> We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part.
We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained.
> The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other.
Personally I think the people who support this kind of law are the same ones who believe they have nothing to hide from the government. So the privacy argument is lost on them. When you point out the law is harmful to their security and impossible to enforce, then there's a chance you'll be able to convince them.
This is a great opportunity for technologists to chat up their friends and family, start campaigns, or perhaps even run for office. This issue is an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the facts.
The point I'm making is that I don't think it's lost at all. I think these people didn't all get to be in positions of power by being bumbling idiots. They know that they can convince some portion of the masses that they are in danger and need help. And that's all it takes to get a leg up on everyone; a portion of the masses.
I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields.
As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law.
We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers are simple which others don't understand. That is why we get paid.
I think most of the elected officials are technologically illiterate, and bills such as this are driven by the fear that's been instilled in those officials by the appointed or hired intelligence community. Because they're the ones, what I'll colloquially call the "citizen conformance enforcement branch" of the government, that are most interested in the data and are most empowered by it.
Investigate the motive and the means, just like you would a crime, and you won't find yourself in the legislative branch of this government.
As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law
I don't think it is either. More likely it is the "something must be done, this is something" kind of thinking. You don't need to be absolutely evil or absolutely idiotic to subscribe to this philosophy.
The problem is that we end debating the right side of that claim (because that's what the uniformed masses and legislators focus on), what the something should be, rather than trying to convince people that the left side, the premise, is unfounded.
> "something must be done, this is something" kind of thinking. You don't need to be absolutely evil or absolutely idiotic to subscribe to this philosophy.
To fall into it without warning, no. Like all fallacies, it's a local maxima.
But to stick with it after it's pointed out... At best that's stupidity, at worst it's deceit and treachery.
There are not many people with technical knowledge in respected positions of government. The US CTO, Megan Smith, is probably the most respected. She claims Obama supports strong encryption [1]. She omits the fact that Obama is looking for ways to keep strong encryption out of the hands of criminals, which as we know is as impossible as keeping knives out of the hands of criminals.
The Press Secretary recently stated this about the President,
> he believes that strong encryption should be robustly deployed. At the same time, we should not set up a situation where bad actors -- terrorists -- can essentially establish a safe haven in cyberspace. [2]
There's also a commission that was formed yesterday to handle this question. It is called the President’s Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity [3] and they are due to give a report by the beginning of December (7.5 months).
The idea behind keeping secrets and whispering in someone's ear is not esoterica.
The fundamental issue here is that mutual trust between US government and the American people has been significantly eroded. Until this issue is addressed and trust is restored, all other discussions (however informed) are ultimately idle chatter.
We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.
Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1]. It isn't a massive conspiracy. I wouldn't say Feinstein is well-informed. Watch some of the hearings where she interacts with other members. It's awkward and clear they don't enjoy working with her.
Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"?
It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion.
The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists".
> Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"?
It doesn't. You were saying some government officials are saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true:
>> We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.
That implies some sort of secret plot that would harm the integrity of our government and country.
> It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion.
I agree entirely.
> The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists".
Nobody said this. Claiming that there is a concerted effort by officials to lie, however, is accusing them of conspiracy.
This vibe of distrust hurts the ability of technologists to come together and be as effective as they're capable of being within government. Ultimately, society and its elected government is formed around trust. You have to believe that most of the people who enter into elected positions did so with the aim of improving our society before you can be effective within it yourself.
> saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true
Yes. This is called lying. It doesn't require a "massive conspiracy".
> implies some sort of secret plot that would harm the integrity of our government and country
It implies nothing of the sort. It implies that Government is losing the leverage that gives it the power to levy taxes beyond what is acceptable by the population, and so Government's present endeavors (partly driven by outside commercial pressure - e.g., military contractors) are overshadowing its primary purpose, which is to protect us and our rights.
We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained.
> The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other.
Personally I think the people who support this kind of law are the same ones who believe they have nothing to hide from the government. So the privacy argument is lost on them. When you point out the law is harmful to their security and impossible to enforce, then there's a chance you'll be able to convince them.
This is a great opportunity for technologists to chat up their friends and family, start campaigns, or perhaps even run for office. This issue is an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the facts.