Limelight Forums

In the last few years it's been revealed that many of the world's nations engage in warrantless mass surveillance on their populace which is justified by the need to stop terrorism. With elections coming here in the US, things might get even worse. A certain presidential candidate has said that they hope to implement a backdoor into encrypted communications in order to prevent terrorism.

I am very staunch supporter of the American Bill of Rights and therefore I am very opposed to mass surveillance and any kind of back door into secure communications. Backdooring encryption is an extremely bad idea in my opinion because that just makes it insecure. If there's functionality for the government to be able to access encrypted data, this can be exploited by criminals and even terrorists, the very people it's supposed to be used against. Not to mention the fact that it can be used to spy on innocent people and turn our society into a surveillance state. Same thing with mass surveillance. The government ignores the people's right to privacy in the name of stopping terrorism, yet terrorist attacks still happen and in fact are becoming more frequent.

I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:

Quote:People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

What is your opinion?

Think whilst it's still legal.

The argument of having the right to bear arms is defended by saying that we can rise upon a government that oppresses its' people and yet in the case of privacy you note that creating a backdoor into encrypted software will be something exploitable by criminals and terrorists. Just like criminals and terrorists can illegally purchase firearms, they can also create their own encrypted devices and ways to hack into encrypted devices. 

You quote Benjamin Franklin;

Quote:People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

While this quote is powerful, I believe it is not necessarily applicable in our changing world. There is only so much freedom that we can possess. That's not going against American beliefs, that is supporting a bigger picture of what it truly means to be free. I believe we live in a world where we know only pieces of what it means to be free, however there are many barriers that jar us from truly feeling both free and safe. The main thing being a feeling of being unsafe. 

What freedom does surveillance have on you? This is something that ultimately comes down to what you have to hide. Do you think there is a freedom we should have to enable us to have the ability to commit crime? Do you think those who distribute child pornography should not have their mask of security broken because it is unfair? People should be able to distribute drugs through online networks and the Silk Road and simply get away with it because it isn't something that can be traced without an invasion of privacy? What do YOU see yourself losing from it? Because the truth is that surveillance has been going on for many decades now. That being said it is only going to expand. There are super-computer centers across the world that have the sole purpose of processing information that is taken from these mass-surveillance programs. Nobody is listening in on your conversations, unless you are flagged. Being flagged isn't just something off a whim or a suspicion. These super-computers analyze phone conversations, messages from mobile devices, emails, social networking and basically anything coming in and out of your ISP. You can always use a VPN, however even those are not as secure as you'd think. Legally speaking, you're safe to go download Torrents, watch some YouTube from a foreign country and do what you want but if you happen to think this will enable you to be off-the-grid then you are misinformed. Is that such a bad thing? Being invisible isn't something we need, unless have truly malicious intents. 

Now you mention, King Fury:

Quote:it can be used to spy on innocent people and turn our society into a surveillance state

  
Innocent people are not targeted by mass surveillance programs. If you are flagged for review then you are not necessarily innocent. These machines don't determine that you're a threat just because you texted someone something aggressive or because you said the 'bomb' word. They are highly sophisticated and determine a level of threat and whether or not it needs to be escalated. You're information isn't stored unless you give them reason to store it. 

You also talk as if mass-surveillance, backdoors and breaking into encryptions is a thing of the future. It has been a thing for many years and there is nothing that should be surprising. We live in a surveillance state. Whether you like it or not, most of the world leaders have large surveillance programs whether they deny it or not. 

This being said, it'll always be an argument between three types of people. The people who are against it because they are criminals, the people who are against it because they want the freedom (to be a criminal) and the people who defend it because they have nothing to hide and because it could make society a tad bit safer. If we lived in a world where the Government had to get a warrant to investigate someone, especially online, then we'd be living in a much more dangerous world.

Quote: Just like criminals and terrorists can illegally purchase firearms, they can also create their own encrypted devices and ways to hack into encrypted devices.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm going to assume what you're trying to say is that we should just backdoor encryption because terrorists and criminals can crack it anyway, which is simply not true. AES-256 is the standard encryption algorithm used today, and research shows that cracking it would take a time longer than the age of the universe. However if the government forces all US based companies to implement an encryption standard that uses a master key, then all it takes is one mistake for the key to get leaked and every single person who relies on this encryption is vulnerable. You also stated that terrorists and criminals can implement their own encryption algorithms, which is true. If they modify devices to use their own, non-backdoored encryption then they are safe from the master key, leaving everyone else vulnerable.

Quote:This is something that ultimately comes down to what you have to hide.

The problem with the "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" argument is clear once you start to apply it. Why not let cops and government agents walk into your house at any time just to make sure you're not doing anything wrong? You've got nothing to hide, right? Why not let the government install cameras in everybody's home a la 1984, just to make sure you're not doing anything bad. If you're not doing anything bad, then you should have no problem with it.

Quote:Do you think there is a freedom we should have to enable us to have the ability to commit crime?

Anyone can go drive a truck through a crowd and kill a bunch of people like what just happened in France. Should we not be allowed to drive cars anymore? Freedom always carries the risk that it can be used in malicious ways, but we have decide if we're going to allow the potential for malice to limit the potential good.

Quote:Being invisible isn't something we need, unless have truly malicious intents.

What about those who live in oppressive regimes that engage in censorship and punish those people that speak out? In countries like the Arab spring countries, how are people supposed to be able to bring change when the government is monitoring them and able to subvert their every move? Anonymity isn't just a tool for criminals, it's also a tool used to fight against oppression.

Quote:Innocent people are not targeted by mass surveillance programs.

This is false. The documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal that the NSA is collecting the information of ordinary Americans who have never even been suspected of a crime. This is elaborated on in an interview John Oliver does with Edward Snowden, which I highly recommend:

Quote:If you are flagged for review then you are not necessarily innocent. These machines don't determine that you're a threat just because you texted someone something aggressive or because you said the 'bomb' word.

This is not exactly true. It's been revealed that the Pentagon considers lawfully and peacefully protesting to be low-level terrorism, and it's also been revealed that readers of the website Linux Journal are classified by the NSA as "extremists. Do you really believe that anyone who reads this site (which now includes you if you clicked on that link) is somebody worth investigating? When most people support these measures to combat terrorism, their definition of terrorist is somebody who is affiliated with ISIS and the like, but the government has a different definition of terrorism where anyone who speaks out against them is considered a terrorist.

Quote:You also talk as if mass-surveillance, backdoors and breaking into encryptions is a thing of the future. It has been a thing for many years and there is nothing that should be surprising.

Just because it may have been going on for a long time does not mean we should accept it. Mass surveillance is even failing to achieve its purpose. Mass surveillance is meant to prevent terrorism, yet we can clearly see that terrorist attacks are increasing in frequency and in death toll. The system does not work. Not to mention it is a blatant violation of every American's 4th amendment right to protection against illegal search and seizure. The constitution is the highest law of the land, and its purpose is to protect citizens from government overreach. This makes the government agencies criminals themselves. If the government starts ignoring one part of the constitution, the precedent is there for them to start ignoring other parts of it. Maybe we should get rid of free speech, it can be used to encourage terrorism after all. Why do we even have the right protecting us against self-incrimination if a terrorist can use it to protect himself in court? Why even give them a fair trial at all then? This is the slippery slope we fall into if we allow our rights to be trampled.

If liberty is associated with criminality, that's a world that is much more dangerous than the one we have.

Also for anyone who is interested, I found a really great Ted talk on why privacy is important, and I think everyone should give it a watch.




I also recommend the documentary Citizenfour if you can find it on the internet which documents Edward Snowden and his leaks.

I'm not doing anything wrong or otherwise illegal, so I don't really care and am not paranoid either.

I just dont like the idea of the government hacking into my computer and stealing my unreleased memes and profiting from them.

Edit: I know some of you guys are going to suggest that i just stay in incognito mode so the government cant hack me, but i sometimes slip up and forget to use chrome in incognito mode. Most of the time i do, but for the few minutes i don't they could have all of my MEMES!

Talking about Privacy, why do all websites are tracking us now, for example YouTube, it tracks your IP address, and in some cases, it pre-rolls ads from the location in where you are, and I'm really starting to think, shall I start using VPNs for this particular cases? if so, then yes

Only thing I'm hiding is a pirated version of Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise and I'm pretty sure that doesn't flag me as domestic terrorism material.

"The people want to be protected, but they don't want to know how."

If it requires a but of surveillance to keep my country safer, then so be it.

Well, if you are a normal law abiding citizen why are you so concerned about people snooping on you. If they see you like that kinky anime porn they don't care, they are more interested if you search keywords like "Bomb making" etc.

That's my view

(Jul 29, 2016, 11:26 PM)Voluptious Wrote: [ -> ]"The people want to be protected, but they don't want to know how."

If it requires a but of surveillance to keep my country safer, then so be it.

The thing is, these programs don't keep our country safer. There have been 23 terrorist attacks in the United States since 2010,but mass-surveillance efforts failed to prevent any of them. The best thing NSA surveillance has been able to catch is this:

The Intercept Wrote:The only incident the NSA has ever disclosed in which its domestic metadata collection program played a key role involved a San Diego man who was convicted of transferring $8,500 to al Shabaab in Somalia — the terror group responsible for a mass shooting at a mall in Kenya.

A white house panel tasked with reviewing the surveillance programs found that the programs stopped no terrorist attacks.

Therefore we are having one of our rights that is fundamental to a free and fair democracy eroded away under the false pretense that it keeps us safe.

Also one thing I don't understand is why people are ok with the violation of our rights. If one right starts being ignored, the rest will soon follow. If they start ignoring other rights such as free speech and the right to a fair trial, it seems the public will be ok with it because it's being done in the name of terrorism.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. " -Former US president James Madison

(Jul 30, 2016, 12:11 AM).Arch.B Wrote: [ -> ]If they see you like that kinky anime porn they don't care, they are more interested if you search keywords like "Bomb making" etc.

Actually this is not exactly true. It has been revealed that you get flagged for extra surveillance by the NSA if you search online for things like Tails OS (A Linux distribution focused on privacy), Tor (an anonymity network which is funded by the US Navy) and Linux Journal (a tech magazine). It's also been revealed that the Department of Defense considers peacefully protesting to be low-level terrorism.

Most people find these practices reasonable because they think terrorist activities means stuff like bomb making, but the evidence shows that the government has a much broader view of terrorist activities, encompassing anyone who might have the means or motive to oppose them.

I don't know where you are from and the different laws regarding this but I'm pretty sure this is the type of things in the uk at the moment.

While we're at this. Let's get rid of encryption and make it against the law!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ing-terror
It would of probably never passed but still at least he is gone.