[Prem WatsApp]

Completely understand what you're saying, but don't you find it reasonable to just check out the individual to ensure it was just an honest bumping into and nothing more? For the larger safety of the country?

It's like a suspect being asked/getting a warranty for his dna to clear him of a crime

You may know you're innocent, but the police don't, wouldn't you rather they clear you and then get on with solving the crime? I'm not saying this should be easy but it shouldn't be impossible

Posted via CB10

I also get what you're saying. But did that happen?

Those Paris shooters basically did what they wanted, and communicated freely without the use of encryption, apparently.

------

Back to your original argument, with those checks you have to have trust in the integrity of the legal process, the integrity of the police personnel, the integrity of the judge, ... and hope there is an appeals process in the worst case... :-D

Let's say, this didn't quite work out for Kent Hovind, who was raided by a SWAT team for some IRS dispute (are ministry helpers volunteers, and are they paid a wage, or is this all tax-exempt...?). Wasn't about his tax or financial conduct, but purely about his opinion about teaching evolution and / or creation in schools... and to silence him by locking him up (if you ask me) ..... it's been ten years now, and no appeal, and no release. For an alleged tax offence!

There goes the trust in the process and legal system. "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend your right to say it...!"

:-D

(edit
Chen's "lawful access" or handover of data hinges on the integrity of above described process, which is not always a given. Tough questions, no real answers due to the frailty and lack of dependability in human nature... :-(



�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

[bb10adopter111]

I also get what you're saying. But did that happen?

Those Paris shooters basically did what they wanted, and communicated freely without the use of encryption, apparently.

------

Back to your original argument, with those checks you have to have trust in the integrity of the legal process, the integrity of the police personnel, the integrity of the judge, ... and hope there is an appeals process in the worst case... :-D

Let's say, this didn't quite work out for Kent Hovind, who was raided by a SWAT team for some IRS dispute (are ministry helpers volunteers, and are they paid a wage, or is this all tax-exempt...?). Wasn't about his tax or financial conduct, but purely about his opinion about teaching evolution and / or creation in schools... and to silence him by locking him up (if you ask me) ..... it's been ten years now, and no appeal, and no release. For an alleged tax offence!

There goes the trust in the process and legal system. "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend your right to say it...!"

:-D

(edit
Chen's "lawful access" or handover of data hinges on the integrity of above described process, which is not always a given. Tough questions, no real answers due to the frailty and lack of dependability in human nature... :-(



�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

Really?

Kent Hovind was not prosecuted for his anti-science Young Earth Creationist views. He was duly prosecuted and convicted for tax fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

His crimes had zero to do with free speech. He claimed he didn't need to file tax returns because his business, income and property "belonged to God" but he never applied for not-for-profit tax-exempt status like other religious or charitable institutions do.

He is a convicted criminal. The crimes are not alleged. They were proven. You are innocent UNTIL proven guilty. He was proven guilty.

Posted via CB10

[tinochiko]

I also get what you're saying. But did that happen?

Those Paris shooters basically did what they wanted, and communicated freely without the use of encryption, apparently.

------

Back to your original argument, with those checks you have to have trust in the integrity of the legal process, the integrity of the police personnel, the integrity of the judge, ... and hope there is an appeals process in the worst case... :-D

Let's say, this didn't quite work out for Kent Hovind, who was raided by a SWAT team for some IRS dispute (are ministry helpers volunteers, and are they paid a wage, or is this all tax-exempt...?). Wasn't about his tax or financial conduct, but purely about his opinion about teaching evolution and / or creation in schools... and to silence him by locking him up (if you ask me) ..... it's been ten years now, and no appeal, and no release. For an alleged tax offence!

There goes the trust in the process and legal system. "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend your right to say it...!"

:-D

(edit
Chen's "lawful access" or handover of data hinges on the integrity of above described process, which is not always a given. Tough questions, no real answers due to the frailty and lack of dependability in human nature... :-(



�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

So you're using examples of when the system has failed to show its a failure but I haven't seen you compare to the rate of success?

How many crimes have been prevented or criminals convicted faster because police were able to put a wire tap and/or request phone records/location info (which Chen clarified in the video above is all BlackBerry would have anyway- no data)

It's not Chen's job to fix the system or to sidestep it if it doesn't work, if you don't like how your government deals with these situations you have the right to change it (well...depending on where you are)

Privacy and security were not big deals to the average individual who didn't care that police could get a wiretap on them if there was ample evidence they may be involved in criminal activities, until it was revealed that some government agencies were just listening en masse, which is were the real issue lies and which BlackBerry has in the open said they would not help nor assist in such activities.



Posted via CB10

[Superdupont 2_0]

It's not Chen's job to fix the system or to sidestep it if it doesn't work, if you don't like how your government deals with these situations you have the right to change it (well...depending on where you are)

Posted via CB10

I fully agree with your sentence, but why doesn't BBRY offer end-to-end encryption for consumer grade BBM, like iMessage, WhatsApp(on Android), Threema and others?

Is it forbidden by Canadian law?

The funny thing is that John Chen was trying to downplay things in the interview by saying that they only share meta-data when there is subpoena, but no content.
On the other hand they offer BBM Protected as subscirption service to encrypt...content.

Now, if business needs BBM Protected according to BBRY, why doesn't citizens need it?

I like BBM, I have no personal worries here and recommend it to friends.
But I can't recommend BBM to certain minorities in certain countries.

Moreover, from a marketing viewpoint BBRY is rather damaging their reputation.

[deadcowboy]

Proclaim victory?
With this "terrorist" stuff, increasing surveillance, etc. no one (Joe Doe and us) is really winning. Or is there?

It's about the definition of a terrorist which is too broad. Or let's say barely or loosely defined. Also, collection of data for retroactive action or "digging up dirt" on someone is something I disagree with.

The hidden damage to society, and civil liberties is largely underestimated or not recognized. People are already self-censoring.

That's not the result of terrorism. But surveillance.

Hey, did it work? The jerks committing mass shootings in Paris weren't even using encryption... did anyone act on these hints or catch them?

So is (extreme) surveillance going to actually achieve what it is supposed to do? Protect the innocent? With all those measures in place this should have NEVER happened, if you believe what's being said about mass surveillance.

Hard questions, and no easy answer.... :-D






�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

Most reasonable post in this thread. Thanks.

---

To contribute, it sure seems as though the powers that be are exploiting fear of terrorism in order to purposefully subvert the inherent freedoms that man has (and is recognized as having) in this country.

Everyone should be skeptical of the government as it oversteps its citizen-allotted power.

Posted via CB10

[jegs2]

In 3 years, BlackBerry won't be around anymore so it doesn't matter.

Seem likely.

As for all the fears about surveillance, we're collectively the idiots for the most part, doing the work for those who want to collect information on us for them by spreading it all about on Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, or [insert name of hot social app of the hour here].

And the intelligence collectors love us for it.

[anon(2313227)]

We also know what the "greater good" is sometimes when the situation is presented to us. Sometimes this is very apparent and sometimes it is not.

Someone had a link once to a site that shows a train carrying 100 people is out of control and if not stopped all 100 will die. They can stop the train if they push one person down and block the track and prevent it from crashing. Yes it is not a concrete argument but the essence is there. 100 lives or 1 life. What is the greater good?

What if that person is someoneou know, an immediate family member? Would you make the same choice?

Yes there is a lot of blurry lines but sometimes there is not. In cases where it is not, I think I can trust BB to say hey there is a something wrong, like Pakistan.

[TgeekB]

So you're using examples of when the system has failed to show its a failure but I haven't seen you compare to the rate of success?

How many crimes have been prevented or criminals convicted faster because police were able to put a wire tap and/or request phone records/location info (which Chen clarified in the video above is all BlackBerry would have anyway- no data)

It's not Chen's job to fix the system or to sidestep it if it doesn't work, if you don't like how your government deals with these situations you have the right to change it (well...depending on where you are)

Privacy and security were not big deals to the average individual who didn't care that police could get a wiretap on them if there was ample evidence they may be involved in criminal activities, until it was revealed that some government agencies were just listening en masse, which is were the real issue lies and which BlackBerry has in the open said they would not help nor assist in such activities.



Posted via CB10

I agree with what you're saying. Every system fails at some point. That doesn't make it an entirely bad system. At the same time it doesn't mean we should not look at the failure and make improvements.

I'm not sure what some people want. Abolish all governments? Let's go back in time. No schools. No health care. No clean water. Just you against the world.

Overreacting to individual incidences does not improve our lives, it degrades it. We cannot run in fear of failures. We have to somehow work together.

End of today's rant.