
Only 100 cybercrime brains worldwide says Europol boss - T-A
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29567782
======
valar_m
This talking point needs to be squashed immediately:

 _I think that you have right to privacy but that doesn 't mean that you have
the right to anonymity_

It almost sounds reasonable, like a compromise of sorts. And that is deeply
troubling.

~~~
nitrogen
Quoting a dead sibling comment from a brand new user (I don't know for sure,
but I'm guessing the fresh account, or maybe Tor usage(?) caused the comment
to be killed):

 _Seshat 1 hour ago | link | parent | flag [dead]

It is indeed terrifying....and the worst part is they are being sincere.

Anonymity is a right we are going to have to fight for in the coming decades.

These people live in a world where they are the good guys fighting the evil
guys. The good guys need to have special powers...but don't worry, they aren't
going to abuse them..oh and don't worry about how they defined bad guys
either.

"Imagine in the physical world if you were not able to open the trunk of a car
if you had a suspicion that there were weapons or drugs inside... we would
never accept this."

Policing should be difficult, if policing is not difficult you live in a
police state._

~~~
geon
"Imagine in the physical world if you were not able to open the locked door of
a home if you had a suspicion that there were weapons or drugs inside... we
would never accept this."

Slippery, slippery slope.

~~~
vegedor
It's a compelling argument. Imminent danger allows cops to search and seize
without a warrant and every cop can find a reason and won't be prosecuted for
basically doing his job, right now. That's the status quo but nobody argues
privacy in these case. And it would be grotesk, if cops only patrolled the
streets while most crime happens insides without voluntary inclusion of law
enforcement. Now they could come to your home instead at least to follow
protocol and let you witness the search. On the other hand, data is much more
like information than property, so it should be protected by the right to
remain silent? Edit: And I say _should_ without any moral connotation.

------
spindritf
_" There is confusion among the good guys on the internet between anonymity
and privacy. I don't think they are the same. I think that you have right to
privacy but that doesn't mean that you have the right to anonymity," he said._

 _The increasing trend towards greater encryption of online communications is
not acceptable, he said._

Yet another attack on anonymity and just basic security online.

And he, of course, hates to talk about backdoors because that sounds terrible
but what he really wants is backdoors.

------
andridk
Law enforcement and spy-agencies (I can't use the term "intelligence agency"
with a straight face) are pushing for a less secure Internet.

Infecting computers, breaking (or pushing for less) encryption, compromising
routers and servers is contributing to a worse Internet for everyone.

Sure, the police probably has the best intentions. Except that once you break
something for a specific purpose, it remains broken. Even if that purpose
sounded just at the time.

I think that the Internet today is as result that our lawmakers are either
lawyers or professional politicians. We could really use more engineers or
scientists in politics...

------
olivermarks
+1 valar_m

