And where exactly did they say that? I wanna check out their logic
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And where exactly did they say that? I wanna check out their logic
If certain agents inside our intelligence agencies become cozy with certain politicians I'm sure there is a possibility that some agents could help their pal politicians by doing surveillance on their political opponents........... Oh Wait!
Terrorists and criminals should not have a safe way to do business.
Agree 100%
Agree 100%
How do you know what security clearance I may or may not have? Want to tell me what government agencies I have worked for in the past and what committees I have served on?
Clapper intentionally lied when asked a question by an elected United States Senator while under oath. He could have simply stated that he was unable to answer that question at that time and in that forum due to National Security reasons but he instead chose to lie to a Senate Committee and to the world. I have given multiple depositions under oath in the past and lying under oath is NEVER an option regardless of your security clearance.
huh...huhhuh.... huhuhuhuhu.... you said back door.....
agree 100%.... letting some encroachments on freedom will only lead to more.
Keeping thoughts in your own mind is a crime. The government owns every thought, and has permission to 'read' them all. /sarcasm
You can't unmake a back door into a decrypted system.
Putting a back door into Apple encryption destroys it.
[doublepost=1551839059][/doublepost]
Why should the government have absolute access to every user's communications? Is nothing private?
Just exchange "encryption" with "locks on your doors", and see how that reads.
To achieve this target 100% like you suggest, you will have zero privacy. That is the beast of this argument - banking and investment of any kind, identity, love letters, children's whereabout, home security, automobile control, mass transportation safety such as Air and Rail travelers. will be available to anyone to "indulge". Are you game for this scenario?
I am not accepting such terms.
I'm not a criminal but I want something that can protect me from my government if need be.
[doublepost=1551840800][/doublepost]
As much as I believe in encryption, there is no constitutional right to it. And no, encryption and privacy are not synonymous, although they are related.
Real quick question for Tim Cook--if privacy is a human right, where does that right come from?
[doublepost=1551840800][/doublepost]
There is a constitutional right to a firearm in America.
As much as I believe in encryption, there is no constitutional right to it. And no, encryption and privacy are not synonymous, although they are related.
Real quick question for Tim Cook--if privacy is a human right, where does that right come from?
Knowing Mr. Wray, personally (albeit not personal-enough to know exactly "how" he 'communicates'), I am entirely confident that he values his privacy no less than any of the rest of us . . .
. . . his:my Politics don't synch, but he's (really) just a regular Guy, and I have no reservations stating that his Policy inevitably aligns with those of us who value such.
Slippery-slopes aren't always so slippery . . . .
Regards, splifingate
. . . his:my Politics don't synch, but he's (really) just a regular Guy, and I have no reservations stating that his Policy inevitably aligns with those of us who value such.
Slippery-slopes aren't always so slippery . . . .
Regards, splifingate
Then you’ll get something that they themselves admit spy on every aspect of your life. So not sure how you’re showing up apple in this respect?If Apple ever gives up their encryption policy I'm switching to Android
(well that'll save me a lot of money too)
Anyway, I’m very pro encryption, but I see the fbi’s point. If a terrorist has valuable intel on his phone and they get a court order and go through the correct process, they still can’t get to it.
So encryptions is protecting the good guys AND bad guys. So I feel only half good about it
Thank you. This is an incredibly important distinction that people continually conflate.
Law enforcement agencies always want to have the most power with the least possible accountability, whether it is police brutality, illegal surveillance, or illegal search and seizure. And when they mess up, they always rely on the fact that law enforcement officers are rarely convicted, or they just get a slap on the wrist. Any time state and local governments try to pass police reforms, the police unions are the first to complain.
Typical defenses for one or more officers shooting an unarmed person multiple times and sometimes in the back: "I felt threatened" or "I thought he had a gun". Of course, those claims could *never* possibly be abused:
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court building is engraved with the words "Equal Justice Under Law". This should mean that law enforcement officers should not be allowed to get away with doing things in which anyone else would be punished much more severely for doing the same thing. Instead, they should be punished exactly the same as anyone else who does the same thing.
1. If law enforcement officer shoots an unarmed or innocent person, that officer should be treated as an active shooter and people nearby should be allowed to defend themselves up to and including shooting back. At the very least, the officer should face termination and/or prison time.
2. If law enforcement agency tortures the wrong person, then the person should be given full immunity to do whatever he wants to the agent who tortured him.
3. When a police car does not have lights and sirens active, it should be treated as any other car and people driving within the speed limit should be able to pass the police car without fear of being pulled over.
4. Unless responding to an actual emergency, police should not be allowed to drive at excessive speeds, cut off other cars without signalling, or flash their lights in order to run red lights at intersections or drive on shoulder of the freeway. Any officer caught doing these things should face traffic fines, points on driving record, and increase in auto insurance just like anyone else.
Last edited:
Actually the Government can't ban encryption per se but they can pass laws saying you can't encrypt on other companies networks/platforms as you don't own them.
You want to create an encryption service used by you and your friends? You absolutly have the right and will always do so. You want encrypted stuff stored on another companies "cloud" servers or devices? well you agreed to that companies T&Cs and they have to abide by the law no-matter what you think, in-fact you have no rights and are beholden to your company of choice.
BTW "cloud" is just a term for "someone else's computer"; doesn't sound so secure now does it?
One of the things that criminals do is break into computers and steal people's data.
US government once classified strong encryption algorithms as munitions. Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from an oppressive government and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Anyone who supports Second Amendment should also support the people's right to strong encryption.
Last edited:
GCHQ in the UK believe they have found a way to circumvent iPhone encryption by ‘requesting’ that Apple introduce a silent invisible partner into group messaging. Messages remain encrypted but easily snooped on by this silent participant, over which Apple has control. UK law is that tech companies must act on technical requests like this. Further, it is illegal for said companies to divulge to any third party the fact that such a request has been made. Over here this is called the “Snooper’s Charter”, devised by the current UK Prime Minister while she was Home Secretary.
This snooping could be happening now, and we wouldn’t know about it. GCHQ work closely with US authorities, so watch out.
Just imagine if someone like Tricky Dicky Nixon had this kind of capability at his disposal...
This snooping could be happening now, and we wouldn’t know about it. GCHQ work closely with US authorities, so watch out.
Just imagine if someone like Tricky Dicky Nixon had this kind of capability at his disposal...
What changed? We've lived with encryption for decades, and not only encryption, encryption used by entire states against others.
