
How the FBI’s online wiretapping plan could get your computer hacked - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/17/how-the-fbis-online-wiretapping-plan-could-get-your-computer-hacked/
======
ck2
Many times people rightly ask "why on earth would a terrorist blow up a plane
or building or make roadside bombs" ?

Their goal is exactly what we are now marching into: people fearing and
loathing their overbearing governments. It's the subtle goal of the terrorist,
to make authority behave so badly that the subjects do the work for the
terrorists.

The really bad thing is I cannot imagine any near-future administration led by
any known party behaving any better. It's always going to be the "stop us if
you can" mentality.

~~~
Taylorious
Yes, I'm sure a man who is likely a father and husband, suicide bombs some
place so that you would have to live in fear of being molested by the TSA.
That makes sense.

~~~
JshWright
If someone believes a foreign government poses a real danger to the future
welfare of his wife and kids, then his love for them becomes a motivator, not
something to dissuade him.

------
iamthebest
How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country? We go
around expounding the virtues of freedom, feeling superior in our knowing that
we are a paragon of ideological tolerance. We routinely go so far as to
intervene in international conflicts in order to tip the scales in disfavor of
despotism. I don't see how running a surveillance state can be compatible with
everything we proclaim to stand for.

I read '1984' in high-school almost twenty years ago now but the important
topics are irrelevant to a fourteen year old. After recently re-reading this
book I felt very disturbed and wished I hadn't read it. It's interesting that
things seem tolerable living under a total-information-awareness government
right up to the point just before you're arrested. The thing that disturbs me
about this book is the sense of utter betrayal. If I had more time I'd go
through an analysis of the numerous levels of betrayal that unfold.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country?

This is all basic human nature. In 1776 we established that it is advantageous
to a have a government which its people are capable of overthrowing. That
understanding turns out to generalize well. Jefferson said it best: "When the
people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

You never want to give the government so much power that its people can no
longer stop it should its leaders turn malicious. The problem is that the
argument that government power _could_ be used for malicious purposes is not
heard until it actually _is_ , and by that point it is too late. What you fail
to stop with words and votes in 1933 you are then forced to stop with bombs
and blood through 1945.

But we have short memories. King George is someone you read about in the
history books. The men and women who fought (or survived) the Nazis are mostly
dead now, as are the Japanese held in internment camps. Joe McCarthy was dead
by the time most of us were born. Stalin is gone and the Russians are our
"friends" now. Rwanda was far away and we don't know any of those people. The
things _our_ government does are generally somewhat less bad than the things
_those_ governments did, which makes constitutional provisions that impede
tyranny start to look more like the proverbial bear-repelling rock rather than
the cause of that fact.

And it wasn't so long ago that some hell-bound sons of bitches made a
permanent modification to the New York City skyline. Which tempts us to forget
the millions who have died at the hands of bad governments in order to avenge
the thousands who died in the towers.

People want simple solutions. The FBI says they want X. They say X will help
the FBI catch terrorists. But it will also help the Chinese government catch
dissidents. It will help dictators catch revolutionaries. It will help
terrorists and foreign governments conduct espionage. The FBI doesn't tell you
that part.

~~~
betterunix
The current expansion of police power in the United States began when Lenin
ruled Russia, and hit the second half of the chess board during the height of
the Cold War. It is not that Americans somehow forgot about the tyrannies of
the 20th century; rather, the people who were most harmed by this trend have
historically been the underrepresented and oppressed minorities. It was before
World War I that American police began to claim that they needed higher-
caliber sidearms to deal with black men who used cocaine. The Special Weapons
Assault Team (later renamed Special Weapons And Tactics, to sound less
militaristic) was envisioned in 1967 and has since become a standard feature
of even rural police forces. The Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970,
which among other things gives the Attorney General the power to _declare_ law
without democratic action.

The FBI's current push is not some kind of new thing, nor is it somehow unique
to this current generation. This is part of a decades-long trend, one that has
been monotonically accelerating since its very beginning.

------
betterunix
Security experts made similar warnings about CALEA: that criminals would use
the built-in wiretapping capabilities. They were correct then, and they are
correct now, but in the United States we are more concerned with expanding
police power than with the safety or security of the general public.

~~~
mtgx
I don't think they really care about that as long as they have control over
everyone's communications. Plus, if that happens they'll probably see it as a
positive for them, because they get to demand even more funding and less
strict privacy laws to "defend" us (against a problem they created in the
first place).

It's not that different than how they maintain the war on terror by
radicalizing people in Middle East against US with their drone strikes.

~~~
oijaf888
I would think they care if the capabilities are used against them like if a
group such as LulzSec exploited it or something.

------
venomsnake
How can

 _Crucially, according to reporting by The Washington Post, the FBI proposal
would apply even to “Internet phone calls conducted between two computer users
without going through a central company server.” In a paper published Friday
by the Center for Democracy and Technology, more than a dozen prominent
computer security experts warn that such a requirement would be a disaster for
the security of online communications._ be enforced.

You cannot fine an open source project.

This is very bad idea - if you have to explain to non tech people use the
analogy of FBI installing dormant microphones and holding keys to any person
house with the promise that they won't abuse it.

~~~
wavefunction
"cannot"

I think you and the US Government have very different ideas about what can and
cannot happen now or in the future. When I was growing up, the US Government
"cannot" execute its citizens without due process (a trial). And now we see
where "cannot" gets us when we use it as an ameliorative when describing a
situation or potential situation.

~~~
venomsnake
Well the problem is the US government always had the ability to shoot anyone
on sight. It was just too much trouble before the blank cheque of 9/11 to use
it. But a project that is just a bunch of source code with no owner - you are
not technically able to prevent it from existing. The only way is (once again)
outlawing encryption.

I think that if we here in HN have spare time we could create a very solid P2P
protocol that has plausible deniability of encryption (you cannot outlaw
exchanging UDP packets of random data)

And the problem with the government overreach can easily be solved by
educating the public - then fighting "drug lord pedophile hacker Muslim
terrorists" just wont pass everything with the public.

Look at the awesome job the NRA is doing. To prevent the thread degrading - no
matter where you stand on the gun debate, you cannot deny their effectiveness
at stopping any gun related legislation.

So the government selling feat to the public is ready for disruption. One just
have to find the proper way to communicate with the people. Make the first and
fourth as sacred as the second and the problem is solved. This is marketing
problem.

~~~
wavefunction
I agree about working on a message that resonates with the general populate.
I've found it incredibly easy to seem like a crazy tin-foil hat guy with these
sorts of situations, when a more sober, rational, and measured approach would
have proven more effective.

Personally, it's easy to get very emotionally fired up about these erosions of
our civil rights, but I have to remind myself that for many people emotion ===
unbalance. So I'm trying to incorporate "gentleness" and humor into how I
promote the causes I care about and how I talk about these potentially very
serious problems. It seems to be much more effective than bombast!

------
hondje
I approve strongly of the title, it makes it very clear to people like my mom
that FBIs Plan == Hackers Going to Get Her which is far more likely to get
attention than the old "Privacy Experts Warn FBIs Proposal Flawed"

------
Zigurd
It goes deeper than just the question of back doors. You can be safe from
having government and industrial secrets stolen. Or you can have pervasive
surveillance. But you can't have both. Currently, with voice and text 99% in
the clear, everyone is mostly defenseless. If that is to change, we have to
accept a personal right to privacy that can be defended against any challenge.

------
GigabyteCoin
Stop and frisk make's it easier for just about anyone wearing a uniform to
take advantage of you in New York, but that still seems like a good idea the
the U.S.A.

