Enforcers category archive
Twits on Twitter 0
Afterthought:
Be very clear. There’s more to this than just decoding de code. There’s a presumption that if you use encryption, you must have something to hide, an assertion that a desire for privacy is inherently suspicious. (In some ways, this point of view is eerily similar to the philosophy of the Zuckerborg.)
In a snail mail world, what the cops (and the NSA and GHCQ and the FBI and their like) want would be to steam open all your envelopes and read all your mail and all your everything else without showing cause (not that lots of them aren’t already doing that just because they can).
Absolute Power . . . 0
. . . does exactly what it is reputed to do.
The Wormhole in the Apple 0
For those of us trying to understand the who-shot-john between the FBI and Apple over iJunk encryption, this article from the EFF is worth a read.
Immunity Impunity
0
Warning: Language.
In related news, my local rag yesterday carried a long story about Virginia’s proposed get out of jail free card for cops secret(ive) police law.
Immunity Impunity
0
Republicans move to establish a secret(ive) police force in Virginia, apparently because they believe the no account should be no-accountable.
Immunity Impunity
0
The short version of the District Attorney’s ruling is this: They were a-skeert, so they’re allowed.
Follow the link for more.
No Place To Hide 0
Thom talks with the ACLU’s Chad Marlow about privacy.
Immunity Impunity
0
It it’s not captured in a photograpn, it must not have happened.