It occurs to me that the impossibility of trying to do this is only a problem if the aim is to track terrorist (or competent organised crime) communications. The vast majority of legitimate and small-time-criminal stuff goes on in the clear, or via popular web services that may cooperate. This makes me wonder whether (a) the people proposing it really have no idea, or (b) what the real purpose is. It'd be a great way of making sure you have evidence of some minor infraction for anybody you might want to convict in the future.
Admittedly (a) seems more likely, but to borrow a phrase, setting things up for (b) is "poor civic hygine".
LOL. That's a depressingly accurate description. I assume it's a combination of both, the conversation I imagine goes something like:
A: Agh! We can't tap terrorist's phones any more, because they can communicate over the so-called "internet" B: Quick, to the boffin-mobile! Mathematician-man will tell us how to digitise the wiretapping laws so we can protect democracy IN CYBERSPACE. Mathematician-man: Um, call me Prof. Smith. You know, it doesn't work like that, right? Half-way competent terrorists will encrypt their email. If you just randomly surveil everyone, you'll just get a laundry list of normal minor crimes. It's not like you want to be able to just randomly drag anyone in the country just in case? Mathematician-man: Right? Right? A: Well, now you mention it... B: I mean, it's not like we'd ever abuse it. We're bound to want to arrest people for SOMETHING, and it would be very convenient if we had a handy tool to do so...
Comments 3
This makes me wonder whether (a) the people proposing it really have no idea, or (b) what the real purpose is. It'd be a great way of making sure you have evidence of some minor infraction for anybody you might want to convict in the future.
Admittedly (a) seems more likely, but to borrow a phrase, setting things up for (b) is "poor civic hygine".
Reply
LOL. That's a depressingly accurate description. I assume it's a combination of both, the conversation I imagine goes something like:
A: Agh! We can't tap terrorist's phones any more, because they can communicate over the so-called "internet"
B: Quick, to the boffin-mobile! Mathematician-man will tell us how to digitise the wiretapping laws so we can protect democracy IN CYBERSPACE.
Mathematician-man: Um, call me Prof. Smith. You know, it doesn't work like that, right? Half-way competent terrorists will encrypt their email. If you just randomly surveil everyone, you'll just get a laundry list of normal minor crimes. It's not like you want to be able to just randomly drag anyone in the country just in case?
Mathematician-man: Right? Right?
A: Well, now you mention it...
B: I mean, it's not like we'd ever abuse it. We're bound to want to arrest people for SOMETHING, and it would be very convenient if we had a handy tool to do so...
Reply
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state. "
Reply
Leave a comment