Change You Can Believe In! (online wiretaps)

[Ryan Thunder]

Look, I'm just not seeing the connection here.

They're asking for the capability to wiretap online stuff. They aren't asking for free reign to make use of that capability.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Look, I'm just not seeing the connection here.

They're asking for the capability to wiretap online stuff. They aren't asking for free reign to make use of that capability.

They already have the (patently unconstitutional) ability to do warrantless wiretaps, they just cant do it with encrypted communication for technical reasons.

[General Zod]

Look, I'm just not seeing the connection here.

They're asking for the capability to wiretap online stuff. They aren't asking for free reign to make use of that capability.

Or you don't want to see the connection. Just because they aren't asking for "free reign" doesn't mean it isn't something we shouldn't be concerned about being grossly abused. Just one of the many potential abuses I can imagine, what's stopping some fundie dickhead with access to this information to use his snooping powers to spy on abortion clinics databases and distribute lists of patient names to extremists that will go out of their way to harass patients? You keep saying "because it's illegal", which is clearly not a factor for anyone that thinks they're doing something righteous.

[Ariphaos]

Right, which means they'd need the keys and what not used to decrypt it at the other end, if it still works that way. If its not possible at all, well, I guess that's a problem.

You guess?

I'd like to see you explain how you expect this to work with public-private key schemes.

I've forgotten exactly how those work. If that's impossible to do without totally compromising everything for everybody, then I'll agree that it's a bad idea.

Frankly, I don't believe you ever knew in the first place if you're making statements like this.

[Ryan Thunder]

Or you don't want to see the connection.

Oh, come the fuck on, man.

Just because they aren't asking for "free reign" doesn't mean it isn't something we shouldn't be concerned about being grossly abused. Just one of the many potential abuses I can imagine, what's stopping some fundie dickhead with access to this information to use his snooping powers to spy on abortion clinics databases and distribute lists of patient names to extremists that will go out of their way to harass patients? You keep saying "because it's illegal", which is clearly not a factor for anyone that thinks they're doing something righteous.

Okay, but a police officer could go on a killing spree with his pistol, or taser people with abandon, or do drive-by pepper sprayings, or any number of other heinous things. "That's illegal" doesn't have to stop him, either. You don't seem to be terribly concerned by that.

[General Zod]

Okay, but a police officer could go on a killing spree with his pistol, or taser people with abandon, or do drive-by pepper sprayings, or any number of other heinous things. "That's illegal" doesn't have to stop him, either. You don't seem to be terribly concerned by that.

Because shooting people with abandon is a lot harder to get away with. We have enough trouble tracking down commercial spammers, let alone someone with access to some kind of master software key.

[Ryan Thunder]

Because shooting people with abandon is a lot harder to get away with. We have enough trouble tracking down commercial spammers, let alone someone with access to some kind of master software key.

Only certain people would be getting access to that, however, for specific tasks, and the uses would be logged. If anything it should be even easier to figure out who did what.

[General Zod]

Because shooting people with abandon is a lot harder to get away with. We have enough trouble tracking down commercial spammers, let alone someone with access to some kind of master software key.

Only certain people would be getting access to that, however, for specific tasks, and the uses would be logged. If anything it should be even easier to figure out who did what.

How do you expect to limit access to that sort of thing when you need to give the protocols to every email and social network developer out there?

[Ryan Thunder]

How do you expect to limit access to that sort of thing when you need to give the protocols to every email and social network developer out there?

That--well fuck, now I just feel silly. Sorry.

[Ariphaos]

How do you expect to limit access to that sort of thing when you need to give the protocols to every email and social network developer out there?

As a case in point, all of the proxy services that exist as password harvesting schemes.

Edit: That is, someone can create a social network for information gathering purposes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Okay, but a police officer could go on a killing spree with his pistol, or taser people with abandon, or do drive-by pepper sprayings, or any number of other heinous things. "That's illegal" doesn't have to stop him, either. You don't seem to be terribly concerned by that.

Because shooting people with abandon is a lot harder to get away with. We have enough trouble tracking down commercial spammers, let alone someone with access to some kind of master software key.

It is even more special. We have mechanisms in place to Punish a cop who goes on a killing spree. Giving the government extensive surveillance powers like this has no remedy. Particularly given certain executive orders on the matter.

For example:

All internet traffic into and out of the country is now monitored. I have a friend in spain who sets up a business selling T shirts. These T shirts are funny, and I purchase one, he shunts the money into a terrorist organization.

In the old days, the government would have to actually suspect I was committing a crime. Now they do not need this, they have all my traffic fed through a computer and they see the transaction, and that the group my friend belongs to is (unknown to me), on a watch list. Thanks to an unrescinded Bush Era exec order, i am now a terrorist and can have all my assets frozen without trial. Because of the way the order is worded, my lawyer can also have his assets frozen etc. Also, because the executive branch will claim State Secrets, I will never have the ability to challenge this in court, even representing myself. There is not even a way to challenge the organization's classification as a terrorist group.

Now, a benign government may do this by mistake. If it ever occurs that we get another Nixon, these tactics can very easily (and without remedy) be used to quash dissent. Fuck the danger from hackers, the risk inherent in this possible application of broad surveillance powers alone is very very bad.