Obama at SXSW: 'Absolutist view' on digital privacy cannot prevail - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/obama-at-sxsw-absolutist-view-on-digital-privacy-cannot-prevail/ <comment><USER4> One thing I love about watching the 2016 Crypto Wars: pro-encryption people using all of the pro-gun arguments. Here are my favorites:

1\. Criminals will still use encryption / get guns. Only lawful people will be harmed.

2\. Compromises will just lead to defeat for the pro-encryption / pro-gun side.

3\. If we want to stand up for all of our other civil rights, we need the right to encrypt / bear arms.

4\. Consequentialism: the number of people being harmed by encryption/guns is smaller than the number of people who would be harmed by living in a world without encryption/guns.

Personally, I think these are all solid arguments that work for both guns and encryption, but I'm generally more libertarian than many in the SF tech scene.

<comment><USER5> 1\. The majority of the time, encryption is used for legal, positive reasons, like protecting your bank info or medical info. Guns, on the other hand, there's no argument for: just look at the data from the UK. Even the police are better off without guns.

2\. This might be true for guns, but who cares?

3\. In the age of tanks, machine guns, and grenades, consumer guns don't enable us to overthrow unjust governments as they did when the bill of rights was written. As such, they no longer play a role in protecting our civil rights. If anything, gun rights are frequently a talking point for Right-wing politicians who happily trample over all of our other civil liberties. As a political force, the pro-gun politics is actively harming our civil liberties.

4\. Looking at the data, I don't see how your can argue this. In the US guns are used more in suicide or commission of a crime than in self-defense. In the UK, near-universal bans on guns have lead to a drastic decrease in gun deaths.

<comment><USER6> > The majority of the time, encryption is used for legal, positive reasons, > like protecting your bank info or medical info. Guns, on the other hand, > there's no argument for

Ummm, the vast, _vast_ majority of the guns in the U.S. are used for legal, positive reasons like target shooting or self-defense. The number of murders per gun-year is incredibly low, effectively infinitesimal.

<comment> nommm-nommm Focusing on murders really misses the point. Or rather misses the full picture. Something we rarely talk about but is the biggest gun problem in the US.

60ish percent of deaths by firearms are suicide. Owning a firearm is a risk factor for suicide. This is because many (most?) suicides are not carefully planned out and given considerable deliberation but are somewhat impulsive. Removing an easy means to commit suicide actually reduces suicide.

I'm neither pro or anti gun.

<comment><USER7> I'm very very opposed to a government which uses sticks as a means to prevent suicide. (criminalizing [gun, suicide implement] ownership)

<comment> nommm-nommm Where did I say I wanted the government to criminalize gun ownership to prevent suicide? I didn't. I specifically said I don't have an opinion on the matter. I just said we shouldn't focus on murders being the biggest problem because they aren't, suicide is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about a boycott?

The UK is fairly close to crossing a line which would require me to either stop working (and do everything under the radar), or leave the country.

It sounds like the US might be doing a similar thing soon.

What happens if all of the (semi-competent) developers suddenly either refuse to work or simply can't?

The whole situation is truly bonkers to me - there is no debate to be had at all. If you ban secure encryption I cannot stay in your country any more - <USER2> is the last warning sign I will accept, if I wait too much longer the borders will close before me.

It represents my elected government telling me that I cannot do a thing which I do every single day without fail. It's as if someone turns around and says to my grandmother 'knitting is banned'. That just isn't how it works.

<comment><USER9> But where would you go? If the UK and the US proceed like this then, as with so many issues, the rest of the world will follow.

Germany, for instance, looks rather pro privacy at the moment. But I am pretty sure they'd be some of the first to follow the UK/US.

<comment><USER10> Why are so sure of that?

As a European of 30+ years, I am actually pretty optimistic in that there is, in all areas of politics, a certain point at which EU governments will refuse to follow the US down the rabbit hole.

Germany feels pretty strongly about privacy (albeit not absolute privacy), and I doubt that they will start passing laws just "because the US did it".

UK, I'll give you that. Then again, the UK is culturally closer to the US than to mainland Europe in many ways, this being one of them.

<comment> vanilla-almond I'm a bit less optimistic. Take the recent seizure of Cock.li servers in Germany [1].

Regardless of what you think of the Cock.li service or its owner, the seizure of all the company's emails suggests that demands from police authorities or politicians take precedence over data privacy concerns - even in privacy- conscious Germany.

[1] [http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/01/cock-li- server-...](http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/01/cock-li-server- seized-again-by-german-prosecutor-service-moves-to-iceland/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "[Technology can] empower individuals to do things they could have never > dreamed of before, but also empower folks who are very dangerous to spread > dangerous messages" President Barack Obama said today.

Behind every proposed restriction on speech is actually a fear of freedom of thought. As though there are some ideas or beliefs are so powerful, that mearly exposing an individual to those ideas can forever change their allegiance. It used to be communism and now it's terrorism. It's a very pessimistic and condescending view of the nature of humans that I personally don't believe to be true.

<comment><USER12> There is also the mistaken belief that effective restriction of free thought is is possible through political/legal means. That strategy was ineffective against communism and remains ineffective today.

<comment><USER13> Yes, and as if a massive outrage cannot be planned and executed without using digital communication or perhaps using it but with pre-arranged 'innocuous' codes as a one-time pad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Obama: "Look, just because we've abused every other piece of technology we have access to, doesn't mean we'll abuse this one too. Sure, our law enforcement officers aren't above straight up murdering people they don't like and trying to cover it up, but I'm sure they'll be much more respectful towards your phone. Now, if you don't break your own encryption, just wait a bit and Congress will do it for you."

</comment><comment><USER15> It needs to be pointed out more often that law enforcement still has _all_ of the physical access methods that they've had for the past 200 years. If the government wants to break into your home or office, they can and will do so. No "technological advance" from Silicon Valley has made this type of investigation more difficult. This means that _all_ of the investigative methods that were available 200 years ago are available now.

The government is demanding _new_ powers: the power to search our communications. Perhaps the ability to conduct such searches will make their jobs easier, but keeping them from having this power does not make their jobs _more_ difficult than the 200 year baseline. We are only asking them to do the same legwork that they've always done: look for suspicious behavior, track the purchase of dangerous materials, react to disasters and attacks when they happen, etc.

<comment><USER16> > The government is demanding new powers: the power to search our > communications.

That's not entirely accurate though. The United States has been allowed to search your mail and tap your phone if they have a warrant and there have been cases where it happened without a warrant.

They will, eventually, be shut out of the communications channel entirely due to encryption.

<comment><USER17> > The United States has been allowed to search your mail and tap your phone if > they have a warrant and there have been cases where it happened without a > warrant.

True. But the government never had a means to get the entire history of the bulk of your conversations. They could only install a wiretap after they suspected you of some crime, and even then it was a tedious process for them. Reading digital data is not tedious, it's instant. On balance, the idea of guaranteeing warranted access to encrypted data is a bad idea because it makes us less safe overall.

We put copies of everything into our phones these days. These are new powers that the government started to acquire when we all increased our PC and smart phone usage. We increased usage because we trusted the security systems designed by private companies. I did not start buying things online or banking online because the government kept those computer systems secure. I did it because the tech companies keep them secure. Data breaches cause customers to flee.

Tech companies have always been in an arms race against hackers and if we handcuff them in this manner they will not be able to fix weaknesses in their software as quickly as they do today. By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer.

<comment><USER18> >These are new powers that the government started to acquire

Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"?

The government has always had the right to look at your photos, listen to your calls, and read your mail, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime.

Nowadays all those things are on your phone, so the government has the right to search your phone, when you are legitimately suspected of a crime.

Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue to claim that it is.

>By definition of guaranteeing access to encrypted data, they will be required to maintain such weaknesses. It'd be catastrophic for our tech industry and my future as a software engineer.

Maybe it legitimately is the case that it's impossible for techies to ensure warranted government access without guaranteeing that same access to any and every hacker on Earth.

But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to believe them.

<comment><USER17> > Why do people here persistently insist, even after being corrected, that the > government's 228 year old authority to conduct warranted search and seizure > is some kind of shadowy and scary "new power"?

I'm not talking about the 228 year old law. I'm talking about the government's ability to collect information about conversations you had 10 years ago after a suspected crime which occurred, say, last week. This massive collection of data creates an imbalance between safety and potential data breaches and abuses.

> Nothing about this is in any way new, and it's grossly dishonest to continue > to claim that it is.

Please read my comments carefully. You misunderstand my meaning

> But the more I read these doomsday scenarios from people who are mystified > by the one-sentence, 64-word text of the 4th amendment, the less I'm able to > believe them.

You can educate yourself and make up your own mind. You shouldn't believe or disbelieve a certain position based on the attitude of the person from whom you get your information. It's as unfortunate to miss the truth because of a terrible presenter (think of your worst science teacher) as it is to gulp down misinformation because it is presented in simple terms (think Trump). I've written tons of comments on HN about this issue with many citations. Here are detailed responses to Sam Harris [1] and President Obama [2]

To date, I feel the most compelling argument comes from Senator Lindsey Graham's position. He was initially very supportive of the DOJ's position, and publicly called for Apple to comply. Later, after researching the topic and questioning Attorney General Loretta Lynch, he found his view changed [3]

I also have a summary of recent events here [4]

[1] [https://pastelink.net/151k](https://pastelink.net/151k)

[2] [https://pastelink.net/1555](https://pastelink.net/1555)

[3] [https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s](https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s)

[4] [https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/...](https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/)

<comment><USER18> >I'm talking about the government's ability to collect information about conversations you had 10 years ago after a suspected crime which occurred, say, last week.

You know that people used to put a lot of their conversations onto paper, right?

If you kept your ten year old letters, and the government had cause to believe you'd committed a bunch of crimes (maybe you hadn't? you seem like an all right guy, the government probably just goofed, these things happen), it could go and search your ten year old conversations and see if they contained proof of you committing a bunch of crimes.

The fact that we uses electrons and binary math instead of paper and ink doesn't change anything at all.

>Here are detailed responses to Sam Harris [1] and President Obama [2]

I appreciate the effort but these read like the same doomsday scenarios where it's just treated as an inevitable given that providing a method of government access is directly equivalent to providing access to any and every hacker.

>there will be data breaches, people will be upset, they won't buy iPhones, and this industry will disappear from the US overnight

This is the kind of doomsaying I'm talking about. Most people don't buy iPhones for their disk encryption, they buy iPhones because they're shiny and have the apple logoand you can do facebook with them. The PSN breach didn't stop Sony from selling 35 million playstation 4s; an iPhone breach would inconvenience some people, be embarrassing for apple, and then everyone would continue on buying iPhones because the alternative is to not buy an iPhone, which most iPhone owners would consider about as acceptable as cutting off one of their own hands.

<comment><USER17> > You know that people used to put a lot of their conversations onto paper, > right?

We're talking past each other. Sorry, I did my best to explain another perspective for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here we go. I knew this sentiment had to be held at the highest level. Otherwise, the attorney general would not have pursued this case with such vigor.

Fortunately a few smart senators have gotten their heads around the issue already. Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1] and Mike Lee made great points too [2] in an oversight hearing this week. Dianne Feinstein is of course still clueless [3]

On balance, putting backdoors on encrypted devices is not the right way to maintain security. For Obama's understanding, I'll concede one circumstance under which I feel we ought to help unlock an iPhone.

In the incredibly movie-like scenario where the location of a nuclear weapon is hidden on an encrypted iPhone, then we should sick all our computers on decrypting that phone. I believe this is already done by the NSA program, Bullrun, revealed by Snowden.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E)

[3] [http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general- loret...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loretta- lynch-testimony-justice-department-operations) (seek to 51:00)

<comment><USER12> It is fallacious to believe that because publicly available technology is being effectively used by terrorists and criminals, removing legal access to this technology will make terrorists and criminals ineffective.

Indeed, it may merely create an additional category of criminals (analogous to drug traffickers) whose product is the provision of effective communication channels.

<comment><USER19> Except let's consider that what's playing out now with Apple is not of this matter at all. What's playing out with Apple is a company with the means and capability to assist in a specific matter, refusing to do so on purely ideological grounds of questionable relevancy in a case where complying is pretty unquestionably the right thing to do.

That's an absolutist position. It is a refusal to consider context, and has needlessly signaled an escalation to government.

<comment><USER20> If you want to consider context, be sure to look at more of it. The subjects in question are dead, and cannot further harm anyone. The phone was set to upload information to icloud, and all such information has already been given to the authorities. There is nothing more to be gained from unlocking this phone, except a legal precedent.

Considering the context, this is a power play by the FBI, trying to apply an irrelevant law to further weaken privacy.

<comment><USER19> The phone in question had it's iCloud password reset by someone. It has not uploaded it's contents to iCloud, which is why this is happening.

And so again, context: we're not arguing about whether getting the data is right, we're having some bizarre proxy argument mediated via all-writs which is being framed as an encryption battle, when it is at best a battle over how much compensation Apple should receive for it's work.

<comment><USER21> > reset by someone

It's odd that you leave out that it was the county that reset that password, "at the FBI's request"[1].

> context

Why are you leaving out the last 20+ _years_ of context? The FBI has been pushing for encryption backdoors for a _long_ time. Even just last year Director Comey was insisting that they needed a "golden key" (aka backdoor) to encryption.

Yes, you're seeing a proxy argument at the moment, but it's by the FBI and anybody else who claims this has _anything at all_ to do with the dead shooter in San Bernardino instead of the multi-decade fight over _We The People_ using encryption.

[1] [https://twitter.com/CountyWire/status/700887823482630144](https://twitter.com/CountyWire/status/700887823482630144)

<comment><USER19> Actually I didn't know about [1], since news articles were only covering "by someone" up till recently. It was just "a county employee".

But let's unpack then the argument being had: "oh the FBI could've just asked the cloud provider for data". _What_ precisely, is the functional difference here, if we exclude the actual effort required to implement what is being asked for?

 _Encryption_ and the use thereof, is not the argument being had. It's whether it's right to grant access to the data at all, which Apple is claiming it isn't. Which is also patently absurd, especially in this case as it pertains to (1) a criminal matter, (2) a deceased person (who does not have a right to privacy) and (3) a phone owned by someone else (the county) who has okayed accessing it.

Apple is taking an absolutist position, and so are most of their supporters. If this were an apartment, no one would be asking questions. If it were a lockbox, the bank would've cut it open. But because this is a digital device, for some reason, everyone suddenly insists its "totally different" and that the FBI clearly "doesn't understand technology". Except for the pesky detail that the very specific help asked for pretty much only hinges on if it's undue burden to Apple or if compensation should be involved, because it's absolutely possible to do, but additionally this part of the court order ([http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple- As...](http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst- iPhone.pdf), page 4, item 4):

 _If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way._

Apple is free to do pretty much anything which would comply with the goal of accessing the device, provided it does actually access it. Until such a point as they propose something reasonable and the government rejects it, once again, the only defense they are actually using is "digital devices are magically different". Because no part of this order somehow rides its away automatically into "ban encryption". But boy have they (Apple) done a good job ensuring that's getting put back on the legislative agenda.

<comment><USER21> > I didn't know about

In that case, you might want to do more reading on the topic.

> What precisely, is the functional difference here

See the numerous other threads, as this has been explained many times.

> [many words restating the FBI's misleading framing of their order to Apple]

The FBI wants a backdoor into any crypto that gets in their way. To deny this is to deny not only the past 20 years rhetoric from the FBI _and_ their current actions involving this case and the other phones they also want to unlock. If you think that such a backdoor can exist without breaking encryption, then you haven't been paying attention to how fast exploits spread.

Let me guess - you think that this is isolated to _ONE_ phone? That the FBI isn't going to turn around and use this same order on every other phone in the future? Or are you calling Susan Landau a liar[1] and insisting that Apple can somehow keep a backdoor secret while maintaining a daily service to use that backdoor?

You seem to be going out of your way to try to blame Apple, while ignoring both the technical context and the FBI's actions and motives.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12944](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12944)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wrote long comment in the other thread about Obama at SXSW that is currently on the front page [1]. I don't know if it's within HN rules to copy/paste that wholesale here or not. Anyway, it's been suggested that I create a github repo of the sources I've collected so far (I have about 40-50 relevant links to video excerpts, news articles, briefs, etc.). I will do that and post back here.

So far I haven't seen any running list of events maintained by any blog or website that actually links to primary sources. Most websites link to themselves and are full of editorialization. I think if you line the facts up in the right manner and link directly not just to the primary sources but also to the relevant sections of those sources, then the story, equation and solution presents itself. And I think a github repo is a great way to do that. I'd welcome any help reformatting my current summary [2] (which right now is behind and does not include sources from my comment from the other thread), such as adding dates to events, recategorizing items, or adding significant new events. I do not intend to link to every blog post about the issue, just events from major participants such as Apple, the DOJ, politicians, and other public figures.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270745)

[2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/)

<comment><USER21> > bothered by the errors in his supporting facts

When considering how the intelligence community could abuse their surveillance powers, most people focus on the _coercive_ possibilities (blackmail). The real power, however, is not in controlling how someone makes decisions, but in controlling the options they have to choose from.

For a very good explanation of this, I recommend this[1] section from an older interview with Jacob Appelbaum about the time the CSE tried to recruit him.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805)

<comment><USER17> I wasn't implying any sort of devious manipulation via blackmail.

I honestly think he just hasn't thought it through. You can call me an idiot, and people will call you a conspiracist. I've no idea which of us is right, but completely unselfishly, I really hope it is me, and my gut says it's me. Even if it is not me, the course going forward should be the same. We should educate each other about the facts of the current circumstances so we can all weigh the balancing factors in our own minds. Let us not rely on experts here and share our own knowledge in order to empower each other. We do not need to tell people how to think. We can give them the facts and let them make up their own minds.

<comment><USER21> I completely agree that _education_ is most important.

As for the "manipulation"... generally speaking, nobody ever thinks of themselves as "evil". The well-meaning but simply misinformed or misguided can be just as poor an instructor as someone with malicious intent.

My point is mainly that the president (and other decision-making positions) has to rely on advisers. If those advisers are not providing the necessary, accurate information then they have _de facto_ power over the decision making process. Unlike the coercive strategies, this shift in power can happen without intending it.

<comment><USER17> > If those advisers are not providing the necessary, accurate information then > they have de facto power over the decision making process

Yes, but as it pertains to this particular issue, assuming there's no blackmail involved, if the public is informed and there's one political candidate who is for strong encryption, and another who is for backdoors, then we will vote in the man or woman who is for strong encryption. We may have lived with mandated backdoors for 4 or 8 years, but at some point we'll work our way out of that hole, so long as we stay vigilant and root our knowledge- sharing in facts.

Generally speaking, I agree completely that people can and do leave out facts in order to get what they want. Our government isn't free from this sort of manipulation, but I think we have a darned good system set up compared to some others. Lindsey Graham's change of heart on the encryption issue is evidence of that, as is much of the _good_ work done by our government that often goes under-appreciated by the general public. This isn't the first time our government and people have argued over the proper interpretation of laws, and it won't be the last. Let's recall the successful civil rights movements of the past, remember that other countries still do not have some rights that have existed in the US since its founding, and look forward to winning many more. Free speech, women's right to vote, equal rights for all races. Our system isn't perfect but it has led to some really good things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think he just needs to learn more about encryption.

It's not that nerds are being absolutists. It's that the technology is absolute, and nerds understand the technology.

I also predict that once he is out of office he will reverse himself on this issue.

<comment><USER23> Yes, I think it's easy to be cynical about politicians or think they're ultra smart about everything, that there's always some kind of master plan behind everything.

It's much more likely that they truly do not understand the nature of encryption. They lack the expertise, and their top level advisors do as well. It's not complicated (strong encryption is super easy, regardless of laws), but they just can't accept the simple fact because it clashes with their political desires.

<comment><USER24> _They lack the expertise, and their top level advisors do as well._

I wonder how often those advisers are chosen based on being yes-men rather than for being _actual_ experts in the/a subject area.

<comment><USER25> Presidents too are essentially chosen that way

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "But think of the children!"

That is so predictable.

If he cared so much about children, he wouldn't be killing them with missiles from drones.

<comment><USER27> I don't agree with Obama, but the comment you've written is (I'm sorry to say) absolutely terrible.

First, you've completely mischaracterized Obama's position. It's not as simple as, "Think of the children!" Obama is saying that encryption makes it practically impossible to prosecute some kinds of criminals. Of the examples he listed, one of them was child pornographers. Another was plotting terrorists. Now these examples are trotted out all the time, _but that doesn 't make them false_. Robust encryption protects everyone's privacy, but it also means that some number of child pornographers and terrorists will get away with their crimes. Obama thinks the harms of those crimes outweigh the privacy protections. I don't agree with that, but it's not an unreasonable view to hold. And it's certainly not the view you claimed Obama had.

Second, it's absurd to think –even for a second– that Obama doesn't care about the lives of children in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Libya. If coalition forces didn't care about innocents, they would have waged war like the Putin did in Chechnya: indiscriminate bombings, extrajudicial killings, and record- setting deployments of landmines. But that's not how coalition forces operate. The horrific stories you hear about are _accidents_ , not deliberate. Due to incomplete information, poor decision-making, or just plain bad luck, soldiers sometimes kill innocents. When this happens, everyone agrees it's a tragedy, and everyone tries to prevent it from happening in the future. Sadly, militaries are incredibly blunt tools. The only way to completely avoid collateral damage is to never use them.

To make my point absolutely clear: In the case of drone strikes, children die because intel isn't always accurate and weapons aren't perfectly discriminating. Despite what you're trying to imply, if Obama could wage war with perfect intel and weaponry, he wouldn't harm a single innocent person.[1]

Lately, I've been seeing more of these drive-by misrepresentations on HN. I usually downvote and move on, but the situation only seems to be getting worse. I don't know of a good solution, as any reply takes far longer to write than three sentences of pandering.

1\. A side note: The same can't be said for the leaders of the opposing forces (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri). They would use these hypothetical perfect weapons and intel to turn much of the world into a charnel house.

<comment><USER28> Have 'plotting terrorists' actually committed any crimes? The child porn argument is even more nefarious - why is one kind of .jpg on your hard drive acceptable and the other criminal? Sure the creation of those images is criminal, but the images themselves are just data. Data should not be criminal.

<comment><USER29> Viewing such images risks increasing the production of more of them. Even if that risk is small or unproven the majority doesn't want to gamble.

<comment><USER30> In the case of child porn, I think the bigger reason why it's such a serious crime is because that population will never have political support, and they're such an easy punching bag. They're the group nobody likes.

You say that the consumption of images increases the probability of more production, but I really doubt that's the explanation for why things are why they are. I don't know if there's a _market_ for child porn, but if there isn't, that means that consumption of child porn doesn't provide material support for crime. On the other hand, when we buy goods supported by exploitation of both adults and children, sometimes fatal exploitation, we do provide material support to an economic process with a relation to crime.

While I'm okay with entertaining a discussion on my moral responsibilities as a market participant, as well as discussion about how global economy ought to work, I wouldn't be okay with criminal culpability because I bought cheap goods or electronics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I find his attack on CryptoCurrency largely terrifying as well "If government can't access phones, 'everybody is walking around with a Swiss Bank account in their pocket'"

God forbid we lived in a world where people had privacy and THEIR own money?

<comment><USER32> Are you an anarchist? Because a Swiss Bank account is associated with circumventing taxes and money laundering, which I think is what he was getting at when he made the reference; not that you can't have your own money. If there is no effective way to tax or enforce that taxation then no Government could exist.

<comment><USER33> I've seen this argument against crypto currencies before and I alway found it bizarre. Do you honestly believe that the government's ability to tax you is predicated on it's ability to see how much money you have in your bank account and the ability to take that money? Taxes existed long before electronic records of money.

<comment><USER34> One of the first income tax evasion prosecutions, follow the passing of the 16th amendment (making income tax permanent), relied almost entirely on bank deposit records. Centralized reporting requirements are pretty important to the IRS. I couldn't find the specific case, but this paper [0] covers the topic pretty thoroughly. If you are incredibly bored and end up reading it, you'll notice that in their investigations the IRS commonly skips a lot of things that would be labor intensive (like finding property held under a different name), and sticks to the prewrapped financial records from the banks.

So yeah, taxes existed before the internet - they used paper deposit slips.

[0] [http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1812&context=fss_papers)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Doesn't the President speaking at SxSW kind of break the whole indie vibe of the event?

Maybe I'm being naive and that was gone a long time ago (I've never been), but typically tech or art-oriented events don't really care for politicians much.

I briefly peeked in on a talk Rick Perry gave at E3 2008 (promoting Texas to game developers), and the room was probably 95% empty. Tumbleweeds. Granted, I'm sure the President draws far bigger crowds, but it still strikes me as odd.

<comment><USER36> There hasn't been an "indie vibe" at sxsw for at _years_ , my friend. Austin is a weird city, and not in that fun weird that made it so great in the 2000's.

When Leslie died, he took the "weird" with him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm not surprised... He's been a disappointment from a civil liberties perspective.

<comment><USER38> Exactly. I know there's a whole bunch of love for how great a president Obama has been but looking at what the Obama administration has done, as you say, a civil liberties standpoint has been an absolute disappointment.

He flip-flopped on a number of issues almost immediately after entering office and has continue highly questionable programs like drone strikes.

What he's asking for in the article is the same old trope of backdoor crypto just worded differently. When are they going to get that NOBUS does not work?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> So when Obama vowed to stop the illegal wiretapping of US citizens in 2007, he was basically just promising to legalize wiretapping and tax it?

<comment><USER40> A lot of candidates' policies change when they become president. I feel like this is due to a few reasons but a big one may be that they are read into many secret programs (like the NSA one), which give them a new perspective on the "threats". From that the "Not on my watch" mindset kicks in.

Not excusing the government on the encryption debate. We absolutely need it. Just saying when you are given new, secret information that you didn't previously have, it's not unreasonable to change your policy.

<comment><USER41> I assume this is not a new phenomenon. So, why does every president do it? Does he not have advisers who know something about the security apparatus? Someone that might say "you know, there's a lot of bad stuff you don't fully understand, so maybe you should roll back the rhetoric a bit?"

Of course, campaigning on "I will increase the national security state" isn't a plank that will likely get a candidate elected.

Note, too, that I am just criticizing Obama here. Every president breaks campaign promises, because most campaign promises are nothing more than marketing.

<comment><USER42> Because Governance and Statecraft are difficult, and need every day tools. The Theory and rhethoric miss lot of nuance and complexity of the situation. I am happy that a Politician once becomes president changes some if not many of their policies. Yes, there is an element of accumulation of power in some instances, but over all, the forces are much larger than one person or one team. That is why I find all the election promises esp. during the primary phase to be so funny, and incredible.

I think Obama said it wonderfully in this article [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the- obam...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama- doctrine/471525/) , No President starts with a Clean slate.

<comment><USER43> I find it interesting that, as detailed in this article, Obama viewed his decision not to attack Syria as breaking with "the Washington playbook"; yet in the subject article of this thread, Obama is clearly playing straight out of "the Washington playbook" in supporting the government's ability to invade citizens' privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> He very often applies this tactic of trying to make the other side seem unreasonable.

This is the most important issue of our generation. You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. There is no middle ground. You either support the right to privacy or you do not. There are only two options and you have to pick one.

<comment><USER45> Please consider signing the apple-privacy-petition if you are an American: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy- peti...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition)

<comment><USER36> I'm sorry, but I absolutely have no faith in this petition site anymore...willing to change my mind given sufficient data but given history, it seems like window dressing.

<comment><USER17> Yes. Discuss the issue online. Make Facebook posts and YouTube videos. Talk about it with your friends.

CALL your representatives to let them know how you feel and why. Email them. It works, they do listen. There are bills being proposed in NY and CA that would force companies to insert back doors or face a penalty. The issue is now political at the highest level, and our President is spreading the misinformed view of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Given Trump's campaign success, we should all be very afraid at the effectiveness of this uninformed stance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The position is actually a weak tactic that goes far back to original battles on crypto. It's even got a name:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse)

Far as the argument, it's weak because none of the claims they made last time came true. If anything, the U.S. is spying on and locking up so many Americans they might need to cut back so they can stop putting dangerous people back on the street. Prosecution is so one-sided in FBI's favor that plea bargain rate is 97%. Prisons are simply too full. Plus, they got a conviction almost every time they ran into encryption per their own documents. They're not "going dark" or at any disadvantage. That's straight up lies given their publicly released documents.

Far as backdoors, Bruce Schneier shows how retarded Comey and Obama's side is with a simple counter:

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wo...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wont.html)

" But the problem isn't that most encrypted communications platforms are securely encrypted, or even that some are -- the problem is that there exists at least one securely encrypted communications platform on the planet that ISIL can use.

Imagine that Comey got what he wanted. Imagine that iMessage and Facebook and Skype and everything else US-made had his backdoor. The ISIL operative would tell his potential recruit to use something else, something secure and non-US- made. Maybe an encryption program from Finland, or Switzerland, or Brazil. Maybe Mujahedeen Secrets. Maybe anything. "

My own counter is that even North Korea can't lock down all covert communications in their country. Dissidents routinely get us info with cheap cellphones using towers planted on other side of border. China, which is more U.S. lawmakers' style, has all kinds of covert communications, organized crime, and so on. So, Bruce's argument is supported by the evidence, other surveillance states show surveillance won't protect us at all, and U.S. government's behavior up to this point indicate it's a power grab for a tool of control rather than protection. They abuse everything else routinely.

<comment><USER18> >U.S. government's behavior up to this point indicate it's a power grab for a tool of control

The US government wanting to enforce warrants is not a power grab.

Crypto is an infringement on the existing, 100% constitutional power of the US government to conduct warranted search and seizure.

<comment><USER46> I made a similar argument with Lavabit. Further analysis showed the situation was quite different from what warrantee search implied:

Physical: You usually received notice and could physically spot insertions of fake evidence or mishandling. Only one target.

Digital: They capabilities they ask for can be used invisibly on as many targets as they like. They allow undetectable insertion of forged evidence as well in many cases.

The FBI showed their true colors in Lavabit case where they acknowledged that getting the key or attaching their box could compromise ALL accounts. The FBI's argument? Do it then lie to customers that it didnt happen and their emails are still private. FBI said no harm to business that way. Judge agreed, too.

This is not isolated case. They abuse the other authorities similarly with coercion of affected parties and deception of US public. So, I fight backdoors or similar capabilities to avoid enabling tyrants.

A read-only, auditable search a 3rd party can restrict to just warranted targets woukd be a totally different discussion. They've usually rejected tgat stuff in favor of overreach and subversion. That's telling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> In other words, it's not just this "one time" for this one "bad guy." The government wants a skeleton key. President Obama just said as much.

Crypto War II has begun.

<comment><USER48> Crypto war one was what?

<comment><USER49> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm glad Obama finally took a side. It's just unfortunate he took the _wrong side_. The truth is that he has always supported this side, though. Even before he got elected in 2008 and when he was campaigning on "ending warrantless mass surveillance", he still voted in the Senate for the Patriot Act extension.

On the encryption issue he has been _cowardly_ hiding behind Comey and the DoJ "hey, it's not _me_ saying that, it's the FBI. I _do_ like strong encryption! In fact, some of my best friends use strong encryption."

So at least I'm glad that charade is over, so he openly admits that his "legacy" will be a president fighting to expand mass surveillance and to end strong encryption.

I didn't want to make this political, but time is running out and we can't afford to tiptoe around this anymore. As we speak Obama is working to _legalize_ all the illegal NSA sharing with the DEA and FBI, and it's probably just a matter of time until local police departments have easy access to all of that data, too. We need to stop that NOW!

There's only one presidential candidate who actually has a track record voting against laws like the Patriot Act, FISA and CISA, beyond already promising to end mass surveillance (which anyone could do, just like Obama did) - <USER3> that's Bernie Sanders. If you care about not seeing your country turn into a police state (which is what will happen when NSA sharing with civil agencies gets legalized), then go vote for him in the primaries and tell all of your friends and family to do so.

This may be the last chance you get to stop encryption backdoors in the US and turn back the mass surveillance capabilities in a more significant way. I can't imagine what the US would look like after another 8 years with a president or presidents that are even more hawkish than Obama was on these issues.

But my guess it will look a lot more like China. The DoJ is already using the rhetoric that "Apple has been helping China unlock its phones this way, anyway, so why doesn't it help the US, too?" First off, that's false, and second you can see they don't want to make any distinction between China and US anymore on this issue. To them, what China is doing is the "ideal" that they strive for. There needs to be someone to change that culture in the government from top to bottom, and do it soon.

<comment><USER51> I'm not a huge fan of Sanders but I think you might be right here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I am disappointed in my president. Of all of his flaws, I think the worst is when he presumes to know both sides of an argument, sets up a straw man, then beats it down. He does this with far too great a regularity.

I believe its very clear, if it hasn't been before, that both major U.S. political parties are not in alignment with those of us in the tech community that understand the issues. At the rate we're going, encryption itself will be regulated before too long. What a Charlie Foxtrot.

I read this morning that some scientists wrote to the Department of Justice asking them to use RICO to investigate climate deniers. RICO, for those of you who don't know, is a draconian law passed in order to deal with large crime syndicates. We were told at the time that vast new powers were needed if the government had a chance against organized crime.

This is relevant because over and over again, we see encroachment on our liberties in terms of "Well, what if there was a ticking nuclear bomb", we adjust the legal system, then find those adjustments being used for political purposes. The same thing will happen with prying in your phone.

I know in my heart that we have crossed the line into a system that's unsustainable over the long run. I fear that this trend is accelerating. It certainly would be nice if we had some governmental body that was concerned with the proper structure and limits on governmental powers. I don't see anybody like that, however. Just a lot of rationalization.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder if reframing the debate a little might help everyone realize that what Apple is doing doesn't actually impede law enforcement, and that iCloud backups actually can help them (a lot).

This is simple:

1\. Most people will not actually "go dark" because the consequence of going dark is you lose everything if you lose your password. That severe consequence for a relatively common human error is not a good fit for most people's personal records and photographic life memories.

The right fit for most people is

(a) unbreakable security on their physical devices so they don't have to worry about getting hacked if they lose them, plus

(b) cloud backup that can be recovered by a trusted custodian, so they don't have to worry if they lose their password.

And that is exactly what Apple is providing. Law enforcement will still be able to go after their backups.

2\. As for the case where someone really does want to "go dark", weakening physical device security isn't going to stop them. They will simply use alternative encryption software. Law enforcement still can't get it. So why make everyone more vulnerable to the hacking of stolen devices?

Case in point: law enforcement did get access to the terrorist's last iCloud backup. And if he turned off backups with the conscious intention of going dark, then even if Apple made that impossible on the iPhone, he would have simply used a different solution (e.g. not use the phone for secret info or use a different, secure phone with open source software if necessary, etc.)

<comment><USER12> I suspect a data breach or exploit of cloud storage or other service providers is more likely for most consumers than an attack on their device following theft or loss.

For both privacy and protection against criminals, cloud storage must become as impregnable as our physical devices. Do we truly lack the will or creativity to produce custodians who cannot recover our data without our permission?

<comment><USER53> _> Do we truly lack the will or creativity to produce custodians who cannot recover our data without our permission?_

It depends what you mean by permission. If you mean it's physically impossible, those exist, but then they can't help you if you forget your password so it's probably not the right option for most people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> All we need now is a piracy-style commercial to go along with the message:

      "You wouldn't encrypt a child you just abducted. You
       wouldn't encrypt potassium nitrate you plan to use to
       make a bomb and blow up a bulding. You wouldn't encrypt
       a stack of cash or a duffel bag of cocaine. So why would
       you encrypt information you wish to keep private?"

The reality is that encrypted information may only be evidence of conspiracy, and even with 100% perfect encryption that the government is incapable of decrypting it's the equivalent of doing everything face to face, keeping the information in your head, and remaining silent under the Fifth Amendment. The government can't yet subpoena the contents of your thoughts against your will.

Besides which, as soon as something criminal actually becomes criminal there's physical world, tangible evidence that cannot be encrypted -- the child, the explosive, the stacks of cash. And even if it's a purely digital crime, if there's sufficient suspicion of a crime, the government can get a warrant to install surveillance equipment to watch the device in question and watch the plaintext evidence.

</comment><comment><USER55> The problem here is encryption itself. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I'm inclined to agree with him on the fact we need a compromise, before like he said something bad happens and a rushed solution is implemented that isn't optimal for either side.

However, I can't think of any of the government's proposed solutions as working. Someone who wants the security offered by encryption will just use a truly secure system, even if it means they buy the device or software on illegally or from a foreign country.

Where this is demand for true privacy, there will always be supply.

<comment><USER56> I don't see how any "compromise" can be anything but lose-lose.

Say you get Apple to agree to allow law-enforcement to have another data decryption key loaded onto every device that is protected by a device specific key that Apple will provide to law enforcement on request. In theory this sounds ok.

Until you realise that anyone intent on any ACTUAL wrong doing is going to also use their own software encryption to protect anything worth protecting.

All you have done now is reduced the protection of the average law abiding citizen by creating a possible attack vector (no matter how tanky Apple HQ security may be) and not at all enabled law enforcement to attack actual high value targets.

You could argue that high value targets are not the actual targets here.. but then why bother? Do you really need access to someones phone to prove they stole a car? Or shot up a bunch of people? No, good old fashioned police work is good enough for that. The only time I see the need for easy access to someones phone is criminal conspiracy and in that case it's highly unlikely they are going to be just relying on the devices full disk encryption.

The entire argument from law enforcement on this issue is a complete joke so far, they need to get with the times and retool for the threats of today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> The underwear drawer analogy highlights the schism here. On one hand, for people who don't think of their phone as "an extension of their brain" (to use a phrase I've seen here), it's puzzling to think we'd be on board with letting police search our most intimate places with a warrant, but not our phones. To those convinced that there is no way to allow reasonable access to law enforcement without allowing unlimited access to hackers, that position doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER56> My brain is not my underwear drawer. Sure, I'm going to be upset with you rummaging through my underwear drawer but there is a very good reason why regarding a phone as an "extension of the brain" should afford it much greater protection. Possibly even ultimate protection, that is in-accessible regardless of warrant.

<comment><USER57> My point is that if you see a phone just as a gadget, like I imagine Obama does, it is hard to see why it should get more protection than something really intimate like the inside of someone's house. That's the heart of why the two sides view this issue so differently.

Personally, I don't consider my phone any more private than my desk drawer. I don't put anything on my phone that I wouldn't write down on a piece of paper. I know some do, and they're entitled to their view, but I find Obama's underwear analogy pretty convincing because I think of a phone just as a gadget.

<comment><USER52> I'm sure you already know this argument, but it bears re-mentioning. It's not the things you directly store on your phone -- it's everything else. Your phone tracks where you go, what opinions you post about various things and when, the people you communicate with, your money, and your correspondence. Apple is making the case that your phone could basically turn into a traveling wiretap, listening to everything you say. I even saw a recent article that said folks are looking into using your phone to track when you have sex. The iPhone health app, if used, is about as personal as I could imagine anything being.

None of that bears on what sorts of extremely personal information you may or may not voluntarily choose to additionally put on your phone. In the aggregate, however, it's about as intimate as you can get.

I understand the "I don't put anything personal on my phone" statement. I feel the same way. But that doesn't mean that there aren't extremely personal and sensitive pieces of information on there -- information I would not want to be sharing with others without my consent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> > "if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, > or the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there is no door at > all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer?

Won't somebody think of the children!!!

In seriousness though, the government and the the FBI have already show themselves capable of infiltrating and bringing down child pornography rings that use strong encryption.

There are ways to do that without backdooring everyone's phones 'just in case'.

</comment><comment><USER59> It's the digital age. I am recorded on video at minimum, I would expect four times a day. I'm not a criminal. I'm commuting to work. The digital age has eroded the privacy that generations before us were able to take for granted. Does Obama want to eliminate the only guarantee to privacy that still exists in the digital age? The fourth amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise that right, in any sense at all in the digital age, without encryption.

</comment><comment><USER60> I am disappointed that he doesn't come out pro-encryption.

USA companies will end up losing business to foreign companies and organized crime (I include terrorists when I talk about organized crime) will have an easier time wounding both citizens and businesses via cyber attacks.

<comment><USER17> The funny thing is, one year ago he almost was. He spoke with President Xi in China about legislation Beijing was considering that would similarly handcuff tech companies [1]. He criticized Xi for this and pointed out that it would damage their economy.

I don't understand whether he continues to hold that view or not. Perhaps he does think it will hurt our economy but is worth the cost. Perhaps he thinks it is better for our security too. Of course he is wrong. I am so baffled that nobody has been able to explain this to him in a manner similar to the understanding Lindsey Graham was able to achieve.

Shouldn't the President have access to the best minds in technology? It's not as if any of us would refuse his phone call. Note I don't claim to be a best mind but I think I can talk through the issue to present understanding of the full tech side of the picture to a layperson, and at the same time be respectful of the challenges faced by the DOJ when trying to give justice to victims and security to the public. I think all of you on HN can, too.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY2H520150302)

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> > "My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this," > he said. "So if your bargain is strong encryption, no matter what, that we > can and should in fact create 'black boxes,' then that I think does not > strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years, and > it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can't be the > right answer."

[http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the- manuscript/](http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/)

> For more than 260 years, the contents of that page—and the details of this > ritual—remained a secret. They were hidden in a coded manuscript, one of > thousands produced by secret societies in the 18th and 19th centuries. At > the peak of their power, these clandestine organizations, most notably the > Freemasons, had hundreds of thousands of adherents, from colonial New York > to imperial St. Petersburg. Dismissed today as fodder for conspiracy > theorists and History Channel specials, they once served an important > purpose: Their lodges were safe houses where freethinkers could explore > everything from the laws of physics to the rights of man to the nature of > God, all hidden from the oppressive, authoritarian eyes of church and state. > But largely because they were so secretive, little is known about most of > these organizations. Membership in all but the biggest died out over a > century ago, and many of their encrypted texts have remained uncracked, > dismissed by historians as impenetrable novelties.

Obama's claim should not be taken as anything other than a blatant lie he knows the majority of people are too ignorant to notice.

<comment><USER62> You seem to be making the bad-faith assumption that Obama is familiar enough with the history of strong encryption or Freemasonry that he'd know about the situation you describe.

Don't ascribe to malice, etc. (though of course when talking of the leader of a superpower, the ill effects of malice and ignorance may be indistinguishable enough to render the difference meaningless).

<comment><USER61> > (though of course when talking of the leader of a superpower, the ill > effects of malice and ignorance may be indistinguishable enough to render > the difference meaningless).

I was going to argue you with you until you added this. ;)

Malice and ignorance for someone in his position are identical in my world view. The man has a budget to hire the most intelligent people in the country to advise him.

Ignorance and/or incompetence in public interviews should be beyond the realm of a reasonable result.

That said, I realize not everyone feels that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The good old trick of calling those you disagree with extremists, I mean absolutist...

Because not wanting the government to have full access to your phone is extremism.

<comment><USER64> Here in Ukraine, we have the same problem. If you publicly don't agree with the government's policy of tightening the nuts, you may face a prison term under any fabricated accusations, including "work for russian spies". Because "extremism" word isn't fashionable here since 2013-2014, all true Ukrainian patriots now get called "kremlin agents" by our corrupt government.

<comment><USER63> I grew up in Syria where most people considered the government and police to be a bunch of armed thugs. Now that I live in the West, I've come to the conclusion that this is the case everywhere, it's just that our armed thugs behave better and with (slightly) better restrictions than others, but these restrictions keep getting ignored as time passes or whenever they become too inconvenient to the thugs.

<comment><USER65> Yes. I grew up in a communist country and, while we had plenty of state propaganda, nobody believed it. I was shocked when I discovered that the western governments behaved the same way, with the exception that their citizens believed their propaganda.

<comment><USER63> The problem with state propaganda in communist/socialist regimes is that the state is so corrupt that it brings misery to the country, people are poor and have zero opportunities. This brings natural distrust in the government. Not to mention that critics of said propaganda are usually disappeared.

In the West, the corruption is not as strong, people have opportunities and a much better quality of life (everyone can eat, education, healthcare etc) and there is much more respect for due process. All this makes people trust their government a lot more, probably too much.

In the West, critics are allowed but tend to get lost in the brouhaha, they may be refused certain jobs and won't get invited to prime time tv but they won't be persecuted unless they're whistle blowers, in which case they will be labeled as traitors and sent to maximum security, not that different to socialist dictatorships. It's just that socialist dictatorships have a much lower threshold of what constitutes a traitor...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> He's also a President who implicitly expresses support for the view that "Snowden is a traitor", by refusing to "pardon" him (which should never even have been necessary).

Sanders _may_ be the only current candidate to differ on that issue.

</comment><comment><USER67> And the last big measure that was "just to stop terrorists" they started logging everyone's emails.

</comment><comment><USER68> We have way more information stored on these devices than ever before. They want it because it's there, not because they need it.

For example, the first mobile phones, could only store 10 text messages, you'd typically delete them after reading. Modern phones store years of messages, so the governments want that.

Further back, we communicated in person or the phone, for which there was no record of what was said (unless actively under surveillance). Now these conversations are stored forever Facebook messenger/What's app etc.

One solution would be to simply automatically delete messages after reading.

<comment><USER69> > One solution would be to simply automatically delete messages after reading.

As you can readily do with Signal or Telegram.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There was another discussion about this which dropped off the front page [1]

I am not as bothered by Obama's conclusions as I am bothered by the errors in his supporting facts. These are going to contribute to the mis-education of portions of the American public. Here is his full keynote which I think we all should watch [2]

One year ago President Obama held nearly the opposite view. He spoke with President Xi in China about legislation Beijing was considering that would similarly handcuff tech companies [3]. He criticized Xi for this and pointed out that it would damage their economy.

I don't know whether Obama continues to hold the view that mandating backdoors would damage a country's economy or not. Perhaps he does think it will hurt our economy but is worth the cost. Perhaps he thinks it is better for our security too. Of course he is wrong.

I am baffled that nobody, to date, has been able to explain the entirety of the issues we must balance to maintain public safety and security to our President. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was able to achieve that understanding [4]

Shouldn't the President have access to the best minds in technology? It's not as if any of us would refuse his phone call. Note I don't claim to be a best mind but I think I can talk through the issue to present understanding of the full tech side of the picture to a layperson, and at the same time be respectful of the challenges faced by the DOJ when trying to give justice to victims and security to the public. I think all of you on HN can, too.

Fortunately, some Congressmen are well-informed. They realize Apple is not simply being disobedient here. Lindsey Graham changed his mind [4] and Mike Lee made great points too [5] in an oversight hearing this week. Dianne Feinstein is of course still clueless [6]. Other personalities have also changed their views when presented with facts. Sam Harris was initially very outspoken against strong encryption [10], but then changed his mind after reading responses to his initial video [11].

On balance, putting backdoors on encrypted devices is not the right way to maintain security. For Obama's understanding, I'll concede one circumstance under which I feel we ought to help unlock an iPhone.

In the incredibly movie-like scenario where the location of a nuclear weapon is hidden on an encrypted iPhone, then we should sick all our computers on decrypting that phone. I believe this is already done by the NSA program, Bullrun, revealed by Snowden.

Obama thinks he has technological advisors but he doesn't. Around 12:00 in the full keynote [2], he starts to talk about how he has coordinated with technologists to form a special task force that solve persistent technological issues the government faces. I think that is a good start. But he is still missing someone or some group who he trusts to act in an advisory role to him about technology and, in particular, encryption. In fact, in this part of the keynote, he's trying to appeal to technologists, but he's still treating them as a mere tool to bring about his goals. He says "We want to create a pipeline where there's a continuous flow of talent that is helping to shape the government." [2a] He says government propaganda is dangerous [2b], yet does not listen to the leagues of technologists who tell him backdoors are bad, or even himself from one year ago [3]. He is pursuing his own agenda and engaging in government propaganda that is unfactual, thus _doing the very thing he says he isn 't_.

I do believe that if Obama understood the facts about encryption then he would come to a different conclusion. If he really understood the equation, and the factors we must balance to maintain public security, then he would not be asking tech companies to add backdoors to their devices. However, at the moment he does not understand the technology, therefore he does not know the things we must balance, and therefore the result of his equation is wrong. There's an error in variables he's established in his mind. His calculation of the final result is reasonable given the facts he understands, but the calculation is based on mis-information.

Let's inform each other and contact our representatives to make sure they are informed so that when the time does come to vote on this issue, we are all voting knowing that the debate is primarily about security vs. security [7] [8] [9], and not just security vs. privacy.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfsIZioIpdI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfsIZioIpdI)

[2a] [https://youtu.be/wfsIZioIpdI?t=14m54s](https://youtu.be/wfsIZioIpdI?t=14m54s)

[2b] [https://youtu.be/wfsIZioIpdI?t=16m15s](https://youtu.be/wfsIZioIpdI?t=16m15s)

[3] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY2H520150302)

[4] [https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s](https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s)

[5] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E)

[6] [http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general- loret...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loretta- lynch-testimony-justice-department-operations) (seek to 51:00)

[7] [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s)

[8] [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s)

[9] [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s)

[10] [https://youtu.be/ZQAmlVFjJ9k](https://youtu.be/ZQAmlVFjJ9k)

[11] [https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ?t=4m50s](https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ?t=4m50s)

<comment><USER70> Would you mind sticking this in a github repo ? Using github repos as "war folders" seems to me like a good pattern.

Please post the link if you decide to.

<comment><USER17> I will and will post the link. In the mean time I have a running summary of events here [1]. It's a little bit behind. Things are moving very quickly now.

I also wrote one letter to an assemblyman in California, Jim Cooper, who is proposing a law based on language from Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance [2]. I'll include that in the repo too. It's not comprehensive because there was a 2,000 character limit on the form used to send him comments, but it's something.

I'd rather not call it a war folder. This isn't a war. It's about educating reasonable people. Obama is simply missing some pieces to the equation, and we need to find a way to get him and the public those pieces. For the public, it's going to be even trickier, because the message will need to be very succinct. I think we can do it either way, so long as we stick to the facts and stay away from persuasive methods rooted in fear, uncertainty and doubt. Let us inform the public so that they are confident they are more safe and secure when they support strong encryption.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/)

[2] [http://pastebin.com/raw/hPpAKmtq](http://pastebin.com/raw/hPpAKmtq)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> But the president warned that "America had already accepted that law enforcement can "rifle through your underwear" in searches for those suspected of preying on children"

This is a poor and emotive analogy.

Access to a smartphone is more analogous to having an invisible, all seeing, all hearing, time travelling drone being sent to any time and location the authorities desire, where it can spy on a suspect with impunity.

</comment><comment><USER72> Well, if there's any silver lining to this ... hopefully this will galvanize Republican opposition to encryption backdoors. Wouldn't want to be seen agreeing with the president, after all.

<comment><USER73> I disagree, if anything Republicans WANT the backdoors and encryption to be removed because of "terrorism".

Even though they usually communicate via SMS or other super low tech ways (at least during the Paris attacks). It's laughable really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I think he made sense.

There is nothing bad about all of this, if there are proper mandates. The only obstacle here seems to be iPhone fanboys who feels they are attacked for some reason.

On top of this, if Apple really wants to not fall into this situation, they should have built a phone even they could not break (which I thought was already the case, and I'm surprised they didn't). If they can break into this phone, they should let it happen so that the FBI can do it.

And even if they don't supply this software, somebody else, or the FBI, will do it instead. Which is what Snowden said.

In the end, why should only Apple be able to break in that device? Nobody should be able to, not even Apple. That's what I feel it's Apple fault anyway.

To be fair this seems to be a play to make companies like Apple, who hold so much data about their users, to look bad. Because this only shows that Apple can access that data, which to me is a bad thing in itself.

<comment><USER75> Here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc), it's 8 minutes, feel free to still hold your opinion afterwards, but challenge yourself to listen to someone give you substance instead of "whatever" reasons. They kind of matter a lot, and whether it's "Apple" or someone else is pretty much irrelevant.

<comment><USER74> As I said, Apple shouldn't have made this "golden key" possible. That's on them.

Same thing for the juniper backdoor.

It should be up to the government to tighten up internet infrastructure security. I really don't see any initiative to do so, and it's the same thing for most businesses: there are no "security standard", mainly because all those communication technologies are very new, and a little too complex for engineers to think about making rules about them.

Ultimately, the law will say the last word, because that's how things work. I don't think tech companies should do what they want in all the countries of the world. If apple doesn't comply with the FBI, that same kind of story will happen later for another company in another country.

My point is that all those technology are new, so there is this vacuum which makes it impossible to really define things or protect yourself.

All those could be solved if there were better security standards, or any standard at all, no data centralization (all internet is structurally centralized), and more consumer awareness. P2P techs are already quite secure, and would make things very difficult for intelligence agencies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> A basic security problem is figuring out who you can trust. You often need to trust _something_ by default (hence root CAs in operating systems and such), or you need to have a mechanism for _building_ trust (e.g. networks of trust such as sharing GPG keys).

And unfortunately we have seen plenty of examples of how screwed-up a default- trust scheme can become. Laptop vendors have abused their root-CA authority _multiple_ times now, in _recent memory_. You don't want the keys to the kingdom in anyone's hands.

Besides, no matter how many assurances you give me today, I have no idea how careful you are when hiring people or how well you secure your Magic Keys. In the end, they get out in the open. This is why you can't allow for even a single hole in the system.

</comment><comment><USER77> I changed my mind. I was in the corner where I was against all forms of backdoors, but Obama convincd me that there are circumstances that one wants to break encryption. Any governement can ask a judge for a house search warrant if there is good reason to it. We do this for rapists, child pron and in lots of other circumstances. This is the good side of law and order.

So we need to rethink the current situation. The point is that the current proposal is insane. A master key to a backdoor for the US government (not other governments) is a bad idea for many reasons. So are there better alternatives? Of course there are and I think that we should look at the best alternative such that we keep our privacy AND police can ask a judge to break encryption of a phone or any storage device.

The first and obvious problem is how to break encryption. One could look into a system where the 'backdoor' needs three keys to open; one from a government, one from the supplier and one from a 'independent' agency (I do not present details here, I merely want to show that there may be alternatives looking at). A 3-key backdoor may work and break encyption on phones of rapists, terrorists and suspects of other crimes. Note that every request of the FBI and other agencies will have to go through a public court.

The second problem that I see is the secret orders in the US. There are no guarantees against unlawful behaviour of government agencies if the secret courts continue to exist. One can only have enough privacy if one can defend itself in a public court and the actions of governments are transparent. This is maybe the largest problem to overcome since the US government agencies like their secret powers (too) much. I think that the public cry for encryption and privacy is a reaction to the secret powers of the agencies. One can argue that Apple has enough of the secret powers and choose the path of unbreakable iphones because of this. So if these agencies cannot give gag orders to companies and cannot give secret orders to hand over data about individuals, the public might accept a 3-key backdoor.

<comment><USER78> First I thought: Not bad idea, I may agree. Then I thought: backdoors are backdoors are backdoors. I think the problem is that there is nothing like a very very secured backdoor. I don't know if something like a 3 key backdoor is even possible technologically. Another thought: There is not only the USA. Phones are used everywhere in the world. What about a search warrant in another country? What if other countries use this backdoors for other things?

Last personal thought: I'm not living in the USA and I fear this government will not do any good things for myself (especially since Snowden). A backdoor mostly in US hands is a very bad thing for me and I would not use products which such a US backdoor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Hardly unexpected. On technology, this administration has been as stupid and uninformed as any and all before it. When does the time come when the people have had enough and we stop listening to luddites and idiots and start listening to educated people who understand technology? We are at the brink of an economic collapse if the FBI gets its way and yet we're concerned with the work phone contents of a simple murderer? Obamacare and any other achievements Obama has so far won't fucking matter if we can no longer conduct any transactions online which is exactly where this administration and the shameless and incredibly fucking stupid and useless FBI are pushing us to.

</comment><comment><USER80> Does he mean you can't have an absolutist view of the 4th Amendment?

<comment><USER57> The 4th amendment is by its very nature a compromise between safety and privacy. Otherwise it would say people had a right to be free from search and seizure, not "unreasonable search and seizure." And it wouldn't say anything about warrants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Of course he will. If they didn't have his backing, they would not be putting up such a fight.

</comment><comment><USER82> Why did SXSW give yet another mic to this type of clown?

I guess hipster are now trying on establishment ring-kissing for fashion. Maybe next they can host a d-bait.

</comment><comment><USER66> When the President himself declares encryption a thing of the past, it means the US economy _will_ lose:

a) US businesses will massively lose sales, or

b) US businesses will have to move to more democratic countries

</comment><comment><USER64> Absolutist view on Obama cannot prevail. Absolutist view on WWII cannot prevail. Absolutist view on current world order cannot prevail.

Continue?

Though absolutist view on our privacy, digital included, MUST prevail.

</comment><comment><USER83> Discrete math is "absolutist", I'm afraid.

For instance, either a integer is prime or it isn't.

Broken crypto is no crypto at all.

</comment><comment><USER84> So Obama is pro civil liberties, but hey, you want to compromise now, because as soon as a(nother) big thing happens (9/11), Congress will come in and do whatever it pleases to do an end around any privacy concerns. The scary thing is that privacy is not one of the 'inalienable' rights in the Constitution, and it needs to be built up in the Bill of Rights via interpretation of the various amendments, the ninth being the general blanket one here. I don't get it; this is the work-issued phone they are fighting over. It's been said before. The terrorists destroyed their personal phones, not their work phones. If this isn't a power play by the government and law enforcement, in light of that fact, then how do you rationalize this President Obama?

</comment><comment><USER85> Clearly the logical solution is to torture Tim Cook. The answers in there somewhere....

<comment><USER50> "TELLS US THE RSA KEY, COOK!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> This is just to create jobs. Insecure encryption means people have to be tasked at cracking it. More people are tasked analyzing the data. More people are tasked making an action plan in response. More people are tasked acting on it.

With secure encryption, none of this is possible. And should not be.

Obama and the government should be focused on actual bad BEHAVIORS not words that happen to float in the ether. Behaviors like the metadata of the terrorist's phone- who they called, where they went , etc. I'll allow them to see what I do and where I go on the net. But not what I am saying or thinking.

</comment><comment><USER25> Obama's statement is not, on the surface, unreasonable.

However we are not talking about a classroom scenario in which we are prioritizing our phones over other values.

The US Government secretly built a massive _illegal surveillance_ infrastructure for spying on the American public and the citizens of nations we consider allies!

Since the programs were revealed by Snowden and corroborated by others, Obama has _not once_ spoken directly about the excesses. He has not accepted responsibility for _any_ mistakes, or vowed to take _any_ corrective action. He's simply ignored the issue and let a few outspoken retirees from the intelligence community wage the PR campaign on his behalf.

Many of us realize that if we can't use strong encryption on devices, the power and scope of existing surveillance will increase dramatically.

Many of us realize that there has not just been a propaganda campaign by government to legitimize its surveillance goals, but outright lies reassuring the public that the data would only be used to fight terrorism (itself subject to an ever-expanding definition).

As we should all have learned by now, any mention of terrorism or child abuse or accusations of "absolutism" is clear evidence that we are hearing a propaganda message.

Government does not care about enforcing laws for the sake of justice, it cares about perpetuating its own power. The key insight of the American Revolution was that government should have reduced and carefully enumerated powers. Obama disagrees strongly with this.

If this is what happens when we elect an former constitutional scholar to high office, I shudder to think what will happen when someone with less exposure to enlightened ideas takes the helm.

Obama has never been "liberal". He capitalized during his first campaign by proposing a more business-friendly version of national healthcare, subtly eroding support from Clinton, while pretending to the democratic base that he had made fewer compromises and was more true to the party's views.

Both major American political parties are predominantly conservative. This is the only explanation for the success of someone like Trump, who is an extreme authoritarian more than a holder of any specific political ideology. With these remarks we see clearly the strong authoritarian streak in Obama, and also the blatant propagandist attempting to lure us into granting Government excessive power by fear-mongering about terrorism (which was George W. Bush's most insidious trait).

The key point is that we can't trust a government that has already betrayed our trust substantially and has not acknowledged the scope of illegal surveillance or sought remedies to restore the public trust. Also, the FBI's botched handling of the San Bernadino shooter's phone shows us that our most trusted law enforcement agency lacks basic competency with technology.

It is not an absolutist stance to call out the lies, propaganda and mishandling of data. It's simply common sense exercised by people who actually understand the power of data and the significance of widespread breach of that privacy. In order to engage in a calm and timely debate, Obama has to acknowledge and address the excesses that were revealed.

We should all expect more from our president than propaganda and fear- mongering.

<comment><USER87> Really well put, thanks. It's a little meaningless to acknowledge Obama's straw man opponent, but on a purely tactical level I think it is more effective to seek out maximalist position that includes not just a right to strong encryption but also a scaling back of mass surveillance, as you are advocating here. It is unfortunately too easy for him to paint the pro- encryption side as absolutists when the debate reduces to a binary strong vs weak encryption. It is really disheartening to see him take this position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I hope he was booed off the stage.

</comment><comment><USER89> What happens when technology is available to read peoples' minds to determine if they are guilty or not? We should allow warrants for that as well?

</comment><comment><USER90> How many of the people objecting to this now will obediently line up to vote Obama's Secretary of State into the presidency this November? That's the point where we'll learn how important the issue actually is to them.

</comment><comment><USER91> Everyone here seems to be attacking a point the article didn't make, while avoiding the point that was made. Our legal system catches criminals by looking at what occurred leading up to and following a crime, and using that information to determine the perpetrator. As it stands, most crimes occur in the real world, and therefore most evidence is unencrypted. As things become more and more digital, evidence surrounding crimes will be more digital as well. If everything is completely encrypted, then there will be no evidence for police to look at, no way to trace the perpetrator.

This article has no mention of FBI backdoors, and Obama is in fact asking for people to propose other solutions. The question falls on everyone: How will we catch criminals in the digital age?

<comment><USER86> Before the net and big data, investigation for facts based on analyzing clues and motive led to warrants for discovery of information. Even these warrants were only for concrete evidence. They did not allow for the administration of 'enhanced investigation' to draw out the thoughts of the suspects.

What has changed is that the phone has become an archive of my life and contains much more information than just a phone log. Invading my phone is equivalent to invading my brain. The govt already has mountains of metadata. Suspects are not invisible - they already are tagged by association. And email data, text data, and telephone data is all old. Even without decryption, there is so much of it that analysis cannot be done by humans. And by the time it gets to a human it's hours to days old - STALE.

Fresh intel requires surveillance. Drones are as small as flies and just as numerous. Real time surveillance of suspects by robot swarms is far better than analyzing cryptic email messages. Another change that has further enabled tyrannical control now is that tech allows mass surveillance, whereas in the 'good old days' , the govt had to be focussed and behave with more care simply because they did not have the resources to wiretap everyone.

Misuse of data ALWAYS happens because people are people. In the good old days, we would shudder at the idea of a guy like Trump with his finger on the nuclear button. giving him the ability to look into anyone's ledger is just scary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Here's full video of Obama's remarks at SXSW:

[http://www.c-span.org/video/?406275-1/president-obama- remark...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?406275-1/president-obama-remarks- austin-texas)

And a transcript of the privacy related portion:

All of us value our privacy, and this is a society that is built on a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights and a healthy skepticism about overreaching government power. Before smartphones were invented and to this day, if there is probable cause to think that you have abducted a child, or that you are engaging in a terrorist plot, or you are guilty of some serious crime, law enforcement can appear at your doorstep and say we have a warrant to search your home and can go into your bedroom and into your bedroom drawers to rifle through your underwear to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing.

And we agree on that because we recognize that just like all of our other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, that there are going to be some constraints imposed to ensure we are safe, secure and living in a civilized society.

Technology is evolving so rapidly that new questions are being asked, and I am of the view that there are very real reasons why we want to make sure the government can not just wily-nilly get into everyone's iPhones or smartphones that are full of very personal information or very personal data."

What makes it even more complicated is that we also want really strong encryption because part of us preventing terrorism or preventing people from disrupting the financial system or our air traffic control system or a whole other set of systems that are increasingly digitized, is that hackers, state or non-state, can't get in there and mess around.

So we have two values, both of which are important.

And the question we now have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there is no key there, there's no door at all? And how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? What mechanisms do we have available that even do simple things like tax enforcement? Because if you can't crack that at all, and government can't get in, then everybody's walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket. So there has to be some some concession to the need to be able to get to that information somehow."

Now what folks who are on the encryption side will argue is any key whatsoever, even if it starts off as just being directed at one device, could end up being used on any device. That's just the nature of these systems.That is a technical question. I am not a software engineer. It is, I think, technically true, but i think it it can be overstated.

So the question now becomes, we as a society, setting aside the specific case between the FBI and Apple, setting aside the commercial interests, the concerns about what the Chinese government could do with this even if we trust the US government, setting aside all these questions, we're going to have to make some decisions about how we balance these respective risks. I've got a bunch of smart people sitting there talking about it, thinking about it. We have engaged the tech community aggressively to help solve this problem.

My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this. So if your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can't and shouldn't make black boxes, that I do not think strikes the balances we've struck for 200 or 300 years and it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can't be the right answer. I suspect the answer will come down to how can we make sure the encryption is as strong as possible, the key as strong as possible, it's accessible by the smallest number of people possible, for a subset of issues that we agree are important. How we design that is not something I have the expertise to do.

I am way on the civil liberties side of this thing…I anguish a lot over the decisions we make in terms of how we keep this country safe, and I am not interested in overdrawing the values that have made us an exceptional and great nation simply for expediency. But the dangers are real. Maintaining law and order in a civilized society is important. Protecting our kids is important. And so I would just caution against an absolutist perspective on this.

Because we make compromises all the time. You know, I haven't flown commercial in a while. But my understanding is that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession. It's a big intrusion on our privacy, but we recognize it as important. We have stops for drunk drivers. It's an intrusion but we think it's the right thing to do.

And this notion that somehow our data is different and can be walled off from those other trade-offs we make, I believe is incorrect. We do have to make sure, given the power of the Internet and how much our lives are digitized, that it is narrow, and is constrained, and that there's oversight. I'm confident that this is something that we can solve.

But we're going to need the tech community, the software designers, the people who care deeply about this stuff to help us solve it. Because what will happen is if everyone goes to their respective corners and the tech community says 'Either we have strong, perfect encryption or else it's Big Brother and an Orwellian world,' what you'll find is that after something really bad happens, the politics of this will swing, and they will become sloppy, and rushed, and it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through. And then you really will have dangers to our civil liberties because the people who understand this best, who care most about privacy and civil liberties, will have disengaged or taken a position that is not sustainable for the general public as a whole over time.

<comment><USER12> > You know, I haven't flown commercial in a while. But my understanding is > that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession. > It's a big intrusion on our privacy, but we recognize it as important.

I cannot agree that I recognize the "security theater" conducted by the TSA as important or useful. [1] I will grant that it may have helped the airline industry continue to attract travelers during the fear-filled period immediately following 9/11\. Was that worth infecting air travel with a self- perpetuating institutional virus?

Are we prepared accept the consequences of similarly infecting a vastly more significant industry?

[1] [https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2009/11/beyond_secu...](https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2009/11/beyond_security_thea.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Seems like that is picking and choosing a bit. If you read more about what he said it looks to be a bit less one sided or at least a little less worrying? [http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/11/obama-says-we-dont-want- gov...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/11/obama-says-we-dont-want-government- to-look-into-everyones-phones-willy-nilly/)

"I am way on the civil liberties side of this thing…I anguish a lot over the decisions we make in terms of how we keep this country safe, and I am not interested in overdrawing the values that have made us an exceptional and great nation simply for expediency. But the dangers are real."

<comment><USER61> Denial of reality and outright lies are alarming.

> "My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this," > he said. "So if your bargain is strong encryption, no matter what, that we > can and should in fact create 'black boxes,' then that I think does not > strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years, and > it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can't be the > right answer."

[http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the- manuscript/](http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/)

> For more than 260 years, the contents of that page—and the details of this > ritual—remained a secret. They were hidden in a coded manuscript, one of > thousands produced by secret societies in the 18th and 19th centuries. At > the peak of their power, these clandestine organizations, most notably the > Freemasons, had hundreds of thousands of adherents, from colonial New York > to imperial St. Petersburg. Dismissed today as fodder for conspiracy > theorists and History Channel specials, they once served an important > purpose: Their lodges were safe houses where freethinkers could explore > everything from the laws of physics to the rights of man to the nature of > God, all hidden from the oppressive, authoritarian eyes of church and state. > But largely because they were so secretive, little is known about most of > these organizations. Membership in all but the biggest died out over a > century ago, and many of their encrypted texts have remained uncracked, > dismissed by historians as impenetrable novelties.

Encryption was in the hands of people outside the government since before the US came into existence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> > think that you have abducted a child or you are engaging in a terrorist plot

Nailed the usual examples for inciting fear.

Fetishizing phones. Right.

</comment><comment><USER95> I have to sympathize with Obama here. Although I am very much pro-encryption, the arguments here are not convincing at all; you'll have a hard time convincing people by dismissing their views or implying that they don't know what they're taking about or instilling fear that all the tech companies will leave the US.

The way you talk to people is more important than the points you're making.

</comment><comment><USER96> All I have to say is it's super fucking creepy that Obama wants to hack my phone.

</comment><comment><USER97> Boooo! Jumps straight to "think of the children" \- pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER98> Is he pointing the finger again?

</comment><comment><USER99> Phones should be searchable with a court order. If Apple or any other company insists on making a phone that cannot be searched with a court order, the congress will simply pass a law forbidding the sale of such devices in the USA (the same kind of law/regulation that exists for radio devices and interference). A consumer device should be "searchable with a court order"|"accept interference".

That's what Obama is warning about.

<comment><USER68> "simply pass a law forbidding the sale of such devices in the USA"

      1. They can't even restrict sale of guns, let alone ban them.
      2. Banning the iPhone would make the issue headline news.
      3. There'd be riots on the streets.
      4. if they did, it'd back to the prohibition era, more crime, violence etc.

<comment><USER99> Really?

1\. There's no constitutional right to an encrypted phone.

2\. No silly, they'll ban unbreakable encryption, and Apple will follow suit. IPhones will be searchable with a warrant. IPhones sales will drop an 0.0001%.

3\. moot

4\. Really? "No IPhones => more crime, violence"? is this the epitome of #FirstWorldProblem?

<comment><USER68> 4\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organized_crime)</comment></comment></comment></comment>