[rplst8]

Did he basically just announce a false flag?

"Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major incident may well occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues. Whether we end up with legislation or not, the best course for everyone involved is to work soberly and in good faith together to craft appropriate solutions, rather than have outcomes dictated during a crisis. "

[smacktoward]

I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but I don't read this that way, no. It reads to me more like he's saying that from a planning perspective it's better to figure the worst thing that could happen and have a plan already developed that could handle that, rather than being caught by surprise and then having law and policy made in a mad, panicked rush.

(In other words, let's not do with cybersecurity policy what we did with counter-terrorism policy in the weeks after 9/11.)

[shawnz]

> have a plan already developed that could handle that

But... we do have a plan, which is to just not do it in spite of any crisis or whatever. He is misleadingly framing it here like we don't have the ability to backdoor encryption which has never been the problem.

He clearly states that what we need to be weary about is public opinion changing, which is basically like saying that we should just get ready to compromise our standards in preparation for the day where reactionary desire is able to overcome our "sober" thinking of the present, or else fear the government coming in and doing it sloppily and by force.

Clearly that's irrational. We should resist it now and we should resist it then too, for just the same reasons we resist it now. There's no technology issue here, just an ethical/political one.

[dmix]

San Bernardino also already happened. And it wasn't a big deal. They eventually got the phone broken, and there was nothing of value on it. But that's besides the point, it's an example of the type of thing they are talking about.

From my perspective life would not have been any meaningfully different either way if that phone stayed locked. I also can't image some future scenario where it makes such a big deal. What type of information is going to be on some laptop or smartphone that is so important it's worth compromising our general civil rights? There is almost always a hundred human errors around the crime already that they can piece it all together without godmode on every electronic device. A smartphone is rarely an all encompassing security mechanism for any big evil plot.

There is no 'backdoor' technology solution here that makes sense and they need to get used to it.

[redisman]

Barr's is really just the same reasoning used for the Patriot Act. Something really bad could happen unless everyone gives up X rights.

[basch]

isnt that a bad example though, because the counter-terrorism policy was already prewritten before the event. it wasnt a hasty reaction.

[smacktoward]

The hasty reaction was the panic that led lawmakers to grab for the most sweeping policy option they could find. What looks like prudence and caution in normal times looks like half-measures and cowardice in the heat of an emergency. Those policy proposals would have continued gathering dust forever, had not 9/11 provided a political moment that transformed things that everyone had considered faults into something that looked like virtues.

[inflatableDodo]

When a bad event happens, whatever laws you have already, no matter how strict they are, are always seen to be not enough, because people buy into the idea that if they were enough then the bad thing would not have happened. Putting into place strict laws before an event does not stop over-reaction after it.

[darawk]

That's how you're supposed to do things, though. You want to write the policies before the event, when you can think things through slowly and carefully. There's nothing wrong with this part of what he has to say...only the other parts.

[basch]

im saying 9/11 is an example of writing the policy ahead of time, and waiting for when you need it NOT throwing a proposal together after a stimulus.

9/11 is an example of what hes proposing, not a counter example.

[jimbob45]

This is how I interpreted it. It seems like a wise, level-headed approach.

[pdabbadabba]

Yes. But I think it's also a trick. He wants us to accept that we have not already had the debate. He and those who think like him will continue to use this line until they get an outcome they like.

And, by the way, we have had the debate--even, arguably, in the midst of a crisis. This was all over the news for weeks after the shooting in San Bernardino when the FBI told us it was vitally important to gain access to the perpetrator's phone. They didn't get their back door. Legislation was proposed that would have required it, but it was never adopted. (Though, in fairness, FBI did supposedly get a private company to break the encryption. But this was only after a very long delay and after all the public debate had largely dies down.)

[knd775]

Wise? You think encryption back doors are wise?

[smacktoward]

Encryption back doors are not wise, no.

Barr's point is that it's better to have that argument now, in a level-headed moment and with opportunities for all the relevant stakeholders to provide input, than it would be to have it in the middle of some dire emergency.

If you oppose back doors, I would think you would agree with him on this -- government tends to be delegated sweeping powers in emergencies, so it would be much harder to stop gov-friendly proposals like "back door all the things" in that kind of moment than it would be to stop them now.

[AnimalMuppet]

True. And even if we stop them now, we must be prepared to fight the battle again, because after a major incident, people will be screaming "See, we really need them! Give them to us so it won't happen again!" And we will have to explain, again, to people in panic, or people looking to exploit panic, that it still isn't a good idea, even after a major incident.

[windexh8er]

Agreed. It's better to have the conversation now because if we don't and the "event" does occur those who support encryption backdoors will use it as the basis of their argument in all possible manner.

"We must do something now, it's clear that we need backdoors because of X!" <- That's a much worse position to be in during a debate.

[yawboakye]

Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1) give no hiding place to the bad guys (2) make the good guys undiscoverable. It'd be sad to see a solution by decree (9/11-style) but I fear that's where we're headed so long as private companies are unwilling to find a workable solution. Peacetime is a delusion.

[me_again]

They can issue as many decrees as they like but they can't solve the problem with decrees any more than they can decree that water is dry. All they can decree is that it is illegal to use effective encryption, which would be, um, unfortunate.

[yawboakye]

You have a point. By decree what I meant was that in the event of a disaster and panic the public will back any law that forces, say, Apple to give unfettered access to law enforcement. By then it's too late to engage in debates. The public became interested and very unforgivenly sided with law enforcement. They'd have prioritized their safety over being able to send cat pictures securely. Similar to 9/11.

[redisman]

Breaking encryption would cause breaches orders of magnitude more catastrophic than encrypted communications between bad guys.

[yawboakye]

See it this way: we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public. The way I see it the US government (and governments around the world) will make this a non-negotiable objective. There's not a lot of pressure now because, as Barr said, the event that will turn the public against encryption hasn't arrived yet. If the parties involved don't find a solution in the meantime they'd be forced to weaken encryption for everyone when a catastrophe happens. The public is fickle. Our safety is paramount.

[inetknght]

> we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public

Why do you think that?

[loudmax]

Speaking of dichotomies, referring to people as "good guys" or "bad guys" is a peeve of mine. Obviously, society should do what it can to prevent people from committing crime or terrorism, even using lethal force when necessary. These "bad guys" don't imagine themselves as evil actors though. They may be wrong or misguided, but most of them are doing what they think is right. To put things in perspective, Martin Luther King was considered a criminal by segregationists and WW2 resistance fighters were considered terrorists by the Nazis. You're never going to win wars on crime or terror by sifting out bad people from good people.

[yawboakye]

We can't defer to people's judgement of themselves and their intentions. The law and the courts make an independent distinction between legal and illegal.

[TeMPOraL]

I might be missing some subtleties here, because it does read surprisingly reasonable. A "crisis" "galvanizing public opinion" is always a recipe for disaster. See e.g. US overreaction to 9/11, from which the whole world still suffers.

[ceejayoz]

Yeah. I'm no fan of Barr, but "we should think about this stuff before a big event stirs public outrage" is very reasonable.

"Don't do anything until we have a big problem" is how we got the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act.

[redler]

"Be aware that the Reichstag could burn at any time."

[youareostriches]

It’s really quite incredible how these subversions of our privacy (even including blatant disregard for the constitution) are rarely questioned when it comes to preventing terrorism, but when it comes to mass shootings that have actually killed far more people in the US, those guns are sacred objects.

But notice how the label of “terrorist” is uniquely applied to the ethnic “other”, and now consider the first real gun control legislation — the Mulford Act:

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

[JudgeWapner]

It's not incredible at all if you understand that all the power in the world is ultimately derived from people with guns.

[youareostriches]

In case it wasn’t already blatantly obvious, my point is that terrorism in the US is fundamentally associated with “brown” people, and elicits the most immediate and direct attention from governments, whereas mass shootings are almost always committed by white men, and even the worst mass shootings against children elicit no real action.

But yes, guns have been regulated in the past — when? After the Black Panther party brought open carry weapons to the state capitol during a protest.

[JudgeWapner]

Different motives: mentally ill vs spiritual belief. and there are plenty of initiatives to ban guns after terrorist actions done by whites. not sure what your point is.

[youareostriches]

I just stated my point with perfect clarity. And no, gun control has been legislated almost entirely in response to perceived violence from communities of color.

[shmerl]

The public opinion is clear - security should not be compromised, just because some want to have backdoors and can't get over the fact that it's a very bad idea.

> We think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption while also providing secure legal access.

Yeah, may be he can also claim, tech sector can achive perpetuum mobile. This just keeps coming back all over again. He should get over the fact that it's impossible, and move on to dealing with it. Next time he should consult actual security expects before producing the above nonsense.

[snowwrestler]

More likely transparent opportunism, in my opinion.

Which is also bad and gross.

[goda90]

It's either a false flag or fear mongering, neither of which should be used to take away rights.

[chris_wot]

Both of which are bad in their own right. He really is an awful AG.

[java-man]

where did we see it before?

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...