would address institutional data breaches
This is a piece of brazen misrepresentation on a par with the "increase" of the chocolate ration to twenty grams (from a previous thirty) in 1984. Obviously, the new system (in which Apple or Google do not have access to the user's passcode) protects the user from institutional data breaches, since no data breach can expose data that the target does not possess.
I notice that this editorial, unlike most of the others, has no comment section. It's a damning admission that Vance et al know perfectly well that they have nothing but easily refuted lies and bullshit.
Actually, there were a spate of lawsuits against firearms merchants and manufacturers, until the NRA flexed its muscle and had them barred by law. It may be prudent for Silicon Valley to invest in a few coin-operated politicians and get a similar shield in place.
it's still rather surprising to see him find it worthy of a multi-part detailed legal analysis for which he brought in a Harvard Law student, Zoe Bedell, to help
If Wittes wants to turn his own name into point-and-laugh fodder, that's his business, but dragging in a student who is presumably trying to build a respectable intellectual reputation for herself is just plain evil.
Can they really do anything about it? The purse strings are in the hands of Congresscritters who for the most part would rather score cheap demagoguery points by bashing "bureaucrats" that seriously evaluate the market price of hiring competent talent.
Translation: Their current financial interests are vested in options (Van Eck phreaking, bug planting) that are too expensive to be competitive if the Feds have push-button backdoor access.
If so, good for them. Chertoff is quite correct that it should be difficult to snoop, thus imposing limits on the amount of snooping.
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
Actually, an egomaniac like The Donald probably wouldn't bother picking up his bullhorn if he didn't get personal attention. That's yet another way "Lance Ulanoff" is wrong -- use of real names is as likely to encourage attention-seekers as to dissuade them.
Actually, I've created placeholder Facebook and Google accounts in my real name just to make sure somebody can't steal it (an act which would be much easier if "Lance Ulanoff"* had his way).
Do I have other accounts under some other plausible-sounding "real name"? Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know, and neither do they.
*I put the name in quotes since I have no way of knowing whether it's his(?) real name, to point that out and thereby underscore the fatuousness of his(?) position.
That's not an argument that would carry any weight with Lance Ulanoff, seeing as how he uses the exact same argument as "she shouldn't have gone out in public dressed like that" rapesplainers:
Of course, you often forget that you’re sometimes complicit, in some fashion, in the crime...
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
On the post: 3 California Cities Blocking Parking Ticket App For Being, Like, Way Too Useful
Their next project ought to be to write an app to implant spines and scrub the yellow stripes off their backs.
On the post: Bobby Jindal Announces Violent Games/Movies To Blame For All Those Mass Shootings
"Mission Accomplished"
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Weapons are good when they convince robbers and rapists to do something else (e.g. change their underwear) or, failing that, to stop doing something else (e.g. emitting greenhouse gases and 310K blackbody radiation).
On the post: GCHQ's Karma Police: Tracking And Profiling Every Web User, Every Website
Maybe "As Expeditiously As Possible" Isn't The Best Strategy
Continuing the steady drip-drip-drip approach may be more effective in the long run. It had the advantage of driving the cycle:
1. Disclose X
2. Three-letter apparatchik denies X
3. Disclose evidence for X
4. Three-letter apparatchik admits X, but double-pinky-swears that it's only X and not Y
5. Disclose Y
6. Lather-rinse-repeat
On the post: NYC Judge: Taxis Must Compete With Uber, No Matter The Medallion Industry
On the post: Jeb Bush Claims That Creating Encryption Harms America
Re:
I'll take "Both Of The Above" for $1000.
On the post: Spanish Police Park In Handicapped Spot, Fine Person Who Caught Them For 'Impugning Their Honor'
Specifically, the "if you piss me off I'll fuck you over" situation.
On the post: Manhattan District Attorney Ratchets Up The 'Going Dark' FUD; Leaves Out Its Connection To Shady Hacking Team
Not At All Impossible
1. Government agents find encrypted smartphone.
2. Investigation flails around in circles for a while.
3. Smartphone owner or friend thereof steps forward, "Oh, yeah, the password is...."
4. Evidence on smartphone cracks case open.
5. Profit!
Get back to us when something like that actually happens.
On the post: Manhattan District Attorney Ratchets Up The 'Going Dark' FUD; Leaves Out Its Connection To Shady Hacking Team
A Particularly Blatant Bit Of Nonsense
This is a piece of brazen misrepresentation on a par with the "increase" of the chocolate ration to twenty grams (from a previous thirty) in 1984. Obviously, the new system (in which Apple or Google do not have access to the user's passcode) protects the user from institutional data breaches, since no data breach can expose data that the target does not possess.
I notice that this editorial, unlike most of the others, has no comment section. It's a damning admission that Vance et al know perfectly well that they have nothing but easily refuted lies and bullshit.
On the post: No Immunity For Cops Who Sent A SWAT Team To A 68-Year-Old Woman's House For Threats Delivered Over Open WiFi Connection
On the post: NSA Apologist Offers Solutions To 'Encryption' Problem, All Of Which Are Basically 'Have The Govt Make Them Do It'
Re:
On the post: Insanity Rules: NSA Apologists Actually Think Apple Protecting You & Your Data Could Be 'Material Support' For ISIS
If Wittes wants to turn his own name into point-and-laugh fodder, that's his business, but dragging in a student who is presumably trying to build a respectable intellectual reputation for herself is just plain evil.
On the post: FBI Wants To Lead The Nation's Cyberbattalions, But Can't Seem To Recruit Enough Cannon Fodder
Re: Re: What I hear
On the post: Both Michael Hayden And Michael Chertoff Surprise Everyone By Saying FBI Is Wrong To Try To Backdoor Encryption
Re:
If so, good for them. Chertoff is quite correct that it should be difficult to snoop, thus imposing limits on the amount of snooping.
On the post: Washington Post Observes Encryption War 2.0 For Several Months, Learns Absolutely Nothing
Re: "Crypto War 2.0" is a lie!
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
Re: Registration isn't always easy
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
Do I have other accounts under some other plausible-sounding "real name"? Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know, and neither do they.
*I put the name in quotes since I have no way of knowing whether it's his(?) real name, to point that out and thereby underscore the fatuousness of his(?) position.
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
That's not an argument that would carry any weight with Lance Ulanoff, seeing as how he uses the exact same argument as "she shouldn't have gone out in public dressed like that" rapesplainers:
Next >>