Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 18:24 UTC, submitted by Jane Doe
Thread beginning with comment 539747
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yes indeed, trust is the keyword here. If I would live in another country I would not be able to see a positive side to this.
Just read the other day (from an US perspective) how in Iran the Ayatollah (portrayed as "the bad guy") reused the snooping infrastructure of the Shah ("the reasonable guy") after taking over power.
Also, the Netherlands had a "religion" field in their citizens register, which became an issue when the Nazis went in. (for the Nazis, that harmless item became useful infrastructure)
It's nice to be able to trust your current government, but it's not a bad idea to think about the consequences when things change. (In case of the religion field, it's hard to think of _that_ before it happened, but AFAIK many European countries stopped keeping track like that after WW2 due to what happened)
Both Ayatollah and the Nazis could have built up the desired infrastructure by themselves after their power grab, but each would have taken time. Time that could prove crucial when attempting to set things straight early.
Giving police (or anybody) up-to-date equipment to easily enter machines can be very uncomfortable for a democratic opposition of an undesirable future government.
And since there's so much future ahead of us, I'm afraid things are just bound to happen. Not everywhere, but the "let us (but only us, and secretly) snoop on computers" movement is uncomfortably global.
Considering things like child pornography, we have had some issues where an apprehended suspect had this on an encrypted drive. In that case it might be very useful for law enforcement to be able to get the encryption's key in advance some way or other.
And plant some data on the way, since the images on the suspect's system are uncomfortably close, but not quite illegal yet ("but he's definitely one of 'those'")?
Or to push the statistics, so everyone can see that this newly granted power was really, really necessary? (Wouldn't even have to be organizational. One "well-meaning" staff at the right place is enough for real damage)
In the end, I'd prefer the police to hunt those who physically hurt children, not necessarily those who keep the pictures (those, too - but IMHO it's secondary).
Otherwise we'll live in a world were family members still rape their kids (people close to the children make up >80% of the abusers), but simply don't produce graphic evidence anymore.




Member since:
2008-12-10
Yes indeed, trust is the keyword here. If I would live in another country I would not be able to see a positive side to this.
Considering things like child pornography, we have had some issues where an apprehended suspect had this on an encrypted drive. In that case it might be very useful for law enforcement to be able to get the encryption's key in advance some way or other.