back to article Rupert Murdoch wants Google and chums to be g-men's backdoor men

Rupert Murdoch has come to the aid of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, urging Google, Apple and other tech giants to change their stance on encryption. Graham, who is a presidential candidate for the GOP alongside blowdryer-favouring asshat Donald Trump, once again railed against Silicon Valley players and called for them to …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Millionaire who made his fortune invading people's privacy thinks it's okay to invade privacy.

    Dihydrogen monoxide is quite wet.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Millionaire who made his fortune invading people's privacy

      Billionaire.

      He just wants to ensure that his organs can bribe the authorities to get the backdoor for someone when they decide it's a slow news day.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Bingo.

      Murdoch is someone who's *never* given any impression of caring about anything other than what he wants (i.e. someone I'd wager who'd be the textbook definition of a high-functioning sociopath if ever professionally analysed (#)).

      Therefore, when something comes out of his mouth, the only question should always be "what's in it for him?"

      (#) I'd have said that the fact he's so openly sociopathic rather than the charming, manipulative stereotype meant he was less effective as such... until I realised he probably doesn't *need* to pretend to be otherwise in most cases. (Supposedly he can be quite charming with some people on a personal level, which would make this more plausible).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "(Supposedly he can be quite charming with some people on a personal level, which would make this more plausible)."

        Worked with Blair.

        1. Gio Ciampa

          Nah... that'll have been the palm-greasing - all Blair is interested in.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Nah... that'll have been the palm-greasing - all Blair is interested in.

            I'm not so sure. I think it was more Faustian. Blair was quite idealistic at one point, and then Murdoch basically told him that if he converted to Murdoch-worship he would gain power, wealth, and the love of beautiful women. Then Murdoch introduced him to his equally rich friends and he met people like Berlusconi, and living in that world simply eroded his idealism.

            Faust didn't invade Iraq, there is that, but if you look at Blair today it's like a reverse Portrait of Dorian Gray, which is very suggestive. O lente, lente currite, Chilcott equi must be Blair's slogan.

  2. 2460 Something
    Devil

    The guy is a complete muppet. For goodness sake, he just wants to do away with encryption so he doesn't have to try as hard to get into peoples accounts. This being a person who denied any knowledge of phone hacking or paying bribes at a number of newspapers that he owns. You can put just as much trust in him as you can pretty much every politician, also known as, not bloody likely.

    Icon ... well he probably is.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > For goodness sake, he just wants to do away with encryption so he doesn't have to try as hard to get into peoples accounts.

      He's spotted a chance to put the boot into Google by implying they are helping terrorists.

      He doesn't give a shit about privacy or security, he does however hate Google with a passion.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        he does however hate Google with a passion.

        He hates Google, yet he makes them look good.

  3. Graham Hawkins

    Surprised he even remembers his Twitter password.

    As I recall, he couldn't remember a bloody thing at Leveson...

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      At that atmospheric altitude someone remembers it for him.

      All he knows is how to swing a stick and discuss the curvature of the ball trajectory with someone deprived in the hair organization department.

  4. Velv
    Facepalm

    Here's an idea. Let's take a cruise ship, and put an escape hatch in the bottom just in case it turns over.

    Send all the "backdoor" advocates for a holiday cruise. Caribbean perhaps, or the Far East.

    Without turning the boat over, offer a million dollars to someone to "just pop the escape hatch". I'll bet some hacker can find a way to do it remotely.

    It'll be fine, no danger, nothing to worry about. It's not like there's a big fuxking hole in the bottom of the boat. Oh, shit, wait. We did put a big hole in the bottom of the boat.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re:

      Actually a local ferry has hatches in the floor, it's funny to watch people's faces when they ask what they are for and its explained that in case it overturns they can still evacuate the ferry

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Re:

        Obviously they'd open outwards so it isn't a problem, since no one could open them even the tiniest crack against the massive force of the water pressure when the ferry is floating.

  5. nematoad
    FAIL

    Idiot

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Benjamin Franklin.

    Yes, I know this quote gets trotted out time after time but in this case I think that it hits the nail firmly on the head.

    If Murdoch is so dumb, why is he so rich?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Idiot

      because like many of the rich, they are complete barsteward's who don't care how they get rich! morals are for the poor not them!, and once they get money/power expect what they want to happen to other people shouldn't be enforced on them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Idiot

      It really misses the key point.

      Privacy is a prerequisite of security.

      Security is a prerequisite of privacy.

      You can't prioritise.

    3. Ashton Black

      Re: Idiot

      Well, he isn't dumb. I would say he's a ruthless, amoral, doucehnozzle, but that's just my opinion.

      That said, when one's fortune/power/influence depends on not understanding something, in this case the subtleties and consequences "backdooring" encryption protocols, then I'm pretty sure he can come across as thick as a whale omelet.

    4. John Bailey

      Re: Idiot

      "If Murdoch is so dumb, why is he so rich?"

      Because he is a ruthless unprincipled bastard, who would fit his granny up with kiddy porn pics if it sold newspapers.

      Where do people get this idiotic idea that wealth is in any way related to intelligence.

      1. nematoad

        Re: Idiot

        I think that I should have expressed myself a little better.

        Whilst I agree that Murdoch is amoral, ruthless and a manipulator, what I was referring to when I characterised him as "stupid" was this tweet, not the fact that he may be intellectually challenged in his business dealings.

        To think that this person has so much influence and such a loud voice worries me. Remember, he has the ear of the movers and shakers in the world and to find he has this level of ignorance is deeply concerning. Though, of course, he probably has numerous ulterior motives for shooting his mouth off like this.

        As to the point John Bailey raises. My comment was a twist on the saying "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?"

        Murdoch the face of the undeserving rich.

      2. Vic

        Re: Idiot

        Where do people get this idiotic idea that wealth is in any way related to intelligence.

        Quite the opposite, in fact.

        O-level physics gives us that

        Power = Work / Time

        Re-arrange that to give:

        Time = Work / Power

        Now we know that Time is Money, and Knowledge is Power, so substituting those into the above gives us:

        Money = Work / Knowledge

        So the more you know, the less you earn...

        Vic.

    5. fnj
      Facepalm

      Re: Idiot

      <blockquote>If Murdoch is so dumb, why is he so rich?</blockquote>

      Seriously? The same reason 99% of rich barstids are rich. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and he hires guys whose job it is to make his treasure grow without limit. I don't have any knowledge of whether his general IQ is low or high, but it is irrelevant to how rich he is.

    6. Chris G

      Re: Idiot

      "If Murdoch is so dumb, why is he so rich?"

      The same question could be asked of the other rich moron supporting weakened encryption Donald Fart,,,, sorry Trump. Perhaps they are brothers and share the same stupidity gene, anything Murdoch supports must have potential for him to make a profit, Hell holds no fear for him , he has a controlling interest.

  6. Winkypop Silver badge
    FAIL

    Old man shouts at cloud

    ...security!

  7. Jungleland

    US public "want safety over privacy".

    IF that is the case then I'm sure you won't mind your PA tweeting the password to your personal email account to make sure we are safe from bastards like you and most politicians who make a living from creating fear and terror amongst the general population.

    After all, if you've got nothing to hide...

    1. Mark 85

      Re: US public "want safety over privacy".

      Go a step further.. someone should show us statistics on this. I keep hearing these asses preaching it but no stats to back it up.

      Goebbels was right about preaching a lie long enough and everyone will believe it.***

      *** I'm not invoking or using Godwin's law... just quoting a past master of propaganda.

  8. h4rm0ny

    Nope.

    Sorry - still more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nope.

      "Sorry - still more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists."

      The US government does not even keep accurate statistics on the number of people killed by the police, but even taking the WTC into account, and treating Pearl Harbour as a terrorist attack, the average is still known to be far higher than deaths due to terrorism.

      1. Salamamba
        Big Brother

        Stats so far this year

        Deaths in US by Police - courtesy of the Guardian, of all people. On my machine, the number killed appears to have got too high, and now appears over 2 lines.

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Classic Fascism

    Military/corporate interests all for spying on it's people, classic fascism.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sure, I advocate for nice backdoors in Sky encryption...

    ... what about if terrorists use that to exchange messages? And also, let's forbid any kind of protection using encryption for media contents, it's dangerous, it may contains terrorists data!

  11. Graham Marsden
    Holmes

    How does he know...

    ... the "Vast majority want safety over privacy"?

    Oh yes, because he, via Faux News and his various newspapers keep banging on about this idea that the only way to protect ourselves from Terrerists is to allow the State to snoop on everything we do and everyone we talk to and everything we look at and watch us everywhere we go...

    Oddly, they're also the people who, AT THE SAME TIME, are arguing *against* "Big Government" because it's too powerful and wants to control people.

    Hmm, Schrodinger's News?

  12. NotBob
    Coat

    Why the swipe?

    since "blowdryer-favouring asshat Donald Trump" doesn't seem to advocate cutting encryption's balls (and other appendages) off?

    Don't misunderstand, his comments about Gates et. all "closing up" some of the internet seemed misguided and misdirected, but at least he hasn't (to my knowledge) called for killing encryption.

    Mine's the one collecting downvotes like moths

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Wommit

    Weakening encryption

    just changes the threat axis from fanatics to government.

    And there are far more government 'officials' around than fanatics, and they're closer too.

  15. noj

    No vast majority here

    Murdoch speaks TO the vast majority but he does not speak FOR the vast majority.

    Granted its been a while since I've seen the results of a survey on the matter, but last time there was a significant shift TOWARD distrust of government surveillance and a stronger desire for privacy and security. Murdoch should read other news besides that which he prefers to read, namely that which is slanted toward his right wing view of the world.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Headmaster

      @noj -- Re: No vast majority here

      Murdoch speaks TO the vast majority but he does not speak FOR the vast majority.

      You correction makes the statement better, but still quite not right. He hardly speaks to a "vast majority", unless your sample space consists exclusively of those knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers whose IQ is barely above room temperature, and who work up a sweat just thinking about something for longer than 15 seconds.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'd rather be locked in a room with the Gimp that give a penny of my cash to a Murdoch company.

    Get stuffed you decrepit old fart.

    1. John G Imrie

      Well yes

      The worst you will get from a Gimp is a sore hand from all the spanking

  17. John H Woods Silver badge

    Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

    Between 2001 and 2013, about 3,400 USA citizens died from terror attacks (10% of which were outside the USA). In the same period there were over 400,000 deaths by gun violence inside the USA. [CDC figures, CNN report]. Measures which reduced USA gun crime by even 0.1% would save more lives than a 100% effective counter-terrorism system.

    Before we can engaging in a discussion about "balancing" safety and privacy, the people asking us to discuss it need to explain what they feel is so uniquely awful about terror-related deaths and injuries that it requires such disproportionate resource expenditure and rights restrictions. In my experience, despite their insistence on being rational people who understand money, the 'stop-terror-at-any-cost' proponents are rarely in favour of any other 'big state' activities which would have a higher expected health payoff: increased health and safety provisions; supporting mental health; improving road safety; promoting changes in diet and lifestyle; increased research and treatment of major diseases.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

      Now you're just being rational.

      But for these people it is about this; you get a bandwagon going to get money sloshing around, then they cream off as much of it as possible. Social State activities are more closely scrutinised than military expenditure or private enterprise, so less room for creaming off. And if the money can get spent abroad, e.g. Iraq, accountability is even lower.

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

      Before we can engaging in a discussion about "balancing" safety and privacy, the people asking us to discuss it need to explain what they feel is so uniquely awful about terror-related deaths and injuries that it requires such disproportionate resource expenditure and rights restrictions.

      The anti-Muslims I have talked to about this seem to have the notion that 'Islamic terrorism' is a disaster waiting to happen, if it's not addressed it will just get worse, will eventually become infinite in scale, will be the genocide of the west; "It's inevitable".

      In contrast; the huge number of gun deaths is a constant, and considered manageable and acceptable.

      In short; the Muslims (and it's always "Muslims" rather than "Islamist Terrorists", and often a more derogative term) may not be killing as many as gun-totting all-American nut-jobs are, but if not 'contained' they will be killing far more - "Their Koran tells them to".

      And it always seem to be the case that these anti-Muslims are equally anti-Black, have the same perspective on why blacks are a danger to America, also need to be 'contained'.

      And by 'contained' they really mean eradicated.

      White supremacists and racists do genuinely seem to fear they are facing genocide, see everyone outside their 'tribe' as a threat; Muslims, Mexicans, Jews, foreigners, immigrants, non-whites, liberals, commies, gays.

      I presume inciting anti-Muslim sentiment has a greater resonance with a wider range of people appalled by terrorism so their hate and fear mongering is currently focused on that. If they can secure a result on that it's just a small step to seeking the same for others they don't like.

    3. Someone Else Silver badge
      Pint

      @John H Woods -- Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

      Post.

      Of.

      The.

      Week!

      Have one on me!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

      I'd love to see how much the rich and famous would like it were their security personnel, as well as themselves where appropriate, summarily disarmed. Toss in all the politicians for good measure.

      This isn't to take away your facts, excellently done BTW, just an observation on stratification.

    5. JohnMurray

      Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

      I'm guessing that now would not be the time to throw deaths in the US from medical error into the mix?

      That dwarfs anything, other than heart disease and cancer, and is far, FAR, more than terrorism/war/police-shootings/accidental shooting: Combined.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Tetchy teens toll trumps trained terrorists

        I'm guessing that now would not be the time to throw deaths in the US from medical error into the mix?

        Time to declare a Global War on Error!

        Huh. It just canceled itself out.

        But seriously, the point is well-taken. Deaths by drowning in the US are about an order of magnitude more common than those from terrorism. Motor-vehicle-related deaths in the US are another order of magnitude greater and about equal to deaths by firearm. Fatal poisonings are about 50% greater than either of those. Medical-error deaths are another order of magnitude greater than poisonings. Cancer deaths in the US are somewhere between 25% and 125% greater than medical-error deaths (it's impossible to be precise because of variation in estimates of medical-error deaths).

        Giving up civil rights for a relatively tiny threat like terrorism is the position of foolishness or evil, depending on who's advocating it.

  18. Crisp

    The US public "want safety over privacy"?

    If only someone had seen this kind of tyranny coming... Oh wait! Someone did!

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin

    Over 200 years ago!

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Rupert ...

    Fuck off.

    1. Chika
      Facepalm

      Re: Dear Rupert ...

      Oh come on! We all know what he really wants, but I doubt that Obamacare would cover it!

      Murdoch is in it for what he can profit out of it. He's never been any different, whether in the US, the UK or back in his native Australia. If he hasn't learned anything from the whole phone-tapping scandal that shut the News of the World down, he never will.

    2. hplasm
      Mushroom

      Re: Dear Rupert ...

      DO fuck off in fact.

      If you're not part of the solution, then the acid bath is not strong enough.

      Please die off and free the press.

  20. Someone Else Silver badge
    Big Brother

    He failed to realize...

    He failed to realise the shortsightedness of such a view, however, since if you soften crypto tech, then privacy and security are weakened, too.

    Of course he "failed to realize". Besides being an inveterate moron, this narrative fits his agenda, regardless of how shortsighted or stupid it may be.

  21. Ron Luther

    Benjy FTW!

    Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    1. Chika
      Trollface

      Re: Benjy FTW!

      Unfortunately, Ben was right.

      Even more unfortunately, the US Gov did that some time ago.

  22. Stevie

    Bah!

    Has anyone explained to Mr Murdoch that his privacy would likely be one of the first to be violated given his past behaviour?

  23. Zippy's Sausage Factory

    And what about his precious paywalls?

    Does he not realise that encryption is involved in those as well?

  24. Camilla Smythe

    Dear Regtards

    Ha Ha

    Remind me how to give a fuck.

    PS Don't bother.

    Rupert

    pp PA

  25. Blipvert
    Big Brother

    Still not dead yet!!

    Rup, you're giving Coffin-Dodgers a bad name.

  26. kain preacher

    You know I could not make it pass the name Rupord Murdock with thinking( what does this pretensions twat want now). Can we ship hi back to oz now ?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Raving lunatic

    Another filthy rich nasty-minded, ruthless pillock who hasn't got a technical clue! He and Trump would doubtless hit it off.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rupert Murdoch is 84 years old...

    ...and hence nearly dead.

    This is a very good thing and I for one will be enjoying a glass of an excellent scotch to celebrate the occasion, when it occurs.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Encryption today

    How is it even remotely possible that this is a real discussion on the news. Putting holes in encryption would never fly, even remotely, because each and every country would want those access to those holes too. For the most part, countries don't trust each other that much. So, for instance does the USA want <insert bad guy country of the week> to be reading everybody's emails and slurping their bank moneys?

    Back in the day, you couldn't swing a stick and not hit a politician who cared about my emails and moneys. What happened?

  30. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Unauthorized access was gained to our internal systems ..

    “A forensic investigation by independent experts has revealed that unauthorised access was gained to our internal systems. This included the placement of malware on those systems”

    "there was no evidence the account details, passwords or personal data were exposed in the breach"

    illogical captain !

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's all about "Total Information Awareness"

    Having a convenient source of detailed data about every transaction on the Internet is a big help to Murdoch on two counts: (a) it provides grist for the mill of his media properties; and (b) allows his financial advisors to build super accurate models for his investment strategy.

    Don't be fooled: Electronic, especially Internet, surveillance is mainly focused on financial espionage against both individuals and corporations. Access to the analyses done by global intelligence agencies is for sale, and Murdoch and his fellow one-percenters are their customers. The rich just get richer. Groups like ISIS conduct most of their business through face-to-face meetings and mostly avoid electronic communications outside of "public relations" broadcasts. What Murdoch and his ilk really want is to know is what fossil fuel industry will do next week, and how the public is likely to react.

    This isn't about public safety, its about preserving the vast fortunes of a few.

    It's also insurance against the unlikely event that people get wise and begin to kick against the cage.

    (*very* unlikely: most people, especially in America, are dumb sheep when it comes to understanding that the big guy in bib overalls who's carry a big pair of shears is coming to fleece them)

  32. HarryBl

    Fuck off Rupert

  33. DerekCurrie
    FAIL

    Privacy Wins Over 'Safety' FUD In The USA

    So: To the 'safety' maniacal, go live in one of the several totalitarian states if you want 'safety' over privacy. You're treasonously attempting to subvert the US Constitution. So leave the USA and find a Big Brother state better suited to your control issues and sensitivity to FUD mongering.

    Ben said it best:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    Some fellow thinkers:

    "We The People - are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

    "There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation (United States of America) if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it's in my control."

    - Quote from John F Kennedy on April 27, 1961

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." – Ronald Reagan, March 30, 1961

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Seriously bent

    Here's an Idea, listen to the opinions of Veteran Technologists and not Politicians, Bankers or the obviously corrupted.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like