On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 05:13:04AM +0200, Steven Schear wrote:

AG Barr, Cypherpunks disagree. We generally only endorse open source, e2e, encryption for p2p communications with no societal or government say so. We

No, no "generally" about it - instead "absolutely, unequivocally, without hesitation, and in respect of our individual and collective fundamental human rights." (I heard that from some anon somewhere...)

countenance no provision for legal access. Secure, even covert, communications is a right which need only be perfected between the the communicating parties.

Indeed. It is our fundamental right to communicate privately. Freedom has a price.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019, 9:25 PM John Young wrote:

...

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks at the Lawful Access Summit

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-...

"It is also said that the Government is seeking a secretive 'backdoor' to everyone's communications and data. That is false. We are seeking a front door.

The heart of the matter is this: Do the security advantages of warrant-proof encryption offered to the individual outweigh the risk posed to the public by that same technology? This is not a decision for the companies to make by themselves. It is a decision for society to make.

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

Some might say presumption of innocence is more fundamental than the right to freely communicate privately. They're both fundamental rights, and both directly related to/ affected by (in this techonogical age) the availability of encrypted communications. And speaking of the presumption of innocence and how this is respected (NOT) for Julian Assange and millions of other "citizens": Former CIA Chief Brennan Unblinkingly Rewrites Entire Basis Of US Judicial System In One Short Sentence https://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-cia-chief-brennan-unblinkingly-re... The presumption of innocence, as a foundation of the US judicial system, has seemingly been under attack since November 8th 2016. An allegation is made, media runs with the narrative, the seed of possibility of guilt is implanted in the minds of zombie Americans, and the accused is maligned forever - no court required. Simple. And now, none other than former CIA Director John Brennan clarifies exactly how the deep state sees "due process"... In an interview on MSNBC, Brennan, unblinkingly states that "people are innocent, you know, until alleged to be involved in some kind of criminal activity." With sincere apologies in advance to all US liberals who are offended by criticisms of former CIA chiefs, @JohnBrennan's understanding of the presumption of innocence is completely warped, but in the most unsurprising way imaginable: pic.twitter.com/IsE8ulSJMo And not even a skip a beat from the MSNBC anchors. Some have suggested, in Brennan's defense, that he was being sarcastic, or even joking, but nothing in his delivery suggests that and furthermore, it's not the smartest thing to say given the goings on at the margin of the legals system and the death--by-allegation media narratives that are swarming around the enemies of his deep-state attack. Of course, we should by now know full well how to treat anything that comes out of Brennan's mouth... [Not limited to Brennan of course - pretty much the entire deep state aka government and "security" MIC BANK FED.] On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 11:32:02AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:30:35PM -0400, John Young wrote:

...

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks at the Lawful Access Summit

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-...

"It is also said that the Government is seeking a secretive 'backdoor' to everyone's communications and data. That is false. We are seeking a front door.

The heart of the matter is this: Do the security advantages of warrant-proof encryption offered to the individual outweigh the risk posed to the public by that same technology? This is not a decision for the companies to make by themselves. It is a decision for society to make.

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

The fundamental misnomer or misunderstanding (if we are to take the most generous interpretation of AG Barr's words) is that there is some form of "secure legal access" which will not be abused by those in power against those not in power.

: Such does not exist.

To be a little less "generous", it is the hubris of those in power who project that mechanisms of control "granted" "willingly" "by the electorate" to those in power, which causes their blindness.

The blindness includes the blindness to how ornery, but clear thinking, individual humans hear the words such as AG Barr speaks above.

Needless to say that around these parts, such stupidity (or, egain generously, 'ignorance') does not go unnoticed.

The beginnings of a conversation by those in power which would go a long way to encouraging a sane public dialogue, must include:

- full and fair inclusion of -all- the issues of such "encryption front doors or backdoors", including but not limited to the endless abuse of power, by those in power, which we who are not in power witness on a weekly or daily basis.

- the benefits to the majority by individual empowerment

- our right to hold those in power accountable, and the absolute need for encryption which is secure AGAINST those currently in power, to so hold accountable those in power

Those presently in power, no matter who they are today or this year, almost invariably seek more power, and seek tools to hold the majority at bay and in subservience.

We the majority do not accept this.

And, we will not be deceived or deluded by the usual propaganda suspects "terrorism" and "national security".

Freedom has a price, and a free people are ready and willing to pay that price.

The cost we will pay for giving up our freedom is in the long term far greater and entirely shocking to consider, when one considers how government mandated control over every aspect of human life, including private communications, must inevitably play out.

Those such as AG Barr who speak so superficially, with so little (public) consideration of anything other than "the interest of the state" (which is in majority the interests of existing power structures, Corp, Gov, MIC, FED, Spy, Bank, etc), belie their own compromised spirit, belie how far they have strayed from the actual interests of the majority of humans.

Peace, and let's create our world,