|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo.
They can do it, governments force companies to modify/produce new software on regular basis. I dont see why Apple should be exception from this practice. They will have to comply with court order or face consequences(hopefully).
|
On February 19 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:32 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying. They restricted lots of technology. Commercial GPS’s were limited in their accuracy for a long time and still are in some ways. Drones are limited in how they are allowed to operate and how large they can be and be sold commercially. My grandfather developed camera’s and lenses for decades and they were limited as to who they could sell them to. It isn’t crazy that the government might limit globally solid encryption software. The point is that Apple can’t expect to invent things, sell them to whoever will pay and then claim they have zero responsibility if bad people us them. Its like twitter and it claiming they can’t figure out how to stop ISIS from making recruiting accounts. Its not that they can't do it, its they don't really think its their problem.
Well, GPS is military technology and under full state control. They didn't really restrict accuracy on the commercial devices side, they restricted the accuracy they of the signal they sent to those devices. Military devices idenotify themselves as such and get better data. This is only possible because the US government has full control over the satellites.
Your grandfather was presumably a highly specialized lense maker? Of which there are only a couple of dozen. It's fairly easy to control that technology. Same for things like nuclear.
For ecryption technology, however, the cat is already out of the bag. While the US might restrict the development of future encryption algorithms, for the forsee able future, AES with ever increasing key sizes will be sufficient to ensure yoir data is safely shielded from prying eyes. It's also a hell of a lot easier to copy a piece of software thanot it is to copy a physical thing like a high quality lense (or a nuclear centrifuge). For the former you need a computer. For the latter you need the raw materials, and a specialist able to shape/assemble them, even if you have the exact specifications.
|
On February 19 2016 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:32 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying. They restricted lots of technology. Commercial GPS’s were limited in their accuracy for a long time and still are in some ways. Drones are limited in how they are allowed to operate and how large they can be and be sold commercially. My grandfather developed camera’s and lenses for decades and they were limited as to who they could sell them to. It isn’t crazy that the government might limit globally solid encryption software. The point is that Apple can’t expect to invent things, sell them to whoever will pay and then claim they have zero responsibility if bad people us them. Its like twitter and it claiming they can’t figure out how to stop ISIS from making recruiting accounts. Its not that they can't do it, its they don't really think its their problem. Well, GPS is military technology and under full state control. They didn't really restrict accuracy on the commercial devices side, they restricted the accuracy they of the signal they sent to those devices. Military devices idenotify themselves as such and get better data. This is only possible because the US government has full control over the satellites. Your grandfather was presumably a highly specialized lense maker? Of which there are only a couple of dozen. It's fairly easy to control that technology. Same for things like nuclear. For ecryption technology, however, the cat is already out of the bag. While the US might restrict the development of future encryption algorithms, for the forsee able future, AES with ever increasing key sizes will be sufficient to ensure yoir data is safely shielded from prying eyes. It's also a hell of a lot easier to copy a piece of software thanot it is to copy a physical thing like a high quality lense (or a nuclear centrifuge). For the former you need a computer. For the latter you need the raw materials, and a specialist able to shape/assemble them, even if you have the exact specifications.
Limiting encryption in general? Yeah tough nut to crack. Limiting level and type of encryption on physical devices like iPhone? Possible, and enforcing it isnt that hard once something like that would be legislated.
|
That is sort of the point. The software can exist and no one is attempting to destroy it. But putting it on a mass market product and selling it worldwide on a portable communication device is the core of the problem.
|
The FBI needs to find a better way to accomplish their goals. There are always going to be ways that law enforcement can have an easier time doing what they do. Forcing Apple to make iphones that have a backdoor is such an amazingly terrible idea. That sets such a horrendous precedent. It is essentially saying that the government needs to always be able to have access if it needs it.
|
United States43989 Posts
I see consumer access to encryption as a problem in the same way that a 2nd amendment Jade Helm nut sees access to guns as a problem. Encryption is the strongest protection the people have against a tyrannical government and while I don't see Obama declaring a third term anytime soon there is certainly a long history of CIA and NSA breaking the law. Without encryption there is no Snowden.
I realize that's an ideological stance that many people won't agree with but I believe that privacy is one of the foundation blocks on which liberty is built and in the modern era privacy is cryptography.
|
On February 19 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote:
That is sort of the point. The software can exist and no one is attempting to destroy it. But putting it on a mass market product and selling it worldwide on a portable communication device is the core of the problem.
your understanding of "problem" is sometimes a bit weird.
some tradeoffs are worth having, privacy for your own data if you choose to encrypt it, is a much bigger boon than any missuse that can come from it.
|
To:Mohdoo
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And Apple went OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add).
To Kwark:
On February 19 2016 01:13 KwarK wrote:
I see consumer access to encryption as a problem in the same way that a 2nd amendment Jade Helm nut sees access to guns as a problem. Encryption is the strongest protection the people have against a tyrannical government and while I don't see Obama declaring a third term anytime soon there is certainly a long history of CIA and NSA breaking the law. Without encryption there is no Snowden.
I realize that's an ideological stance that many people won't agree with but I believe that privacy is one of the foundation blocks on which liberty is built and in the modern era privacy is cryptography.
For me it totally different problem, i think Apple is lying about the difficulty and ramifications of helping FBI with this case in order to profit from positive image it creates in public eyes. I would hate to see they get away with this because they are big and powerfull.
|
On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They are asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And they go OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add).
from your previous posts i am inclined to consider your expertise in encryption and firmware programming severly lacking...
the way the fbi demanded it (supervision, full access to the software/remote access) it is actually endangering the whole encryption system.
|
On February 19 2016 00:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Is it true that Sanders's campaign has said that the GDP growth rate will be above 5% if his platform is implemented? If so, nonsense like this is exactly why I find his campaign so irritating. It's what the Republicans do: pull numbers out of their asses and pretend like that's the same as evaluating policy like a serious person.
If BOTH parties give up on serious policy proposals I'm pretty sure we're screwed.
I see someone reads Paul Krugman!
What's true is that a single economist, Gerald Friedman, estimated the economy would grow at a rate of 5.3% under Sanders plan, and Sanders has cited Friedman's evaluation a few times while stumping on the trail. Other economists have pushed back hard because they feel Friedman's numbers are extremely unrealistic.
So Sanders didn't pull the numbers out of thin air. What matters now is how Sanders' campaign reacts to the criticism. If they're willing to drop Friedman's analysis or at least discuss it with other economists then all's well.
|
On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:To:Mohodo The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And Apple went OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add). To Kwark: Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:13 KwarK wrote:
I see consumer access to encryption as a problem in the same way that a 2nd amendment Jade Helm nut sees access to guns as a problem. Encryption is the strongest protection the people have against a tyrannical government and while I don't see Obama declaring a third term anytime soon there is certainly a long history of CIA and NSA breaking the law. Without encryption there is no Snowden.
I realize that's an ideological stance that many people won't agree with but I believe that privacy is one of the foundation blocks on which liberty is built and in the modern era privacy is cryptography. For me it totally different problem, i think Apple is lying about the difficulty and ramifications of helping FBI with this case in order to profit from positive image it creates in public eyes. I would hate to see they get away with this because they are big and powerfull.
Legal president. If Apple does it once they will have to do it every time. And then it is to much effort so its easier if the FBI can do it themselves, and then its to late if it has to be done physically so it has to be done remotely and then....
Apple decided to make a stand in the only way they can. Public opinion.
Because as some have rightly pointed out the court can make them comply. So Apple needs the people to make enough noise, hence the public statements.
|
On February 19 2016 01:18 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They are asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And they go OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add). from your previous posts i am inclined to consider your expertise in encryption and firmware programming severly lacking... the way the fbi demanded it (supervision, full access to the software/remote access) it is actually endangering the whole encryption system.
I am no expert in cryptography, i never claimed that. However i know some things about embeded software, updates, hardware keys and such. And unless i misunderstand something horribly the kind of access FBI is asking isnt really groundbreaking (Unless Apple hardwere key is something stupidly simple and easy to crack in that case there is really reason to worry).
|
On February 19 2016 01:18 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They are asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And they go OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add). from your previous posts i am inclined to consider your expertise in encryption and firmware programming severly lacking... the way the fbi demanded it (supervision, full access to the software/remote access) it is actually endangering the whole encryption system.
Then Apple needs to make that case, prove it to the court and provide another solution to the problem. If the answer is that they can’t solve the problem, then the court/legislature will likely find one.
|
On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:
To:Mohodo
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And Apple went OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add).
You really think the FBI is only interested in this iphone? They have been going after this for a long time. I am not even slightly convinced that the FBI is only interested in one phone. Fundamentally, there should be places the government can not reach. This issue is a matter of if it is legally possible for a company to allow for there to be places the government can not reach.
|
Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained.
Read the rest here.
It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject.
|
On February 19 2016 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:15 Silvanel wrote:
To:Mohodo
The point is its not what FBI is asking apple to do. They asked to provide one time solution in order to access ONE Iphone. And Apple went OMG ITS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT WILL ENDANGER ALL iPhones. OMG PRIVACY. They are creating a false image in public eyes (successfully i might add).
You really think the FBI is only interested in this iphone? They have been going after this for a long time. I am not even slightly convinced that the FBI is only interested in one phone. Fundamentally, there should be places the government can not reach. This issue is a matter of if it is legally possible for a company to allow for there to be places the government can not reach.
The government can go into my house and look at all my stuff with a simple order. They can get onto my computer with an order. They can tap my phone with an order and force the telephone provider to assist them. There is nothing special about an Iphone, beyond that Apple made is really hard access one. It is a product that interacts and takes advantage of numerous systems regulated and supported by the government.
|
On February 19 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:32 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying. They restricted lots of technology. Commercial GPS’s were limited in their accuracy for a long time and still are in some ways. Drones are limited in how they are allowed to operate and how large they can be and be sold commercially. My grandfather developed camera’s and lenses for decades and they were limited as to who they could sell them to. It isn’t crazy that the government might limit globally solid encryption software. The point is that Apple can’t expect to invent things, sell them to whoever will pay and then claim they have zero responsibility if bad people us them. Its like twitter and it claiming they can’t figure out how to stop ISIS from making recruiting accounts. Its not that they can't do it, its they don't really think its their problem.
1) Encryption is entirely math and algorithms. You can limit software sales, but anyone with any knowledge of CS who has access to public knowledge can implement it. This isn't GPS where you need a satellite in space, or a piece of hardware that you can't MacGuyver in your own back yard. A more apt comparison is banning Alcohol. Sounds nice in theory, fails completely when anyone can make it in their bathtub.
2) Encryption is critical for any business or organization that keeps sensitive data for anything. Banking, person identification, official records, on and on. And despite what incompetent politicians will tell you, there is no such thing as a magic key that only good guys can use. You build an intentional vulnerability into a system that lets you bypass encryption, and people will find it and will use it. And unlike the encrypted information for a single individual, which may not be worth the time and effort to break it, the encrypted information for everyone that uses a system is a gigantic gold mine.
The problem isn't the FBI getting access to one person's encrypted data. It's that the only way to get it is to compromise the data of millions of people by intentionally breaking a secure system, which is a far bigger threat to the average Joe than having some evidence inaccessible.
|
On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject.
Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success.
|
United States43989 Posts
Government intrusion into data is different to government intrusion into a home. For a home they need a warrant, a court order and you know they're doing it and what they're taking. You can defend yourself against what they take and it is limited by the logistical capabilities of the state. The state cannot possibly just have a police officer sitting at your dinner table taking notes on your conversation, even if they wanted to. Data is a fundamentally different animal and the state has shown no inclination to show restraint in the past, even with regard to the restraints it legally imposes on itself.
It is necessary for citizens to protect themselves in order to protect democracy.
|
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
