You Can't Have My Data!

Way back in April of 2015 at the RSA Conference in San Francisco Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson made some interesting comments. You can read the entire thing here. I'm going to quote a bit of his talk here and then give my view on it.

"The Department of Homeland Security has both the cybersecurity mission and a law enforcement/counterterrorism mission for the American people. We have feet in both camps. I therefore believe I have a good perspective on this issue.
The current course we are on, toward deeper and deeper encryption in response to the demands of the marketplace, is one that presents real challenges for those in law enforcement and national security."

I agree, the people demand stronger encryption and the most talented of the encryption tech community responded in kind. While it may never be perfect, the encryption techniques in use today are the best that have ever been used. However, law enforcement would have a much harder time seeing the data because the encryption being used is so strong.

"Let me be clear: I understand the importance of what encryption brings to privacy. But, imagine the problems if, well after the advent of the telephone, the warrant authority of the government to investigate crime had extended only to the U.S. mail."

I'm sure that would have been a real pain in the ass for law enforcement. It also would have lead to a lot less humor at the NSA when they are laughing at a couple trying to have phone sex.

"Our inability to access encrypted information poses public safety challenges. "

Really? My banking information, personal identifiable information, online shopping habits, and private conversations with my peers is a challenge to public safety?

"In fact, encryption is making it harder for your government to find criminal activity, and potential terrorist activity." 

Who said catching the bad guys was going to be easy? Are you saying you want everyone else's information to be less secure so you can catch bad guys easier? How about you stop bitching about encryption and start doing some real investigative work? Oh, I forgot, you want your job to be easy. Well, here is an idea for you. If your job is too hard for you, then maybe you should start baking cakes for gay weddings. It's a relatively easy job. Plus, now that LGBT people have every right to get married all across the US, and many businesses are refusing to make them. I'm sure there is a market for it.

"We in government know that a solution to this dilemma must take full account of the privacy rights and expectations of the American public, the state of the technology, and the cybersecurity of American businesses." 

I wonder if he is talking about the same "take full account of the privacy rights" the patriot act had back in 2001. Since the market has been pushed for better encryption for decades now, I think the expectation of the American public is to have some bit of privacy. The current state of technology is what you are complaining about. Can you take that into account?

"We need your help to find the solution." 

Is he admitting the government doesn't know how to break current encryption standards? Wohooo somehow, I don't believe it though.

"Homeland security itself is a balance – a balance between the basic, physical security of the American people and the liberties and freedoms we cherish as Americans." 

I'll remember that the next time more documents get dumped on the Internet from the NSA describing how they are collecting every bit of data they can on every person in the USA. I'll try to keep liberties and freedoms in mind while I'm running around the airport barefoot trying to get them to allow me to take my toothpaste.

"I tell audiences that I can build you a perfectly safe city on a hill, but it will constitute a prison."

How many prisoners break out of prison every year?

 Two days ago, at the 20th anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people, I said that terrorism of any type cannot succeed if the people refuse to be terrorized." 

The definition of terrorized - create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

Seems to me this has been the goal of Homeland Security, NSA, FBI, every republican politician, and Fox News since a couple of buildings fell down in New York. Thus killing 2,996 people. All because a few nut jobs decided God "Allah" told them to fly a couple of planes into them. Since then the government has been trying to scare everyone into giving away our rights. Once again, I go back to the patriot act.

I guess by Jeh's idea of "people refuse to be terrorized" means I should no longer be scared of the fact that terrorist have killed less people in this country than car wrecks. Wouldn't that put him out of a job?

Here is a little secret Jeh, I'm not scared of "terrorist". I'm more scared of the government's stand on terror, the government causing terror in other countries, and the government taking more of my privacy away. I'm scared that someone will be able to steal my identity because the government has made the only encryption I can legally use breakable. I'm scared that some overzealous cop will shoot my kids for pulling out their ID that they were asked to provide. I'm more scared of not being able to support myself and my kids because they government takes a greater share of my paycheck than people that make more money. I'm more scared of children not getting the education they need because of the right wing nuts that think God is all that matters. I'm more scared that I would be fired, my house get burned down, and get beaten up on the street when people find out I'm an atheist. There are plenty of things I'm more scared of than terrorism, because terrorist are just some nuts with guns and bombs. We have plenty of the right here in the US. However, when they are citizens we tend to call them republicans.

"In the name of homeland security, we can build more walls, erect more screening devices, interrogate more people, and make everybody suspicious of each other, but we should not do this at the cost of who we are as a nation of people who cherish privacy and freedom to travel, celebrate our diversity, and who are not afraid."

Well, you have done that and trying to do more. However, our freedoms have already been taken away with the patriot act. Not to mention some people are still scared out of their wits because the government is taking a stand or terror. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?

"In the final analysis, these are the things that constitute our greatest homeland security." 

Let me get this overall idea correct here. You wish to have access to all encrypted data online and off. Giving the government even more access to the personal lives of US citizens. Do you not realise that if you break the encryption in use in the US, the bad guys are just going to continue to use the encryption you can't break? Wasn't that how it was back in the 90's when the government set a ban on the export of unbreakable encryption?

I say the biggest threat to our liberties and freedom has become the US government. This is due to spying on it's own citizens. Inflaming the fear of terrorism. Terrorising the people in other countries. Treating non christians as second class citizens. Treating anyone that happens to have a little melanin in their skin as rapist, killers, and drug attics. Not to mention all money taken from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

I am taking a stand. I will not weaken my privacy and information security just because some dipshit head of a department that shouldn't even exist want's his job to be easier. I say, screw you! Go bake a cake. Though I doubt out are even qualified to do that. My name's Rug, an Information Technology Professional, and that is what I think.