> "I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is lawful and appropriate and necessary," Mr. Carter told students and faculty at Stanford.<p>Right, because what they're doing in the cyber domain isn't lawful. Naturally they'll fix that retroactively.<p>> He urged the next generation of software pioneers and entrepreneurs to take a break from developing killer apps and consider a tour of service fending off Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers...<p>Yeah, exploitation of vulnerability isn't partisan or nationalistic. While narrowly possible, it isn't really practical to fend off Chinese hackers without also fending off American ones, and vise versa.<p>> ...even as he acknowledged that the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, "showed there was a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing."<p>I can't help but picture these hacks that shill for the administration like cheaters who've been caught trying to talk their way out of it.<p>"Baby, I know I said I was visiting my grandma last night, and while I admit that leaked photograph of me kissing and groping my former lover is authentic, I swear to you it's not like that! The kiss had to be collected in case it was needed in the future but it's not cheating because I wasn't feeling into it at the time. You've got to understand there's a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing. I lied to keep you safe! Think of the greater good baby!!"
Carter's words sound like the man who see's his judgement, but still uselessly pleads innocent for the decisions he believes should be kept in the dark.<p>I remember when my small private university received its first DOJ request in 2005 to install wire-tapping hardware on our servers. We in the IT department circled up and met, deciding to ignore this letter as a disgrace to the American public, the constitution, and the human values we believed in. Even receiving shamed us, and stirred anger and fear for years after.<p>When we ignored it, no request came again and no consequence -- because the people who asked us to do wrong would never ask us to do it again by the light of day.<p>Remember: stand true to what is right for you and those around you, whether in private or in public, and you'll never regret that choice from this day to your last.
> <i>“I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is lawful and appropriate and necessary,” Mr. Carter told students and faculty at Stanford.</i><p>Good luck with the convincing. Quite a few of us can read, so it will be rather impossible.<p>> <i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...</a><p>> <i>Shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush secretly told the N.S.A. that it could wiretap Americans’ international phone calls and collect bulk data about their phone calls and emails without obeying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-warrantless-spying-is-doubted-in-declassified-reports.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-w...</a><p>> <i>On July 9, 2012, when asked by a member of the press if a large data center in Utah was used to store data on American citizens, Alexander stated, "No. While I can't go into all the details on the Utah data center, we don't hold data on U.S. citizens."</i><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander#Statements_to_the_public_regarding_NSA_operations" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander#Statements_t...</a><p>Why are these people not in prison for violating the constitution on a mass scale? Their only defense can be that they were simply "following orders."<p>The USA PATRIOT Act will be viewed by historians as something akin to the Reichstag Fire Decree <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree#Background" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree#Backgroun...</a>
I'm sure there's a way for Silicon Valley and the US government to work together, but Silicon Valley can and should bring it's own demands to the negotiating table. This looks like a very one sided deal right now. The government gets to keep its secret courts, mass surveillance, secret drone strikes and foreign policy interference and expects the brightest and best minds in tech to sign up to facilitate all that.<p>No deal. There is another way. I'm sure many in tech would take up the gauntlet of protecting all people if it were to be executed in a way that fits with the ideals of those people - which coincidentally align pretty well with what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights put forth 223 years ago.<p>If the US wants security they can have it. If they want to continue to expand the military industrial complex, they should go looking elsewhere.
It baffles the mind how little the government seems to understand technology. Yes let's create a universal key but to make sure it's not abused or falls into the wrong hands we'll just split it up over agencies or setup an escrow. Never mind the fact that this undermines the security of every single piece of American data if we're compelled to use it.<p>If you're up to not good you're just going to download a non-backdoored encryption toolkit from somewhere else.
“I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is <i>lawful</i> and appropriate and necessary,” (Emphasis mine)<p>Step 1, make this first point true at least (the second and third points will probably be debated until the heat-death of the universe).<p>Quite heartened by the rest of the article though; techies standing by their principles.
> He urged the next generation of software pioneers and entrepreneurs to take a break from developing killer apps and consider a tour of service fending off Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers, even as he acknowledged that the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, “showed there was a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing.”<p>You mean there was a difference in view between what you said you were doing, and what your leaked internal documents SHOWED beyond a shadow of a doubt what you were actually doing and planning on doing.<p>Do these guys not know their audience?
I, for one, appreciate that this is a mainstream media article that doesn't seem to paint the government as in the right at all. It leaves the last word with the tech sector in refuting the government's positions, which is refreshing to see.<p>(at least that's how I read it as a tech guy)
"Mr. Obama, on a trip to Stanford in February, had expressed sympathy with those who were striving to protect privacy, even while saying it had to be balanced against the concerns of the F.B.I. and other agencies that fear “going dark” because of new encryption technologies."<p>"Expressing sympathy" means absolutely nothing when concrete actions have been taken to undermine privacy and security.<p>I hope that the tech industry can organize around resisting the government to provide security and privacy for their users.<p>The more robust anti-spying measures we have, the more secure we'll be from malicious actors who would use our communications against us for their own gain.
"Going dark" is exactly what should happen. The only secure system is a secure system.<p>For all countries X, the government of X is absolutely untrustworthy.
I wonder if this is going to work out as well for them as working with Silicon Valley in the 90s worked out: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip</a>
The text for this article on the nytimes fronpage reads:<p>>The computer industry is seeking to block surveillance, including by the N.S.A., which fears “going dark” on terror threats.<p>I find something about the use of "the computer industry" to describe Google et al be really quaint. It's understatement. Also, what industry doesn't depend on the computer industry these days?