I don’t know what this is:
…but I’m pretty sure it’s NSFW.
11 Likes
I’m never gonna be able to unsee that.
4 Likes
Sorry, it is a chin of some older person. Notice the shirt arond the neck, and a small piece of red and white striped tie. And the skin above the tie.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
7 Likes
Actually
4 Likes
Want To Succeed in Establishment Policy Circles? Just Be Aggressively and Consistently Wrong Over and Over and Over
by Tom Engelhardt
That’s his bifurcated wattle. They’re quite rare, don’t you wish you had one?
1 Like
If he has his way, no one will know anything. The right faith is all that good people need. Knowledge should only be possessed by properly vetted, indoctrinated, and licensed personnel.
He’s trying to set an example for the children.
2 Likes
Interestingly, there’s two ways to read what he said. One is that he knows nothing about crypto; the other is that he knows more than we do. (Unless of course, you’ve been following the Snowden leaks that loosely suggest that the following assumptions are true). It’s all in the context.
Heres how the second scenario works.
If they can do that to a cell phone why can’t they do that to every computer in the country, and nobody can get into it?
Translation: We CAN get into every computer in the country. Except for this cell phone.
.If they, at their own will at Microsoft can put something in a computer – or at Apple
Translation: We didn’t allow Microsoft or Apple to ship operating systems without backdoors. If we allowed Microsoft or Apple to do that…
the big giant super computers,
Ok. That one’s babble. Tentative translation: imagine what would happen if we didn’t totally own massive cloud computing engines like google search. Or perhaps: imagine what would happen if we didn’t have backdoors into VM hosts used by all major cloud computing providers.
This is a problem that’s gotta be solved.
If we don’t allow Microsoft or Apple to ship computers that are immune to snooping by US government agencies then we can’t allow phone manufacturers to do it either.
3 Likes
He’s absolutely right. The level of encryption Apple has just made the default on its devices IS unprecedented and IS capable of helping users resist a court order or a search warrant. While he doesn’t speak fluent tech, the guy’s logic is flawless. It will now be MUCH harder for law enforcement to get at evidence of crimes, and, as he suggests, Comey and the FBI are in conversation with Apple and Google about the issue.
@doctorow “Don’t worry, we are working with our US representatives on redrafting ITAR into the Retroactive Emergency Traffic in Arms Regulations Domestic edition, which will close this whole domestic loophole on cryptographic weapons of terror being exchanged by citizens without the proper common sense permits and licensing.”
Moms Demand Action for Crypto Sense in America
So the password unlocking cracker boxes can’t crack the unlock on iphones now?
Don’t disparage Milky Way-Sol-P7 in that manner
2 Likes
Gee, one has to wonder how anybody investigated crimes before cell phones… Most of the push for phone surveillance seems to be based upon it being vastly cheaper than real investigation, and it can be automated. The problem with it is that for the data to be there, they need to listen to everyone. The legal/rights problem with eliminating the privacy of the average person is that the average person doesn’t do any of these things the feds are using for excuses. Why should hundreds of millions, or even billions of innocent people submit to a process which might catch the handful of existing offenders?
Not unlike with the TSA, they are putting forth deliberately bogus risk assessments and using fear to secure a cash cow of taxpayer money and backroom deals with their cronies. Law in the US has traditionally had checks and balances to prevent abuse, while “national security” has not. So if we can excuse shifting regular law enforcement to being labeled as national security, then anything goes. They aren’t even good liars.
2 Likes
One would also wonder how they investigated shootings before guns or
hit-and-runs before cars.
Some might, but no, I don’t wonder about these. If they had a right to intercept my communications and track my whereabouts before would be a different scenario.
2 Likes
If we can save the life of just one innocent child…it will all be worth it.
Great, when that one child isn’t rhetorical, and can be saved without costing real lives, and being charged billions of dollars to pay for their indiscretions, we’ll have something to discuss.
3 Likes
Pretty sure you missed the joke.
One would also wonder how they investigated shootings before guns or
hit-and-runs before cars.
This is a false equivalency, unless the crime you are talking about is something that could not be committed without a cellphone.
He’s absolutely right. The level of encryption Apple has just made the default on its devices IS unprecedented
It’s only unprecedented in that it is the default.
It will now be MUCH harder for law enforcement to get at evidence of crimes
We’ve had more than 30 years of this kind of talk from the FBI, and they still seem to get by with all the other evidence of crimes left in meatspace.
1 Like
I got the joke, despite my reply not being a joke.
1 Like
Thing is, if all this stuff can be done by computers, why do we need any investigators? Just chuck the metadata into the computer and BINGO, there’s your criminal!
So, we can save even more money by firing all of the police (well, maybe we keep a couple for walking the beat, yeah?), all of the FBI & CIA operatives and leaving it up to the machines.
Win-win.
