FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites - now

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by CloneRanger, May 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now
     
  2. trott3r

    trott3r Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    UK
    "Malware = You don't scare me"

    No, but the american government does =)
     
  3. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    I don't give a flying **** about USA.GOV or any 3 letter agencies etc, or are scared of them either ! What makes you think i am or do ?

    I do however care about the people, & the way they are continually & daily mistreated, & have been for decades, by the above & others in each others pocket.
     
  4. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    As I wrote in another related thread, it's understandable why the US government would expect US-based firms to cooperate in national defense/offense. But that's problematic for US firms that present themselves as global. They can't have it both ways. During 1950s-1970s, US export and trade controls restricted strong encryption to close allies. Commercial technology available to enemies and others was either weak enough to crack, or backdoored. They want that privilege back, but they don't want a Chinese version. Change is hard sometimes ;)
     
  5. Palancar

    Palancar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,594
    Adding to Mirimir's comments:

    However; lets say THEY could have it all back. In THEIR perfect world, they have a backdoor key to everything and nobody else has one for anything. Does that sound like something YOU would wanto_O?

    I don't think so. That would scare the crap out of me. THEIR track record speaks volumes, and I doubt I could even compose a post of how invasive it would become. I will always stand of the concept of privacy being paramount. YES it will sometimes allow a guilty person to go free (encryption, concealed internet trail,etc...) but MORE IMPORTANTLY, it also allows an innocent person to LIVE FREE and enjoy private thoughts and activities, which are nobody's business but the owner of the thoughts.
     
  6. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    Not, not at all.

    There can be only one BOFH ;) See <http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/>.
     
  7. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi mirimir,

    The link you posted in message #6 gets a 404 Not Found. But, http://bofh.ntk.net/ works.

    -- Tom
     
  8. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

    Yeah i got that too, until i removed both these 2 off the end of the link >.
     
  9. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    Sorry. The new forum package seems more prone to incorporating <> into URLs.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.