It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama makes case for access to device data

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Not to be pushed out of the spotlight, Obama made some alarming statements about cell phone "security".

He says the government should have "access to" (one of his favorite lines of BS) personal data if needed to prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws !!!!!!!!

Well we all know Obama is a 100% police state kind of guy.

But seriously, the FBI and Obama are acting like they actually don't have "access to" this elusive data.

This whole thing is a psy-ops to herd people into a false sense of "security" IMO.

Apple and all the cell phone companies really need continuous P.R. campaigns to keep people believing their products are "immune" to government intrusions.

But I wonder about foreign governments and even non-government organizations?

Sidestepping Apple dispute, Obama makes case for access to device data

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday made a passionate case for mobile devices to be built in such a way as to allow government to gain access to personal data if needed to prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws.

Speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Texas, Obama said he could not comment on the legal case in which the FBI is trying to force Apple Inc. to allow access to an iPhone linked to San Bernardino, California, shooter Rizwan Farook.

But he made clear that, despite his commitment to Americans' privacy and civil liberties, a balance was needed to allow some intrusion when needed.


2nd article here...
Government Can't Let Smartphones Be `Black Boxes,' Obama Says

Be extra careful when Obama starts making "suggestions"




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
So basically Obama is pushing his spy on everything plan.

Unlimited talk,text and 'free' weekends.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I would be willing to trade my privacy for an 'Obama Phone'. Then at least he could be paying my fees.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
While I think there needs to be a way for the search of individual cells with warrant, I do not think the government needs a universal back door key.

I also have an issue with the idea that the government allowed any company to develop and distribute a product it can't hack into.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
When has all the access to personal data stopped a terrorist attack? We have the NSA and FBI combing through our data and it didn't stop San Bernandino, the multitude of school shootings here recently, or, to my knowledge, any "terrorist" attacks since the Patriots Act was enabled after September 11, 2001. The "need"(want) to sift through our personal data is utter poppycock, and unconstitutional at that.

I'm tired of all the "screw your privacy" policies that seem to be coming out of the woodwork in the last decade



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Next he will be saying that we need access to your homes and your bank account from time to time so we can make sure that you don't hurt yourself.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barzad

Pretty much, we're not at the point where we have predictive algorithms to discover terrorism before it happens. They can scoop up all the info on the world (literally) but it doesn't help them until an attack happens.

All that data DOES help in the subsequent prosecution if the individuals are caught alive. Before then? It's just a vast beach full of sand grains and no idea which of the trillions of grains is important...

Paralyzed by data overload...

In a way, I see moves like this as some kind of social/cultural conditioning. Get us used to not having any expectation of privacy in our electronic devices at all by hammering us down and chipping away at us for decades upon decades.

Someone needs to just put it in black and white, literal stone needs to be carved with a line that simply cannot be crossed.

Part of the problem is that our laws on electronic communication are in DIRE need of updating to be current with the times...



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Barzad

Part of the problem is that our laws on electronic communication are in DIRE need of updating to be current with the times...



This, so much this! Plus, the rate that communication tech changes makes it harder to instill law changes too. It is impossible to inform the public of any and all implications laws might have for future tech. Considering most people don't even know "password" is not a good password, they can't understand what is even happening.

I absolutely HATE arguments for laws that are, basically, "you don't want terrorists to win do you?" Or "if you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to fear!"

I don't believe they can't open that iPhone. I don't buy it.

If they can't, Apple needs to apply that security to the cloud so people can't get into it again!



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Barzad

Pretty much, we're not at the point where we have predictive algorithms to discover terrorism before it happens. They can scoop up all the info on the world (literally) but it doesn't help them until an attack happens.

All that data DOES help in the subsequent prosecution if the individuals are caught alive. Before then? It's just a vast beach full of sand grains and no idea which of the trillions of grains is important...

Paralyzed by data overload...

In a way, I see moves like this as some kind of social/cultural conditioning. Get us used to not having any expectation of privacy in our electronic devices at all by hammering us down and chipping away at us for decades upon decades.

Someone needs to just put it in black and white, literal stone needs to be carved with a line that simply cannot be crossed.

Part of the problem is that our laws on electronic communication are in DIRE need of updating to be current with the times...


I see it as something we shouldn't try to predict. I disagree with the concept of pre crime. Preventative measures should be in discouraging people from committing crimes, we shouldn't be going down the road of prosecuting people for things they might do in the future, even if we believe them to be highly likely to do those things.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Barzad

Pretty much, we're not at the point where we have predictive algorithms to discover terrorism before it happens. They can scoop up all the info on the world (literally) but it doesn't help them until an attack happens.

All that data DOES help in the subsequent prosecution if the individuals are caught alive. Before then? It's just a vast beach full of sand grains and no idea which of the trillions of grains is important...

Paralyzed by data overload...


eeee...sort of.

We sort of DO have predictive algorithms, and that's sort of what Able Providence was about. Now we're on the third gen of that.

At least, if you have an idea of who your bad guys ARE, you can tell if they're doing business as usual, or up to something out of the ordinary, and with whom. Most of the time. And it's getting better as time goes by.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
The problem is the false positive paradox:



Here is an application to terrorism:

Terrorists are really rare. In a city of twenty million like New York, there might be one or two terrorists, maybe up to ten. 10/20,000,000 = 0.00005 percent, one twenty-thousandth of a percent.

That's pretty rare. Now, say you have software that can sift through all the bank-records, or toll-pass records, or public transit records, or phone-call records in the city and catch terrorists 99 percent of the time.

In a pool of twenty million people, a 99 percent accurate test will identify two hundred thousand people as being terrorists. But only ten of them are terrorists. To catch ten bad guys, you have to investigate two hundred thousand innocent people.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

But if you get any data at all, you can know who to look for. And it's a lot better than 99%. Why do you think They® have put so much effort into it?

The part that's bogus is that it's only 99% accurate. HUMINT will give you a much better filter up front.

Baker established that it had some usefulness, Providence established that it was not only useful, but predictive, and now it's a done deal. They're® spending a wad of your tax dollar on it. It's a BFD with DIA and SOCOM, who basically run the thing out of Tampa. Although there are other installations. I don't understand the point of that, but hey, it's the gubmint.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"Enforce tax laws"....so they mean using cell phone data to go after organized crime via the old Capone method? Or is this about harrassing small time drug dealers?

None of that matters, i guess. What I want to know is, why do I have to give up my freedom and privacy because of someone else?

No.

What pisses me off the most: there is nowhere on this planet I can go and live free.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Not until they create Person of Interest's

'The Machine'.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
"Enforce tax laws"....so they mean using cell phone data to go after organized crime via the old Capone method? Or is this about harrassing small time drug dealers?

None of that matters, i guess. What I want to know is, why do I have to give up my freedom and privacy because of someone else?


It's an interesting question really. How far should the government be allowed to go in order to enforce tax laws? If they don't go far enough, no one pays their taxes but if they go too far it opens up all kinds of civil liberties violations.


originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Bedlam
The problem is the false positive paradox:


The problem I have with this paradox is it assumes a 99% accuracy rate. With enough evidence you should be able to do much better than 99%. I assume with perfect information it should be possible to get a 100% accuracy rate. This is why I think of the question less in terms of can we, because the answer is probably yes but rather should we?

If we could get a 100% accuracy rate on this stuff and perfectly identify terrorists from non terrorists do we still have the right to proactively hunt them down before they've actually done anything wrong?
edit on 12-3-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I figured L3 would have had something to do with all of this as well ... Don't they have a fun little project?



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Bedlam

I figured L3 would have had something to do with all of this as well ... Don't they have a fun little project?


Several that I know of.

I believe Raytheon saw a lot of very profitable covert business starting to pick up and purchased the Able Series, if you want to think of it that way, along with the developer a few years back. Now it's run by Raytheon for DIA/SOCOM on the primary site, and there are a number of very expensive duplicates that I know of, for whatever reason every IC branch wanted their own and eventually the Developer® made it a sort of potato-stamp thing you could just purchase, complete with their staff to run and maintain it for you, and customize the basic software to your particular intelligence community needs.

They got a handful of nifty other things in the bargain. And this all ties back in to stuff I worked on and have NDAs for, sad to say. All the way back to the college days of my yoot - the guy that helped develop AP under the table for D/S was my 'boss' on several contract gigs a decade before. It reminds me of that old BBC series Connections.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

At this point, I'm not even sure if the software worked on can be called a "program" anymore LOL.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
"Enforce tax laws"....so they mean using cell phone data to go after organized crime via the old Capone method? Or is this about harrassing small time drug dealers?

None of that matters, i guess. What I want to know is, why do I have to give up my freedom and privacy because of someone else?


It's an interesting question really. How far should the government be allowed to go in order to enforce tax laws? If they don't go far enough, no one pays their taxes but if they go too far it opens up all kinds of civil liberties violations.



If the government was not taxing income, and instead only taxed commerce, it would be a moot point for the most part.




top topics



 
9

log in

join