Criminals shouldn't be able to escape detection by means of switching from telephone communications

[pnwmom]

that can be wiretapped to other forms of communications that cannot. Obviously.

That is why the CIA and the FBI have developed the ability to hack into other forms of communication -- but they can only do so with WARRANTS, just like they get before doing telephone wiretaps.

The Wikileaks dump doesn't prove the CIA is hacking into the communications of citizens without getting warrants first. It just shows that they are trying to develop cases against suspected criminals, and to do so they need to collect information from all sorts of communication and eavesdropping devices -- and to do that they have needed to develop methods, just as they once learned to wiretap phones.

But none of this is legal without WARRANTS, and Wikileaks does not show any abuse of the legal process.

And anyone who doesn't realize that Wikileaks is just an arm of the Russian propaganda machine has their head in the sand.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[randome]

2. There is never any evidence of abuse in these data dumps.

Far too many of us fret and whine about what someone, somewhere MIGHT be doing. It's a pointless, circular logic that does a disservice to us all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[jberryhill]

3. I don't understand the premise in your first sentence

What do you mean by "criminals"? People who have been convicted of crimes can have all sorts of conditions imposed on what sorts of activities they can or cannot conduct.

But if you are saying that there is some obligation bearing on me to conduct my communications in a manner which is intentionally insecure then, no, there is no such principle.

The authors of the Constitution used encrypted communications which were unbreakable by any third party, using the technology available to them.

I'm pretty sure if you told Thomas Jefferson "you shouldn't be allowed to use this", he'd tell you to get bent:

[pnwmom]

4. I mean people who are actively doing crimes, whether or not they've been convicted.

The authorities are allowed to investigate people they suspect of committing crimes and to seek warrants from judges for further investigation.

I don't have a problem with them doing such investigations, with wiretaps and other means of obtaining information, as long as they have proper warrants.

(Maybe criminals should go back to using Jefferson's little device.)

[jberryhill]

5. Yes, they are allowed to investigate

But that doesn't mean that anyone - including persons suspected of a crime - have to communicate in any manner which is susceptible to wiretapping, decryption, etc..

There are methods of communication which a "wiretap" or interception of other types cannot be understood, decrypted or read by third parties - including the government.

It is entirely inapposite to the First Amendment to require that people use means of communication that can be intercepted and/or decrypted.

[pnwmom]

6. True. But the government is allowed, with a warrant, to wiretap or hack into devices.

Meanwhile, perfectly innocent persons in the US have been the subject of Russian based hacking attacks. One of my friends had to pay ransom to get his computer data back.. Most of us are probably more at risk of random Russian hacking than being the subject of a warrant for a US government investigation.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. I learn so much from you!

Have never heard of that cipher machine.

thank you....