Reply to post: He has it wrong...

Apple, Google mobe encryption good news... for TERRORISTS – EU top cop

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

He has it wrong...

As many others have pointed out.

“In any democratic society we need to provide law enforcement with a right to obtain information authorised by a judge, based on a clear suspicion, in cases involving serious crime or terrorism. This applies to the offline world and should also apply to the online world."

Suspicions are a doubt, a feeling that appearances are not reliable. I have a suspicion that the State's motives, while perhaps honourable at this point in time, can too easily be used against those they are purporting to serve. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, this was not said in reference to the government, but in reference to those who are governed, as it they who must forever be on guard against those who would sell them subjugation as security.

“Full encryption of communication and storage online will make life very easy for the criminals and terrorists and very difficult for law enforcement and law abiding citizens."

A person's device is their private property. See the word 'private' there? Associating 'anonymity' with the information contained on a private device is an inference that does not follow from the premise of the argument given. It is, in effect, non-sequitur. Policing is a difficult job, it is difficult because it must respect the rights and freedoms of those who are served by the police. Society must deal with criminals of all types, particularly bad criminals might have to be eliminated from our midst; this applies to those in power (corruption) as well as to those who would seek power over us (terrorists). Take the high-road, learn from the mistakes of history.

And he actually has this bit (mostly) correct;

" We have to find the right balance between security and freedom - and this balance has to be set by citizens in a political and ethical discussion on the trade-offs,” said Oerting.

Although he needs not talk so much about "security" as it implies limitation of freedom. Something is secured to a post, in a vault, or otherwise restrained. I don't have a solution for him except to tell him that subjugation of the people by mass surveillance and/or disrespecting the foundations on which a free society operates is not the answer.

Anonymous, because a police state is not the same as a policed-state.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019