When you listen to Obama it sounds very well reasoned except for the lack of the solution. He imagines that there can be this secret key that only the government has to open up the back door of the bad guys devices to fight crime. And if it were so then that would solve the problem.

But that’s not the way it is. The technology doesn’t know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. So if the secret key exists then the secret key can open up anything.

The important point that he doesn’t talk about is the damage to society that would happen when the secret key falls into the wrong hands. We would be giving the bad guys access to everything. They could implant a virus into the operating systems of and the major platforms. They could steal all our military secret including advanced weapons design. They could even take control of our weapons systems turning our arsenal against us. Then could shut down the power grid, steal the nuclear launch codes, our start a meltdown at nuclear power plants and lock us out of the controls.

Imagine if you will that every home had a secret key that only the police had that opened and lock they wanted. Sounds fine at first. But what if that he got out? Then every home would be open and vulnerable to every bad guy who wanted to come in. We would be a world without locks. And that would be far worse than anything we would gain.

The harm that the bad guys can do to us is infinitely greater than what we lose in not being able to break into the bad guys data. There is no key that only works for the government and not for anyone else. And it is absolutely imperative that the bad guys don’t get to break our locks. So in order to maintain our security we are going to have to let the bad guys have locks so that the good guys get locks too,

Either the encryption is secure or it isn’t. And I find it reassuring when there’s things that the government can’t break into because that let’s me know that we are safer because they can’t break into us either. As long as there are bad guys society needs good locks. And the price we pay for our security is that some criminals will be able to get away with some crimes.

The bottom line is – Snowden is right and Obama doesn’t get it.

Sanders is with Snowden against spying/FBI for Apple

Clinton is with Obama/Bush/Pelosi/Trump/Cruz for spying for FBI anainst Apple



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Well analyzed. Well said.

    Best post ever.

  2. NewFormatSux says:

    Marc, do you use TSA certified luggage locks?

    • Rex says:

      Good example, that’s why stuff disappears from our suitcases even though they are locked.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    Wow, I’m dumbfounded myself but…

    I agree with everything noname said.

  4. Ah_Yea says:

    Marc,

    One thing Obama REALLY doesn’t get.

    As you said, “He imagines that there can be this secret key that only the government has to open up the back door of the bad guys devices to fight crime.”

    What if the Government Is The Bad Guy??

    And Snowden really needs to get his glasses fixed.

    • Ah_Yea says:

      To add to that: Isn’t the reason Snowden fled our country was because our country was prosecuting (persecuting) whistle blowers and throwing them in jail for exposing corrupt and unconstitutional practices thereby covering up it’s own malfeasance??

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        What part is missing?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Thanks, I missed the distrust of US Press issue.

          As Snowden is RIGHT about the need for the American People to know about what was revealed, and RIGHT about lack of any protection for whistleblowers that follow the rules, I will assume he is also right about the crumbling Mass Market Consolidated Big Infotainment So Called Free Press in the USA.

          Oh, if we could only be Great Again!

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    We’ll never know what “hope and change” could have brought with even the least amount of cooperation from the Pukes.

    The Pukes: raising Party Power and advantage for their Already Too Rich taskmasters above what is good for the Country: traitors …. all of them.

    Proof: The Pukes demand a certain provision, and pissing off his base, Obama agrees and submits it, and the Pukes reject it because Obama was for it. So many examples of this: starting with Obamacare.

    Its that basic.

    • Ya Know says:

      The Pukes do it

      Then Demons do it

      Everybody do’in it

      I think we need a revolution.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      So the Republicans demanded ObamaCare, and Obama’s base was pissed off by it. Gotcha.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        In essence (twisting it back from your spin), yes. “Everyone” at the time (oh ye of no memory at all) were screaming about the out of control health care costs increasing. What to do?

        And the Republicans like Mitt Romney established an Insurance Controlled greater access program as recommended by the Republican Think Tank Heritage Fund. The Pukes grumbled but supported the Massatwoshits Plan.

        OBAMA and the Dumbos wanted single payer but the Pukes said no. So Obama proposed what the Pukes had already recommended and implemented…………so, of course, the Pukes said NO because Obama supported their own program.

        See how that works?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          No Republican voted for ObamaCare, so it doesn’t matter what they said no to. Democrats were in that situation because they foolishly defeated their own vice-presidential candidate in a primary and he got elected as an independent. So maybe Bernie doesn’t want to use the same method to get elected.

          Massachusetts legislature is dominated by Democrats, and ‘dominated’ is an understatement.

          The Heritage Foundation plan was nothing of the sort, and just a nice talking point uncovered by people looking for bipartisan cover. There are lots of conservative ideas that can be found in memos somewhere at the Brookings Institution and elsewhere.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Ha, ha. NFS demonstrates how to blow it out your own ass.

          “Just say No.” The Republican answer to everything…………………. then lie about it.

          Sad silly hooman.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Bobbo says:
          Ha, ha. NFS demonstrates how to blow it out your own ass.

          “Just say No.” The Republican answer to everything…………………. then lie about it.

          Sad silly hooman.

          Scott Adams says:
          1. You make a reasonable argument.

          2. The other person runs out of reasonable objections (and has thus been persuaded).

          3. Other person is “struck dumb” for a second. Eyes stay open. Mouth stays shut. Cognitive dissonance is setting in.

          4. Other person restates your opinion as an absurd absolute and adds sarcasm.

          The absurd absolute by itself is a tell, but you usually see it paired with sarcasm to hide the trick.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        You also missed the most basic point that Obama didn’t submit anything. He just kind of hung around in the background and signed whatever Congress passed.

  6. righteous indignation says:

    I am utterly shocked nobody jumped all over the typo in the title; “What Obama *diesn’t* get on FBI/Apple encryption fight”.

    • ± says:

      It was a puerile test and you failed it. Stand in the corner until you die or decide not to.

      • jpfitz says:

        Funny, lol, and kinda rough. Most don’t bother to point to the obvious or correct ourselves nowadays.

      • righteous indignation says:

        I choose to diesn’t and live.

        I am also efforting to understand why and how everybody manages to get here and finish the comments before I get here. It is as if you all stand at the edge of the DU printer and catch the copy as it falls to the floor.

        Or maybe I have far more of a life than previously imagined.

  7. jpfitz says:

    No more secrets, the book 1984 foretold of this reality.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=F5bAa6gFvLs

    • Ah_Yea says:

      Bah! Robert Redford movie.

      Redford is such a weasel. Huge hypocrite! He is all over secrecy and abuse when a Republican is in office but silent when a Democrat, and specifically Obama, does the same and worse.

  8. LibertyLover says:

    I see both sides of the argument.

    On one side, I want to ensure our 4th amendment protections are realized.

    On the other side, I don’t want the 4th amendment to become null and void.

    In order for the 4th amendment to have any teeth, when a warrant is issued (properly), the police need to be able to search the area in question. If private entities are able to block the warrant, then we could have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

    The argument has come down to a privacy question, but that is not the question we should be asking ourselves.

    Who owns the source code? Apple or the user? Either answer has the potential to change everyone’s mindset.

    If Apple owns the code, then they are clearly in violation of the law. They must let the cops into their house to execute the warrant. By keeping the keys from the cops and erasing everything on the phone if the wrong key is used, this is comparable to them setting their house on fire if the cops don’t step over a trip wire mounted inside the front entrance. Destruction of evidence! Their code, their house.

    If they do not own the source code, then their EULA is useless. That means individuals can do whatever they want with the code on their phones. If the user owns the source, and the user dies, then the government has to figure out where the tripwires are on their own.

    Apple doesn’t want to push the latter, and they damned sure don’t want to admit the former. And the government doesn’t want to either. Can you just imagine the cluster fuck in this country . . . and around the world . . . if software EULA laws were suddenly struck down in a criminal case?

    Both Apple and the government have to walk a fine line here.

    • LibertyLover says:

      I haven’t forgotten a thing. Indeed, I believe the government should be restrained at every corner possible and held accountable when they are in clear violation of the 4th.

      But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with statements I put forth above.

      Do you believe someone has the legal right to prevent the government from searching an area even when the government has properly secured a search warrant?

      Does Apple own the source code on the phone I spent $700 on or not?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I thought the issue was the gubment HAS the source code but wants Apple to CREATE SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T ALREADY EXIST: more code to defeat the source code.

        Its not a search warrant but rather a COMMAND that Apple work for free to do something against its own business interests, privacy interests, and so forth.

        Shouldn’t we all be forced to work for the gubment for free when claims of National Security are vomited up?

        • LibertyLover says:

          No, the government does not have the source code. They talked about taking it from Apple, but it never happened (as I understand it, anyway).

          AFA the code writing, in effect, they told Apple to remove the tripwire so they could walk into the house and look around as per the search warrant.

          Apple said, “No.”

          If I own a house and set a tripwire to light it on fire, can the government force me to tell them where that tripwire is? Can they force me to remove the tripwire?

          Do you feel I have a legal right to tell them, “No?” to those two questions?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          LL…ok, that sounds right.

          The gubment does not want access to “something that exists” but rather wants to make a company create something that does not exist. BIG DIFFERENCE on a number of levels.

          To you analogy, for what its worth, its more like the gubment knowing there is an fire device in your house and demanding that the builder of the house design and build a detection device to deactivate it.

          This is VERY definitional.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Remove a tripwire so they can work on the lock without burning down the house.

        • LibertyLover says:

          B, is the builder the owner?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          LibertyLover, the government cannot force you to tell them where the tripwire is.

          In this case, the analogy is that the builder has placed a tripwire, that burns down the house if it realizes someone is trying to pick the lock. The owner has the option of connecting the tripwire.

          Now the police want the builder to bring his tractor and special tools and dig under the house to the plumbing to disable the tripwire which may or may not be connected to the lock, so the police can continue to try and pick the lock for the door that is too strong to break down.

        • LibertyLover says:

          LibertyLover, the government cannot force you to tell them where the tripwire is.

          Actually, they can:

          §507

          (a) Every customs officer shall— (1) upon being questioned at the time of executing any of the powers conferred upon him, make known his character as an officer of the Federal Government; and (2) have the authority to demand the assistance of any person in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary.

          This is just the customs law, but the other federal officers have it as well.

      • LibertyLover says:

        They haven’t been charged because the evidence hasn’t been destroyed yet. It’s still on the phone.

      • LibertyLover says:

        no one is interested in your bogus horror stories, hypotheticals and legal theories.

        Let me fix that:

        NONAME is NOT interested in your bogus horror stories, hypotheticals and legal theories.

        Now, either answer the question, or go bother someone else, please.

        Do you believe someone has the legal right to prevent the government from searching an area even when the government has properly secured a search warrant?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Yes, someone has the legal right to prevent the police from searching an area. That is they can encrypt their files as they see fit, and are not obligated to provide the decryption. This has happened before with I think Kevin Mitnick.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Yes, someone has the legal right to prevent the police from searching an area.

          How do you reconcile that with the 4th amendment?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          I’m talking specifically about encryption.
          No you would not have a right to obstruct police while they are trying to search a house.

        • LibertyLover says:

          NFS,

          Note, this whole thing is more of a thought experiment for me. As I said earlier, I can see both sides of the argument. Thanks for being mature and not resorting to childish insults.

          I’m talking specifically about encryption. No you would not have a right to obstruct police while they are trying to search a house.

          Now we’re on the same page.

          Isn’t encryption just a method of hiding something from prying eyes?

          If the cops say you have you to let them search and you prevent them from doing so, aren’t you obstructing? Does it really matter if the area to search is virtual instead of physical?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Apple is not actively blocking. If they went in and encrypted everything afterwards to prevent the police from searching(say files in their cloud server), that would be different.
          To provide people with secure encryption is not the same thing as blocking a warrant.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          The only person to whom I reserve childish insults I shouldn’t because it is not nice to make fun of the ‘different’, if you catch my drift.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Apple is not actively blocking. If they went in and encrypted everything afterwards to prevent the police from searching(say files in their cloud server), that would be different.

          Agreed.

          To provide people with secure encryption is not the same thing as blocking a warrant.

          Now we’re back to the “who owns the code” question.

          Apple or the user?

          Someone has to own the key.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          I wonder if you have gotten the technical details right.
          Apple is capable of unlocking the phone, which you can do by going to any Apple store. However, it would delete all data.
          The key is with the owner, if you want to keep your data.

        • LibertyLover says:

          The owner or the licensee?

          I have the tech details down.

          I want to know who people consider to be the owners of the source code.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Of course Apple owns the source code.
          No one else has ever seen it.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Of course Apple owns the source code. No one else has ever seen it.

          Agreed. And this is my conundrum.

          On one hand I feel Apple is in the wrong.

          They own and have full access to the source.

          A valid 4th amendment search warrant was issued.

          The government asked for the help.

          Then the government tried to force their help when Apple refused the request.

          We all look at this as a good thing.

          But let’s look at this a little closer to home: What if someone raped your wife and 10-year-old daughter, took pictures of the crimes with his iPhone, and the pictures were the only way to put the bastard in jail? Would you care whether the Chinese or the Russians or whoever might hack your phone later? Would you look your wife in the eye and say, “It’s for the better good?”

          Yes, I am a Libertarian. I am not an anarchist. We have to have laws to protect us, and we’ve contracted that authority to the federal government. The 4th Amendment must have teeth or law enforcement is doomed to whoever can hire the slickest lawyers (it’s not far from that now, but that’s a different argument).

          ***

          Now . . . on the other hand, I also feel that Apple is in the right, but only because I don’t trust the government to watch over the keys (I barely trust Apple more than I trust the government).

          ***

          Another point to consider . . . didn’t the government threaten to take the source under the previously issued warrant? Would the government have been in the right to do so?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          The government would not be able to take the source under any warrant. Presumably that would be even better encrypted than the IPhone.
          On top of that, even if forced to hand it over, they would merely change it so that the variables instead of being hashkey and password would be
          var00765849bhfydirhgbobbohguyijf78
          var00765849bhfydirhgbobbohguyijl78

        • LibertyLover says:

          Sorry, been out of town for a few days.

          The government would not be able to take the source under any warrant. Presumably that would be even better encrypted than the IPhone.

          Couldn’t take it or wouldn’t be able to crack it?

          If Apple owns the source, why couldn’t the government use a warrant to search the Apple compound for it?

          On top of that, even if forced to hand it over, [changing hashkeys]

          Wouldn’t that be grounds for Destruction of Evidence charges?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        I wonder if Apple leaked a solution without claiming to do so. Let the FBI claim they found another way around it.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Apple was charged. That’s why they were in court.

      • LibertyLover says:

        They were charged, but not with destruction of evidence.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Apple is not preventing the government from doing anything. They are simply not assisting the government in the execution of their search. A warrant they don’t even need since the phone is owned by the government.

        However, if the government wins and gets Apple to produce a special firmware update that disables the security, then the government will be able to use this on other phones at will. Sure they have made claims about Apple gets to keep the phone on site, and they can make the update specific to this phone. The precedent will be set that Apple can break encryption when asked. Plus the FBI can’t let the phone stay on site, since it could cause problems with evidence at trial.
        So they will then be able to pull the update that Apple has produced in some form. Even it is for just the one phone, the details would be helpful in the FBI’s attempts to develop their own key in the future.

        This is not just a matter of describing where the tripwire is.
        They are asking Apple to disable the tripwire, disable the time gap between password tries, and create a special ability to enter the password not on the touchscreen but through the lightning connector, and possibly from a remote location.

        • LibertyLover says:

          A warrant they don’t even need since the phone is owned by the government.

          Now we’re getting to the crux of the question:

          Do they own it?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Yes, ignoring the part about its being in FBI custody. The phone was for a government agency. They could have avoided the entire issue if they had activated a feature that lets them get in.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Apologies. I was talking about the phone from the terrorists in CA.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Yes that phone belongs to the county government. It was not a personal phone.

        • LibertyLover says:

          You’re right. I forgot that tidbit.

          See my statement above on code ownership.

  9. Hmeyers says:

    Did the Congress authorize action against …

    a) Libya (the airstrikes and such)?
    b) Syria (ISIS, etc.)

    To the best of my knowledge, it did not.

    If the government weren’t engaged in illegal wars, there would be less need for spying.

    If the government decided to end the war on drugs and legalize them all, what would organized crime do?

    It sounds like the bad policy of government spying is a result of stupid policies and illegal wars to begin with.

    Stop the illegal wars.
    End the failed war on drugs — losers manage to ruin their lives with illegal drugs just fine — it only creates organized crime
    Let South Korea/Japan deal with North Korea. Let Europe handle Russia.

    • Ah_Yea says:

      You’re starting to sound like Trump, be CAREFUL!

      Before you know it, the Lyin’ Left will start calling you Herr Himmeyers and burn you in effigy!!

      Seig Heil!

      • Hmeyers says:

        I’ve held these opinions for years and I bet Bernie Sanders does too.

        And Ron Paul.

        There is a little difference between:

        a) A liberal (Sanders)
        b) A libertarian (Ron Paul)
        c) A “realist” or whatever (Trump)

        (Except in what should be publicly funded benefits, I suppose).

        • righteous indignation says:

          A liberal, a libertarian and a realist walk into a bar. It’s because the bar is so low for republicans.

        • Ah_Yea says:

          Well said, Hmeyers. And you’re probably right in the issues you stated above.

          Although there is a world of difference between a liberal (Big All-Encompassing Government), A libertarian (Small Government, laissez-faire),
          and realist (Capitalism, not idealism).

          Those three really couldn’t be further apart on the big picture.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            ……….and all three work in theory BUT don’t work in practice.

            What “works” is the combo plate.

    • Il Guen says:

      Yes, illegal wars (per the US Constitution).

      Korea – Truman
      Vietnam – Johnson/Kennedy
      Balkans – Clinton
      Libya & Syria – Obamao

      Demotard Presidents seem to love them so.

  10. Il Guen says:

    Good point but not necessary for those with IQ’s > 40. Which is why Obamao doesn’t get it. The last PotUS idiot to push this type of stupidity was Clinton. Back in the Clipper chip days.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5603 access attempts in the last 7 days.