It’s almost as if access to high levels of intelligence has an influence on ones perspective.

Not that I’m taking a position on things either way really. The likes of apple should be able to do what they please — just not be surprised when they find the government installing the backdoors themselves.

I can't tell if you're for or against backdoors with that statement. Either way, I disagree. I don't think those for or against it are dumb people.

They're just in a different position... In the DOJ, encryption gets in the way of their job--catching criminals... while the penalties for a backdoor fall on others (those responsible for the data). There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor.

The opposite is true for those not in the DOJ... the protection for our data is compromised.. and in exchange, the DOJ is able to prosecute some criminal we've never known, met, or had any contact with.

To those in the DOJ who deal with criminals everyday, their ability to prosecute criminals is of the upmost importance to them personally... and for the rest of us, unless we're a victim of a crime, there's only downsides to a backdoor.

>There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor.

There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors.

Except legislation requiring backdoors will either exempt systems used by government workers of a certain level, or provide much higher penalties if those workers experience a breach.

That only works if the government is going to set up its own bank for use by government employees.

> There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors

People in the DOJ have more options available to them if they choose to try to find or punish an identity thief than the general public.

Also, the direct fear of not being able to do your job because of strong encryption is more focused than a nebulous fear of possible identity theft.

I was thrown by the "dumb people", not having got that from the parent comment. Then I realized I'd read "high levels of intelligence" in the sense of "military intelligence" rather than IQ. I think my initial reading was the intended one, but I'm not sure.

Being a cop (at any level) does very much bias your view of things. Nobody calls the cops (or the FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc.) when things are great. Police tend to only see the absolute worst of human nature and the worst things that people do and develop biases accordingly.

I've known a few cops and they all have stories that are hard to hear and are worse than what you hear on most true crime shows. I assume access to high level intelligence involves endlessly seeing cases where people were caught attempting to purchase weapons grade nuclear materials, endless plots that never happened but are very scary to read about, etc.

That being said, it is bias and it shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally influence politics. Banning strong encryption is both impractical and destructive to our society and economy.

It's strongly possible the causality goes the other way.

And Janet Reno (who succeeded William Barr) in the 90's, back in the days of the Clipper chip and encryption software being treated as munitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

Do they really think terrorists will stop using strong encryption if they ban it?

Do terrorists even use it now? As far as I'm aware, the 2015 Paris attackers used unencrypted SMS and burner phones. Despite France supposedly being on "high alert" over Charlie Hebdo, they still evaded detection. But the anti-encryption handwringing brigade didn't let truth get in the way of a good story.

The majority of terrorist attacks in America in the last ten years were carried out by lone wolf attackers who were mentally ill or motivated by extreme political ideologies. They didn't use encryption because they weren't talking to anyone.

They think that if they can jail people for using encryption then one of two things happen: terrorists stop using it (with the presumed good that entails) or terrorists don't stop using it. If the latter, they hope they can jail the terrorists for the use of illegal encryption - maybe even before any successful attack - without the need to show anything but the use of illegal encryption. If all you're focused on is short-term tactical progress in fighting terrorism, it's a win; I don't think it helps our argument to pretend like that's not the case.

Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradually getting access to more and more private conversations, step by step turning the US into sth like Russia and China? Then they would use the same arguments about terrorism, as they do now, wouldn't they.

"They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense.

"But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).

Ok that's a good point.

A problem could be that people in general don't care about: "increases the power of the government against the innocent" -- because that's a theoretical problem in the "distant" future?

Personally I think the US gov getting too much power and gradually in small steps get access to "everyone's" communication, is like 1000 times more dangerous than "encrypted terrorism messages",

and, what can be a good way to make people in general better understand the risks & dangers with small steps towards a dictatorship? Maybe if everyone reads 1984 :- / or if everyone was better educated about what happens if you're in China an critizise the government there?

I didn't mean literally all lawmakers etc (although that's what I wrote). The next time I can try to write "some of them" instead.

One part of the solution is probably to raise awareness of the ways that systems justified in these ways are already being abused. For instance, spying on romantic interests at the NSA was apparently common enough that they had a cutesy name for it.