Obama Has Gotten 3,000+ Tweets about Encryption. Let’s Double That
eff.org
eff.org
1/3rd of US senators and all representatives have an election coming up. They care more about voters than they do about Apple's $38 Billion[2] in liquid assets, so they need to be convinced that votes are on the side of sound security.
The response to "if you have nothing to hide etc." Should be "What is the password to your bank account?", not a more abstract philosophical argument.
Ask a random person on street "do you care about encryption?" v/s "Do you care about civil liberties?" and see the response.
People who want abortion rights call themselves "pro-choice" where in reality it is about denying choice to a baby.
People who want abortion ban call themselves "pro-life" where in reality they are denying woman right on her own body.
The terminology makes all the difference and growth hackers in bay area understand it far too well. When apps ask for you phone number they say "This will help to keep your account secure" but in reality the number is being used to identify you as individual.
Related, I once read an AMA on Reddit where a congressional staffer advised everyone to do their best to get op-ed pieces in newspapers which mention your elected officials, since it was their job and the job of the staffers they knew to compile such pieces for review every morning by the legislator.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/priv...
I tend to think that "public support for reform of mass policing" is too vague to get a real public opinion on. Everyone has different ideas on what needs to be reformed. By asking this questions you make citizens feel involved, but you don't get a real public discussion unless you are talking about something specific like putting back doors into phones. This was part of the problem with the Snowden revelations, in my opinion. There were so many that we had trouble attacking more than a few at a time. The larger issue of course is that the FISA court makes it impossible for the government to sufficiently comment on any of that.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160224/18124533706/way-y...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/18/technology/doc...
This needs to be understood by the President and the DOJ. Maintaining public security is an important, difficult job. We cannot rely on our family and friends to keep us safe, and our society and unity depends largely on law enforcement.
Perhaps the software workers of America should consider organizing a professional association, just like the AMA? It would have all sorts of benefits beyond organizing political action.
The USACM website [2] does not mention anything about the ongoing DOJ vs. Apple case, or upcoming encryption laws being drafted by Burr-Feinstein.
Their "Tech Policy Blog" is currently down ("Access forbidden!") [3]
Most of the discussion I see about policy has to do about diversifying computer science and getting more women involved. This is laudable, but given recent news you'd think they would have some comment on their website about the DOJ, Apple, or encryption in general.
The EFF, on the other hand, has kept us well informed about proposed laws and the Apple FBI case.
Don't assume that someone else will represent you via a petition. Calling or writing yourself is much more powerful.
(1) If your district isn't contentious, that means the sum of factors aren't of sufficient effect size to care about that specific district. With limited funds, you concentrate elsewhere.
(2) Just because there's noise doesn't mean that people's opinions have changed. You're assuming that people's opinions have not already been modeled. Some elected official may suddenly get a flood of emails about gun rights in proximity to some highly publicized event on gun laws. That does not mean that the distribution or magnitude of opinions have substantively changed.
(3) Some groups do have negotiating power because they're aware of the political calculus more intimately than the average noise-making group like Black Lives Matter. They're able to distribute distilled information to their members and organize effective get-out-to-vote drives in the districts that matter (meaning they also do not wantonly spend their finite resources).
If you don't organize, then you are noise. Organizing is more important than voting (or writing a letter) itself, because part of organizing is dealing with finite resources through the skillful attending to the places that matter, and skillful neglect of the places that don't matter, implying that you can actually deliver on a get-out-to-vote drive when the time (and places) matters.
Second, my feeling is if someone sits down to think about an issue, writes a letter and stamps their name on it, then they probably become more informed and involved in discussion than another guy who just ticks a box on a petition. This informed person can go on to discuss the issue with friends or form his/her own local group. So, writing letters to senators is useful, even if it is just a first step or means to an end.
Nobody needs to change their opinion as a result of my letter. I wouldn't respect them if they did so without consideration. So (2) is irrelevant.
I didn't intend to clash with you, I'm just stating my opinion which is a bit different than yours. It's perfectly fine if you want to say writing letters is useless. I feel differently.
If you sit back and assume your district is already modeled, etc etc, then you are not participating in democracy and you have not seen for yourself who else out there might agree with you. The most important things about democracy are your vote and your voice. One without the other holds much less strength.
In my opinion their letters are too forceful and not understanding of how difficult it is to enforce the law and bring justice to victims. For example, they write
> We call on the Obama Administration to heed the advice of neutral security experts, engineers, and even his own advisors who have affirmed the dangers inherent in the order issued to Apple
There's no need for Obama to change his mind here simply because experts say so. In fact, if properly explained, he could understand himself that software is ungovernable. Encryption technology is just words on paper.
Print out an encryption program and send it to your representatives. Let them see how anyone can create it for free. Let's educate our representatives. Enough with this idea that they need to be beaten over the head with a stick. They believe they are doing the job protecting public safety and the constitution. Once you give them that benefit of the doubt, then we will be able to move forward.
You can submit questions to them at PCAST@ostp.eop.gov . This might be another good place to direction questions about the President's understanding of encryption technology.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast
How do you propose we keep an eye on those who mean to physically harm others? How would you solve this?
Oh wait, were you talking about "terrorists", or government agents? It's not clear.
How about instead we instead acknowledge the risks are small to Americans, and refocus our attention, our lethal attention, to the clerics, organizations, bankers and states that sponsor terrorism.
Let's talk giving up civil liberties after we have run out of accountable parties to bring to justice.
Our various societies are generally willing to accept certain tradeoffs because there are no black and white answers. In the US, society as a whole is currently willing to accept a relatively enormous amount of collateral damage to allow widespread gun ownership. This causes multiple orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism, and yet for now, it's deemed acceptable to protect certain liberties.
If encryption is allowed to be truly secure, it's possible that more people will die in terrorist attacks. It's also possible that more people will get away with truly terrible things like child pornography. But the freedoms that we give away generally never come back, or they take an enormous amount of time to come back. For me, maintaining those liberties is worth the tradeoff.
We really need to get the point across that no government would be able to enforce a law that requires a certain software design (in this case, back doors) in all commercial and free software.
It's the equivalent of requiring people to say or write only certain things. Even China and North Korea do not do that successfully, and they try really really hard.
Our representatives and law enforcement are woefully uninformed about this issue, and it hurts the public because fingers are being pointed in the wrong direction. While we are infighting, terrorists are making strides.
You encrypt all of your content with your own public key and have reasonable expectation of privacy as long as at least one of those 10K people feels you deserve your privacy.
If you happened to be a terrorist and the consensus of 10K strangers who encrypted your private key is to let the government snoop on you, they can choose to decrypt your private key and turn it over to the government.
(My guess: 0 and ∞)
Im curious to know why people still follow a person with such a horrible record on the constitution, when he studied in great detail.
We should be begging smart people to get in the White House and help relate the facts to him. The current CTO Megan Smith is there calling for more people to join. She says the discussion about encryption is "ongoing". She's obviously outnumbered. Tech does not have proper representation in the White House.
He has plenty of smart people around him, yet he still insists on government over privacy.
There are very few pro-privacy US politicians (such as Rand Paul), and they are most certainly not on the presidential ticket.
If he's not reading them himself (I agree with you that he probably isn't) he likely only hears what his staffers tell him, so he might not even be aware of some people's concerns.