President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[dmnc]

You'll be in good company, the terrorists, paedophiles and the like will be doing the same thing

Then what's the point of disabling encryption? It won't change anything...

 

[AdonisSMU]

So you're saying that Muslim Extremists are not a threat? Newsflash-they are

No what he is saying is that in the grand scheme of things its not a bigger issue than anything else. Obama is using the politics of fear to try and get people to do something they don't understand the consequences of. Then he has some nerve getting mad at donald trump when he uses the fear card to get his votes. Secondly what happens if the engineers have no interest in creating such a product?

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Just as a point of clarification, the original order issued by the court in the California San Bernardino case included an offer to Apple that if they found the FBI's request burdensome to tell the court and they would consider their concerns and make adjustments to the order. But Apple never responded to this. Instead, Tim Cook publish his silly customer letter on the Apple website.

In my view, Apple is acting like a petulant child during this whole affair, and I say this as a long time Apple user and shareholder as I write this on my iPad Air!

Thank you! People claimed the FBI went public first and that doesn't make sense. It would be like a police officer getting a search warrant from a judge and then publicize it on the local news. Stupid! That would render the element of surprise moot.

It was Apple that blinked first and published that letter on their website after being asked to keep things private. And Tim should have kept his mouth shut and let his lawyers do the talking, dealing with the FBI while he focuses on his job.

And here's the most messed up part I noticed. People get into a tizzy about their phone privacy and yet, I don't see Apple crying a river about their own desktops/laptops owned by customers being confiscated or de-encrypted by warrants.

What's wrong with the picture here?

 

[uknowimright]

Are you trolling or just talking out of turn with a poor understanding of Mr. Trump's positions?

Since you seem not to be aware, he supports the FBI (and Obama's ) position here. So, given that OP believed Obama's suggestion was "treasonous," why would he vote for Trump?

Because you don't need things to make sense if you're a Trump supporter, you just like hate

 

[Pilgrim1099]

What Obama doesn't understand about encryption is that if you have a shared key a "master key" that key has to be stored somewhere. You can either use the same key for every device or generate a key at the point of encryption and store each key in a database.

This master key or these master keys will eventually get stolen and that puts every device at risk. You can't simply make an encrypted system with a flaw like this, it undermines the security so much that it makes having the encryption pointless in the first place. It's like having a front door with tons of impervious locks on it and then right next to it is an open window.

Honestly I see Obama as a traitor to the American people and of humanity as a whole after reading his statements. He is so consumed with catching bad guys that the freedoms America stands for have gone completely out of the window.

Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Obama should heed those words and switch his position on this. What a traitor.

Well, to correct you on this matter. Obama is actually far more digital literate than the previous presidents. In fact, he's owned a Blackberry for years due to, you guessed it, secure encryption. But he was told, after his election, that he wasn't allowed to use his personal BB and had to get a government-issued Blackberry designed in-house. In other words, he's not a total stranger to encryption technology and is tech savvy himself.

Traitor? Please. It's the Bush administration that did the most damage. You should THANK them for the Patriot Act, not him. Obama may not have done a perfect job, but at least, he's accomplished some things that good ol' Georgie didn't get around to.

 

[a0me]

The question we have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong there's no key, there's no door, at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement if in fact you cant crack that at all.

I don't agree with the President's conclusion -and it has been argued that it wasn't relevant in the San Bernardino case- but you can't argue that it's a very good question.

 

[AdonisSMU]

The good thing about Obama coming out like this is that Republicans will block him...lest they be seen as helping Obama by their voters...

 

[Kabeyun]

Do cities have master keys to get into every lock made?

Sometimes...

These are interesting questions. The question is if those locks can be opened somehow if there is a lawful court order specifying what they're after (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment IV). The pinnacle of lock technology in 1776 was a padlock with a key. Anything could be torn or pried open, and that's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted if there were legal authority to do so, even if the owner of the thing didn't want it to be done.

As much as we now may want it, it doesn't seem that our national framework provides for complete, absolute, unbreakable privacy in every possible circumstance. In this way, President Obama (you know, the Constitutional schola ... I mean "idiot") seems correct.

U.S. citizens who want to eliminate guns from society are stuck with the Second Amendment, and people who want to create utterly inaccessible informational repositories may be stuck with the Fourth. We'll have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says on the matter.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

It's a great question that needs answering, there is no solution right now and that bugs people because for some reason everyone wants to be one side or the other. If I had a child and he/she was kidnapped, there was a phone with information on but it was encrypted.... I'd want that company to have a way to access it too. I think every single pro Apple person here would suddenly change their tune f they were in that position too. So it isn't as simple as taking one side of the argument... besides encryption only needs to be as strong as the level of person/s who want to crack it. 99/9 percent of people aren't going to be hacked and the 0.1% don't bother to have an unsecure device at all... like the president.

Ultimately though, I don't care about my own security because I have nothing of any value. I'm obviously going to side on the position against Apple as a result, if someone leaks online that I wanked to this porn at this time... so be it, I don't care.

Well congrats, you fell for all the arguments that would use fear and manipulation to sway us toward giving up our privacy. As if an encrypted smartphone is the Rosetta Stone for every criminal matter. As if having nothing to hide means you can't be harmed by having personal details exposed in whatever way another person might want to use them.

This is the US and these issues put us at risk of losing one of the few remaining things that make it a better place than the rest of the world.

 

[jhwalker]

I agree with President Obama, and am actually stunned at the level to which he understands this stuff.

Considering all the other things he must know to do his job, it's reassuring to me he actually "gets" it.

Can you imagine the Shrub even being able to understand the *question*?

In any case, though I like the idea that my data is secure, I think that has to be balanced against *legitimate* security needs so that, with a court order, the data can be revealed.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

I have frequently compared this precedent to the slippery slope of how we are now required to be visually and/or physically molested, just so we can fly for vacation. I always spoke of the comparison as a negative. Obama seems to think it'd be positive. **** off.

 

[thewitt]

I agree with President Obama, and am actually stunned at the level to which he understands this stuff.

Considering all the other things he must know to do his job, it's reassuring to me he actually "gets" it.

Can you imagine the Shrub even being able to understand the *question*?

In any case, though I like the idea that my data is secure, I think that has to be balanced against *legitimate* security needs so that, with a court order, the data can be revealed.

You do understand that once the door is opened, all it would take for a court order under the Patriot Act is for someone to ACCUSE you of plotting against the government or planning a terrorist act.

There doesn't have to be any evidence, just an accusation. The judge will sign the warrant and your privacy will be gone. If in the search of your personal property they now find anything else of interest, you can be found guilty by association.

Just a contact in your address book who has suspected ties to anti government activities - a mechanic, plumber, dentist, doctor - and you are now locked up pending investigation for possible crimes against the state.

Sure Obama "gets it," since personal liberty and the Constitution don't matter to him.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Thank you! People claimed the FBI went public first and that doesn't make sense. It would be like a police officer getting a search warrant from a judge and then publicize it on the local news. Stupid! That would render the element of surprise moot.

It was Apple that blinked first and published that letter on their website after being asked to keep things private. And Tim should have kept his mouth shut and let his lawyers do the talking, dealing with the FBI while he focuses on his job.

And here's the most messed up part I noticed. People get into a tizzy about their phone privacy and yet, I don't see Apple crying a river about their own desktops/laptops owned by customers being confiscated or de-encrypted by warrants.

What's wrong with the picture here?

For a lot of people, mobile devices replace notebooks/desktops. Mobile devices are the apex of technology & communication for nearly every person on earth. Lets not forget that each device has an ACTIVE cellular, GPS, WIFI and BT connection at any given time. Cameras on the front and rear. Each device also holds more information about you and your life than any known database on the planet. The mobile device you have on your person tracks everything you do. From where you've been, to who you paid, to how many steps you took. It knows you more, than you know yourself.

So yes, I am in a "tizzy" about my mobile device vs my notebook. There's nothing wrong with the picture. You're just seeing it from the wrong perspective.

Want to see what you're missing? - Tap Settings -> Privacy -> Location Services -> System Services (bottom) -> Frequent Locations

Imagine what could happen if someone had that data.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

I have frequently compared this precedent to the slippery slope of how we are now required to be visually and/or physically molested, just so we can fly for vacation. I always spoke of the comparison as a negative. Obama seems to think it'd be positive. And, that helps further define his presidency.

 

[cgc]

United States President Barack Obama today spoke...

​

He also pointed towards airport security as an example of a compromise made between security and privacy.

How effective has airport security been? It's always one step behind the terrorists and hasn't stopped any terrorist attacks. Profiling, like Israel does, would be effective if not for political correctness...

 

[cwosigns]

I might be more inclined to agree that the government needs occasional access, if they had not already secretly been monitoring US citizens without probable cause or a warrant. They have already proven that they cannot be trusted with access.

 

[2010mini]

**** Obama.

Treasonous scumbag.

Obama is technologically inept. I'd expect nothing less from a community organizer who still uses a Blackberry and merrily conducts extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens and routinely flies Pentagon drones all over the United States.

Obama is a totalitarian at heart. Worst president...ever.

Really?? You accuse a president of treason and post a link that says the opposite of what you claim??? Maybe read it first before linking it???? The ACLU says NO LAWS WERE BROKEN.

Advice??? Support your arguments better.

 

[srazz]

Obama is technologically inept.

Did you see him on the show Running Wild with Bear Grylls, he couldn't even take a selfie let alone a picture with someones iPhone.

 

[marco114]

One could argue that your phone is an extension of oneself. It contains our most intimate thoughts, files, communications, everything. Since you can't be made to testify against yourself, I'd argue that the phone's data is of one-self, and thereby can't be made to testify against you. So it should remain private.

 

[geta]

"He advocated for finding a balance between encryption and privacy and the government's NEED to investigate crimes.”

Wow, just wow… your president not the smartest > the perfect puppet.

Wonder who’s gonna be the next one… Trump puppet or Hillary doll…

 

[cwt1nospam]

I certainly hope a middle road can be found.

This is the problem: believing that there is a middle ground. Much of life exists in grey areas, but not encryption. It's binary. You either have secure encryption, or you do not. You cannot make it grey.

 

[You are the One]

Advice??? Support your arguments better.

Here you go. You are welcome.

Washington’s use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn’t even the intelligence of fools.

The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington’s lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.

The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.

Murder Is Washington’s Foreign Policy — Paul Craig Roberts

Here is a bonus link:

Welcome to the Empire of Chaos

 

[Shasterball]

You mentioned drones being used in the U.S., in the comment section to a story on Obama.

Wow man. Did you read the link in the story? At all? That's what it was about. That's why my statement is relevant.

I know it takes time to read the articles and posts and articles but it makes for better online discourse.

 

[roadbloc]

"You cannot take an absolutist view."

Well I just have. We should be entitled to digital privacy. Even if it means the bad apples of the bunch do too.

 

[KPOM]

He;s use it a lot less than Bush so not sure what you're talking about.

Your also using false equivalency; on this subject and a few others, everyone in all parties are all the same. But, that doesn't make everyone the same in both parties. Just looking at what they both advocate in policy and congress shows you that's not true. Doesn't mean he's not really disappointing on all matters of internal security; he truly is.

I think this has less about power to his head, and more general lack of competency in the field of technology (like everyone in Washington) and law enforcement in general (he delegates his authority too much in this area).

He seems complacent with regards to the fields related to policing were he always seems to be at his wit's end; he's obviously relying too much on law enforcement bureaucrats to steer him on (including the current attorney general whose policy he seems to reflect perfectly in this case; so much so that it seems that she's the lead on this).

Obama is the most tech-savvy politician we have ever had. He used data analytics in 2008 when few people even knew what data analytics were. He insisted that the White House find a way for him to use a BlackBerry (the Secret Service didn't want his e-mails routed through Canadian servers), so he knows exactly what he's talking about here.

You conflate the number of executive orders with the use of executive power. First of all, I didn't like it when Bush misused executive power. Second, even Bush didn't try to make recess appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess (SCOTUS slapped him with a 9-0 decision on that one). Obama's misuse of executive power is mostly through misuse of administrative law. We can write a doctoral thesis on how administrative law has gotten out of hand, but, for instance the EPA under Obama put out unconstitutional regulations and then bragged when SCOTUS struck them down that it didn't matter since companies have already complied with them. That doesn't count as an "executive order" but is still a misuse of executive power. The Clean Water Act applies to "navigable waters" and Obama is trying to use it to regulate puddles a mile away from the 100-year floodplain to a river. Meanwhile, the EPA contaminated the Colorado River last year and no one was fired as a result.