Steve Smith talks about the idea that your data security should be more important than any police agencies ability to use it against you and others.
Episode #8-40 released on May 27, 2018
This is a reference to the fears of the FBI, and many other police agencies, and it refers to security and encryption techniques that lock everyone out except the intended user, without the presence of a backdoor. It is explained as the period of time in which the FBI and other police agencies will no longer be able to collect Intel in the digital realm, and they believe that is a bad precedence. The thing is, there has always been places where Intel has been impossible to obtain or validate, most notably your mind.
The question of whether or not going dark is bad, is a tricky one. However, I will explain why it may be inevitable and important for every single person, including law enforcement, whether they like it or not.
Backdoors in software can be compromised by bad and malicious actors, exploited by legit agencies by staff who use it to stalk or harass others, leaked by accident without public reporting, etc. This makes backdoors in software extremely hazardous, as its exploitability without control can lead to significant issues in the future.
Today, devices serve as an extended form of our memory, and in many countries your thoughts, opinions, and other personal information you have stored in your mind are legally protected, under the idea that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. After all, it is not up to you to prove your innocence, but up to the prosecution to prove you are guilty. Since, our devices are extensions of our memory, they should be protected under the same ideology, so protecting the contents at all costs is equal to not answering questions that can lead others to thinking you're guilty, even if you are not guilty. Accessing your private information should be thought of as testifying against yourself.
Technology that is better secured is, also, safer from illicit hackers, and other government agencies from other countries that would use those devices for digital warfare. The few devices in our hands that can be compromised, the smaller the attack vector is. This isn't just about protecting power generator stations, and street lights, but we need to protect mobile devices and computers as they often serve as a help line for everyone in need. Backdoors or weak security practices can make times of need even more dangerous when you take into effect the digital warfare is happening, and combined with armed warfare, could make situations excessively, arguably, inhumanly dangerous. Devices that would be protected against the exploits of data collection, device hijacking, and even against deactivation by viruses holding them for ransom would, at the very least give an opportunity to those in need, to seek help.
Encryption safeguards freedom of speech. While, many people may hate the idea of freedom of speech in many areas of the world, in North America, much of Europe, Australia, etc. Freedom of Speech is a protected right. That protection should be extended to our devices and means of communication. While, it is true that freedom of speech is not a safe guard against prosecution, the ability to speak your mind, have your own beliefs, etc. should be protected at all costs. The ability to converse your ideas should not be attacked before you have had a chance to say your opinion or beliefs.
More importantly, just because they are the police, doesn't make them the good guys, and doesn't guarantee that they are interested in the whole truth. It is far more likely they will look for evidence of wrong doing, even when there is none to be found, and ignore all other evidence, despite the burden of guilt being squarely on them, in a non-biased methodology. Police and other police agencies are often allowed to lie, and many do. With the FBI having to admit that when they claimed that 7800 devices in their possession were inaccessible due to security measures, when the number is much closer to 1200. Sure, it is possible it is an honest mistake, but keep in mind this. That number, whether it affects their supposedly ability to obtain supposedly critical intel, should be much closure to 100% of all devices. There are plenty of police agencies out there that use classical means of investigation to this day to get the real bad guys, and more importantly, some who use creativity to access devices by snatching the device in the unlocked state while the suspect is being monitored. Provided everything is done by the book, with a warrant, and honestly, I have no problem with police agencies doing their job. But, claiming the world of digital information going dark is bad, sets a dangerous precedence of entitlement which should not exist.
Your devices should always be encrypted, secured and protected under the same laws and rights that your mind is. If you are caught red handed doing something, it is not the same as someone reading your mind and seeing your fantasies, thoughts, opinions, and darkest secrets. This is why going dark is good. Protecting your devices against everyone, by finally making devices completely secure protects you, your privacy, and more importantly, your device. Just in case you need help in the end.
Host : Steve Smith | Music : | Editor : Steve Smith | Producer : Zed Axis Dot Net