And secret wiretaps (some found to be illegal) were OK if a rethugican president did it?
Did I say that?
With a warrant they are necessary for national security though. Yes it was abused, but this has the potential to be abused even easier than tapping phone lines, the technology is entirely different and too easy for anyone with a computer to abuse. Not the same as tapping phone lines. This plan is a blanket plan to make back doors into everybody's internets.
It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
It's just the right's mantra: "It's OK if our guy does it, but it's the end of the world if the other guy does it." There is the potential for abuse in just about everything. I would assume that sufficient safeguards would be imposed. Of course, it's up to us to make sure.
It's just the right's mantra: "It's OK if our guy does it, but it's the end of the world if the other guy does it."
Yes that is the far right's mantra, but I'm not part of the far right. If I was at one time I must have been high. ;-)
There are supposedly sufficient safeguards for phone tapping too. The point is that the holes they want to put into the code are accessible by any geek sitting their Mom's basement, not just those with access to phone switching equipment.
Anyone who wishes to remain "dark" would not be using anything that could be monitored.
Which is another reason to not jeopardize our rights. What's the purpose of enacting it if the bad guys aren't using it. Then there's him whining to Rolling Stone about Fox News and their freedom of the press he thinks should be corralled for the good of the country, just because they don't agree with him. The last part wasn't really his words but that was the message.
See a pattern of suppressing our rights forming? Just kind of like the old guard.
The basement? I thought here was as low as we could get.
Edited by Reboot (09/29/1005:46 PM) Edit Reason: Changed Just to kind of, it's not the same but some troubling parallels.
Loc: Alexandria, VA
The Bottom Line Point is; Authorities need to make this action legal or otherwise whatever evidence they gather off the internet is useless in court.
Actually, the bottom line (or, at least what the government is saying) is that they don't have the capability to quickly and effectively decipher (legally or otherwise) modern encrypted communications, so they want developers of such communication protocols to purposely build-in back doors to make deciphering them easier ...
The trouble of course, is that if you make it easier for the authorities, you also make it easier for hackers and anyone else desiring to monitor those communications -- purposely weakening the security of your programs/protocols is not necessarily a good idea ;-)
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.