Google Analytics

Advertisements

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Wired State Amazon

« Does Google Web Cache Backdate If You Backdate on Your CMS? | Main | What Has Hillary Clinton Accomplished as Secretary of State? I'll Tell You »

04/18/2015

Comments

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

Marla Hughes

A bit over the top for me, but you definitely make great points for the opposition. I do think you get one thing wrong: Google does not want anarchy, but to become the proxy state. Google's rules, worldwide.
I also don't see it as a company supporting Snowden so much as being against the US's duly elected representatives trying to control it's agenda.

Brad

Only an American would think the US Goverent has a legitimate role monitoring people's communications. You are nuts.

CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz)

Marla, you do have a point. Google of course wants to be the Power. Brin's notion of the Power is something between the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Soviet Knowledge Society and The Well...or something. That is, he has that Soviet More Science High stuff and the belief that egg-heads can solve all the problems of the world with Science.

But I would argue that to get there to that Googlestan they believe in, they first have to have anarchy to break up the existing states of the world, especially the US state, so they're happy to unleash it, never thinking it will affect them.

Google loves Snowden because he's very much a part of their hacker/superior arrogant/"code-as-law" culture, and they think "mathematics has made the state obsolete" as that Tor harridan Andrea Shepherd put it to me (I quoted her in my book.)

Snowden gives Google an excuse to Encrypt More and create its Googlestan state More.

Brad, of course the US government needs to monitor communications of suspected terrorists and criminals. That's more than fine. I'm happy that this liberal democratic state that is elected and has checks and balances does that, and does it legitimately, unlike Russia.

I don't mind if the NSA takes the tops of my emails or phone calls or messages off and matches them to known terrorists. Snowden has never shown that the government reads my email in real time with human sense, as distinct from dredging parts of it for hits on terrorist/criminal data.

Call me when you have a case of an actual American intruded upon and harmed who in fact was unrelated completely to terrorism or crime. I'll wait.

cryptkeeper

A thought experiment, if you will.

Suppose a law were passed, as you would like, banning encrypted messages which aren’t backfired for the government. (or frontdoored, if you like).

Now let’s say you were appointed US Attorney for New York, in charge of enforcing this law.

Now let’s say that I have a prearranged code with my friend across town, in which “nybb” means “let’s go to the next Yankees game”, and “kkbb” means “Ok, let’s go to the next Yankees game.”

So, I email my friend with my coded request, and he emails back with his coded acceptance.

As US Attorney, would you indict the two of us for communicating with non-backdoored encryption, and what sort of criminal penalties would you seek?

Kizone Kaprow

"Call me when you have a case of an actual American intruded upon and harmed who in fact was unrelated completely to terrorism or crime. I'll wait."

I've asked that question myself many times and the delusional paranoiacs have yet to provide evidence. Again, they create conclusions based on false premises and call it a day. It's "self evident" that the NSA is "persecuting" thousands of "innocent" Americans. Proof? "We don't need no stinkin' proof!"

Hans

"[The feds jack-in] on copper-wire phone lines of the old-fashioned type, and the modern equivalent must be created for modern cell phones."

It's not about jacking-in, as you call it. Apple/Google are not preventing law enforcement from tapping calls. Law enforcement can and does still do that (under CALEA) just as they did for the old-fashioned phones, with a court order.

Old-fashioned phones weren't carried in our pockets and didn't keep intimate details of our private lives, the data, the pictures, the email. That's what Apple/Google are allowing us to protect, just like Mosler did (and does) for old-fashioned safes. They let me keep my private things private, as enshrined in the 4th Amendment.

For encrypted data on phone the feds can get a court order to compel you produce the decryption key or password, just as they have done for the combination to old-fashioned safes. It's a known problem the law dealt with a century ago.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Advertisements

Follow on Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad