« The Information The FBI Found After Unlocking The San Bernardino Attacker's iPhone | Main | Justice Department Withdraws Lawsuit in Brooklyn To Force Apple To Unlock iPhone »

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chanson de Roland

The problem with both the CCOA and open Letter to Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Feinstein Regarding Encryption (Open Letter) is that neither recognize the dilemma of the situation but are either, as is true of CCOA, all for unlocking and decryption (Unlocking), or, as is true for the Open Letter, are all for strong, if not unbreakable, locking and encryption (Locking) of our computing devices. But this ignores the dilemma. To wit: Locking, as advocated by the Open Letter, while offering the best protection for security and privacy, may so greatly impair law enforcement and/or intelligence gathering as to lead to disastrous, if not catastrophic, breach of national security, leading to a great loss of life and destruction of property and the resulting disruption of society, and quite likely a call for abandoning constitutional protections altogether in the mistaken belief that such extreme measures would prevent another such attack, and, of course, Locking would make ordinary law enforcement much less effective, perhaps leading to public corruption and resulting in society’s general decadence; while CCOA’s Unlocking would probably greatly reduce the risks of such harms, as described, supra, Unlocking may open the way for the transformation of the United States into a surveillance state, Eric Blair’s, a.k.a., George Orwell’s, Big Brother, leading to a despotic and fascist state, or, at least, it would create the immediately potential for such a Big-Brother state, and, at the very least, Unlocking would expose the intentionally created backdoors to criminals and others of nefarious intent; it would also result in other governments, some of which would be nasty despotic governments, demanding the same type of backdoors for their law enforcement and intelligence services.

And I believe that any government that adopted CCOA-like law would be transformed into a despotic state, for such power, the power to spy on virtually everyone’s most intimate, personal information, would be a temptation too great to resist and would ultimately and inexorably lead to despotism and fascism of either either a Right or Left wing government.

And let’s not forget the severe damage that a unilateral U.S. CCOA would do to the business prospects of U.S. tech firms, thought the idea of major nations collaborating on CCOA treaty sends chills down my spine, as Big Brother would then be created in every nation with the Internet and/or a cell network.

That is the dilemma, and neither CCOA or the Open Letter present a solution to it. I am not sure that there is a solution to it. But if there is a solution, I think that it will be found in Americans being true and steadfast in protecting and defending the rights manifest and mandated by our U.S. Constitution, balanced against the best means for maintaining our constitutional rights, while defending against the risks that we face, measured by their probability of occurrence. Neither CCOA or the Open Letter do that. And we must also accept, as has always been true, that the price of our liberty may well entail and almost certainly will cost some our blood and treasure, but we have always been willing to pay that cost, for ours is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

George

I, too, am not sure that there is a solution to balance competing interests.

Encryption is like social media. It's out there and available. You can't take it away. Consumers and businesses use it. People want effective encryption = end-to-end and under the user's control. Consider this ironic example:

Facebook's Tor Website Has Over One Million Users
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2455868/facebooks-tor-website-has-over-one-million-users

Now, if i can only get the folks at Typepad.com to enable https everywhere.

George
Editor
http://ivebeenmugged.typepad.com

Chanson de Roland

Let me elaborate on the principles that should guide and control a solution to the dilemma of Locking vs. Unlocking. We start with the principle that we shall preserve all of our constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities as a reasonable reading of the U.S. Constitution would understand and give effect to them, for that is the ground on which the United States and her people stand. Then we look at the threats that we face and their respective likelihood of occurrence, and what are the best means available for dealing with those threats, while maintaining our constitutional rights. And by best, I mean those methods that will least burden our rights, while providing for our security, so that the methods which place the greatest, yet always constitutional acceptable under the circumstances, burden on our rights is reserved for the most serious threats, while lesser threats won't be permitted to hinder our rights in any way, such that, for example, ordinary law enforcement won't be permitted to hinder our rights in any way. In this way, the degree of permitted burden on our rights will proportional to the threat as measured by its likelihood of occurrence multiplied by the magnitude of its harm, but with the burden on our rights always being cabined within the bounds of what is permitted by the U.S. Constitution. Even so, even with the wisest and best balance and matching of threat to the means for most effectively and appropriately dealing with it, being faithful to our constitution and being steadfast in honoring it can not be had without some risks of loss of our blood and treasure.

Now, of course the foregoing process will be dynamic, will depend upon the circumstances, and will require the constant application of the best or at least the wise and honest judgement of our leaders, our law makers, and particularly our judges. But the only alternative is to abandon our constitution and trust that the misery and enormities of despotism is will be less than the misery of the threats of terror and the decadence of crime, which is a proposition that both history and wise judgment have proved to be false time and time again.

My second point is to note the utter hypocrisy of nearly all the signatories to the Open Letter, for each of them routinely breaches our privacy in massive, pervasive, and relentless way to make their profits. The only exception may be Apple, but all of the rest, particularly the titans of social media and search, such as Google and Facebook, constantly violate our privacy far more frequently, far more pervasively, far more effectively, and far more intimately than anything that even the most despotic government has ever done. Indeed, governments took their early lesson and still lag behind their masters in e-commerce, social media, entertainment, and search when it comes breaching our privacy by probing our computer devices with impunity to collect, use, and trade in our personal data. For them to sign the Open Letter critical of the government should have cause their faces to glow brightly with the heat and light of shame and hypocrisy. For I say this: If government had access to what the likes of Google and Facebook know about us, it would have little occasion to resort to the warrants and the All Writs Act to discover the information about us that it seeks.

So Senators Burr and Feinstein could step back and concede that the Open Letter’s arguments are well taken, but demur that they will hold their ground until the titans of the tech industry lead by example by restoring to all of us our rights to privacy and our rights to property in our personal information, for if the Open Letter is well taken for governments, it is at least as well taken for the tech industry, and government will take its lead once again from the tech industry, waiving its power, to the extent that such a power is constitutional, to require their assistance in executing valid search warrants, as they, the firms of the tech industry, do not collect, use, and/or trade in our personal information, except by permission of a fairly and freely negotiated license from each user who authored that information through his acts on a network and the computers connected to it. What is good for the government is good for Google, Amazon, and Facebook and their ilk.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Follow

  • Updates via E-mail RSS Feed Updates via Twitter Updates via Facebook

About

  • Bloggers' Rights at EFF
  • George Jenkins, author of the I've Been Mugged Blog

..

  • © 2007 - 2017. George Jenkins. All Rights Reserved.

.

  • <$MTStatsScript$>