So, So Reasonable, The Politics of Fear – Retrofitting Abnormality

I have read many, many reasonable articles about the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have the ability to access the communications of person’s of interest.

Patrick Gray recently wrote in “No encryption was harmed in the making of this intercept” that:

“Over the last few days people have been losing their minds over an announcement by the Australian government that it will soon introduce laws to compel technology companies to hand over the communications of their users. This has largely been portrayed as some sort of anti-encryption push, but that’s not my take. At all. Before we look at the government’s proposed “solution,” it might make sense to define some problems, as far as law enforcement and intelligence agencies are concerned. The first problem has very little to do with end-to-end encryption and a lot more to do with access to messaging metadata.”

he continues …

“Thanks to our pal Phineas Fisher, we’ve had a glimpse into the sausage factory that is the law enforcement trojanware industry. Gamma Group and Hacking Team, two companies that make surveillance software for mobile phones, were both hacked by Mr. Fisher and the gory details of their operations laid bare. What we learned is that law enforcement organisations already have perfectly functional trojans that they can install on a target’s phone. These trojans canalready intercept communications from encrypted apps.”

and then …

“Do we believe that law enforcement bodies should have the authority to monitor the communications of people suspected of serious criminal offences? If so, what should the legal process for provisioning that access look like? I mentioned auditing access under this scheme a couple of paragraphs ago. If we’re going to have a regime like this, can we have a decent access auditing scheme please? These are the sorts of things I would prefer to be talking about.”

Think about everything that is happening at the moment in terms of the erosion of your privacy, free speech, and civil liberties. And then ask yourself the following:

  1. Do I think that politicians are concerned with striking an appropriate balance between the right to privacyfreedom of speech, and the preservation of civil liberties with the need to maintain the rule of law;
  2. Do I think that the current wave of proposed surveillance legislation is an attempt to normalise abnormal and illegal  practices by our governments and intelligence agencies, now that they have been exposed;
  3. Do I think that all of this proposed legislation is engineered to save our governments and intelligence agencies the bother of the endless crisis room PR;
  4. Do I think that our governments and intelligence agencies are tired of having to react to the publication of their illegal practices by whistleblowers;
  5. Do I think instead that they wish to fob off all objections to Mass Surveillance with a dismissive “we’ve heard it all before” hand wave, the benefit of a statute, while mumbling “imminent threat”, “terrorists”, “pedophiles”, “dark markets”;

ENDS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s