Shared publicly  - 
FBI Wants Backdoors in Facebook, Skype and Instant Messaging
- This is not new. It also continues to be (a) utterly unacceptable, and
(b) ultimately useless - Lauren
Alex Emelianov's profile photoMartin K's profile photoLauren Weinstein's profile photoRalph Gauthier's profile photo
+Irving Drommond The same thing is going on in Europe, Australia, and virtually the entire world. It's an institutional reaction that cuts across party lines.
Stewart Baker, a partner at Steptoe and Johnson who is the former assistant secretary for policy at Homeland Security, said the FBI has "faced difficulty getting its legislative proposals through an administration staffed in large part by people who lived through the CALEA and crypto fights of the Clinton administration, and who are jaundiced about law enforcement regulation of technology -- overly jaundiced, in my view."

No, I don't think they are at all.
+Lauren Weinstein That is precisely what I meant by "Land of the free". First the whole world is getting high on human rights and freedom and on the other hand they fuck us over with this kind of legislation.
+Irving Drommond To understand the mindset, you need to realize that they don't view this as an addition per se to current authority. Wiretapping laws are ancient, dating back to the dawn of telephony. In the view of these institutions, they are merely attempting to update their existing authority for new technologies. Of course, this neglects the underlying truth that advanced crypto tech renders most of this moot in the long run, but it is possible to at least understand where they're coming from. By and large, they believe they are preserving freedom, not destroying it.
Don't get mad.. post this on your profile.. one day it will make a world of a difference :

Update: information was utterly ineffectual!
+PJ Rosenberg The whole point of this posting is that the federal government is systematically eliminating the very "loops" you are suggesting will protect you.
+PJ Rosenberg You can disclaim anything you want. That doesn't make the disclaimer legally or practicably meaningful or enforceable given the impact of overriding laws and court decisions. The danger with telling people to use such disclaimers is that it provides a false sense of security, that is actually more risky.
+PJ Rosenberg It won't help, it won't hurt. But again, the risk is people assuming it will provide some sort of protection. It won't.
I am reminded of a report in The Onion last year in which an "FBI agent" mused how they can get all the information they need about a person from their Facebook pages. Go forward several weeks and a legitimate article in NY Times (I think) stated that the FBI actually was mining Facebook for information. Think about the rights you are giving up when you "like" a product or company to enter some sweepstakes. Back doors and such are merely a widening of the information conduit that people have helped create by blindly clicking "I agree" on EUSA's everywhere.
FBI wants to do what Stasi did: quietly open and peek into everybody's private mail. I say it's time to replace FBI director. And his boss.
Back doors are how hackers get into secure sites. Smooth move Fed boys. Maybe their doing it for job security.
+Alex Emelianov Every President and every FBI director will want this. It isn't political, it's institutional. They consider it a natural extension of essentially century-old wiretap laws. You are fooling yourself if you think anyone that could reach those roles would think differently.
I thought Obama was hope and change?
I guess he is nope and same.
+Kenny Collins He's President. Not dictator. He operates within the constraints of Congress and Federal Law. Under the U.S. system, those are enormous constraints compared with Parliamentary systems. Or would you prefer a Dictator?
President's duty is to uphold the Constitution. He's the one who is in charge of making sure constitutional provisions like "no unreasonable search" are implemented in day-to-day policy. Now look at the article. Remember that Director of FBI is his employee. What is he doing? Do we have the right to say "wait a minute, that's not what you promised!!!"
+Alex Emelianov Again, they view this as an extension of Congressionally-mandated wiretap laws. They feel that not doing this would be a violation of law and put people at risk. I disagree. You disagree. But it's counterproductive to try incorrectly characterize their thinking.
+Steve Sampson , your argument is equal to "if you think civil liberties matter, you should not be on social networking". Want to defend it?
This is the Colt45 Malt Liquor of totalitarianism - Can't get any better than this!

Can they get Billy Dee Williams to promote this Web Freedom Malt Beverage?
+Lauren Weinstein , reading people's mail was never acceptable (unless we live in Eastern Germany, and FBI is the same as Stasi). Reading my email is the same thing.
It's about time they did something considering I can't drive 2 miles without dodging a roadside bomb or go into a restaurant without being evacuated at least once for some kind of bomb threat. Oh, wait, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE F$%#ING PROBLEMS!
Alright ladies and gentlemen, by the time any one in the U.S. try's to create a law. It is always after the fact. Eye's have been on the web a long time. For those of you who are baby boomers and remember the cold war and the McCarthyism era, well we all remember wire taps and mega phone dish. A cop or agency who was unable to get a court order for a traditional wire tap would park a block away from their suspect, sit in their car and hang the mega phone dish outside their car window and hope for the best. And yes people walking by always thought they were a little conspicuous and yes if someone thought that they knew the person that was being watched, they would yell up to their window as they walked by, hey the cop's are ten cars down the street on the southwest corner heads up. Just make sure that you give them lots of useless information. Everyone needs to have a useful purpose in life. It will keep them busy. By the way the very best and most private way to communicate in the U.S. and it's territory's is through the U.S. mail system. It's a bear sitting in the back room of the Post Office reading all those letters until day break. Common sense
do not put personal or guarded information on the web anywhere.
Steve brought up a great point. NSA security loopholes have been around since (at least) Windows 3.1. The NSA and foreign hackers have been using it for many years now. The mere idea that the Executive Branch let it go public and people are just now complaining is astounding. "Initiating Global Police State in 3...2...1..."
+Joe Summerlin , nobody is forced to use Windows. The loopholes are not mandated by law, and you can use open source software to generate your certificates and be sure your data is readable only by you and those whose certificates you signed. Now they are pushing for a law mandating loopholes. Can you see the difference?
+Brent Gardner , only as long as we don't allow laws like this become reality. Technology alone does not guarantee our freedom, but it's a pretty useful tool for maintaining it. It can also be used to suppress it.
Persons who do not wish to carry on an intelligent, on-point, serious discussion of these important issues will find themselves blocked and their snarky comments removed.
The Patriot Act whet the appetites of the FBI, DEA and other law enforcement organizations for unfettered, voyeuristic surveillance of the American public.Every new regulation like the NDAA or CISPA, if it passes, only increases their their insatiable thirst for power.
+Ralph Gauthier Keep in mind that Congress has ultimate control. PATRIOT, Homeland Security Act, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA are all their creations.
+Ralph Gauthier They're busybodies and self-perpetuating. If they don't get enough "business" through the usual channels then they feel the need to expand their reach to make themselves look more valuable.
+Lauren Weinstein That's true, however special interests lobby Congress to write the laws that they want.

In the case of The Patriot Act, I was watching CSPAN a few years back when Congress was debating (?)(HAHahaha) whether or not to extend The Patriot Act. Representatives from the organizations I mentioned, FBI, DEA, were testifying before a Congressional panel about how valuable a tool The Patriot Act was and they were asking Congress to not only extend it but strenghten it.
+Ralph Gauthier You'd expect this, given that they are the ones that have to implement the laws that Congress passes, right?
+Lauren Weinstein Considering your post at the top of this thread, I'm going to interpret that as a sarcastic response. ;)

Or to quote my deceased high school civics teacher, "Are you being facetious?" (RIP Mrs. Gamble)
Regarding the intentions of the FBI and federal government in this matter there are many things that I could point to as worthy of your consideration but I just stumbled across the last letter written by Thomas Jefferson regarding the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. BTW, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same day, July 4, 1826.

"All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born ,with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. ..."
Add a comment...