Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1109937" data-attributes="member: 114717">I work very closely with government law enforcement and security services.The U.S. Government, for example, does not require a warrant for any Executive Agency to hack anybody&#039;s computer. Hacking a computer is not prohibited by the U.S. constitution. The SCOTUS ruled on this about 10 years ago.Law enforcement needs a warrant to seize a digital asset (laptop, desktop, mobile phone, online account, etc). But they do not need a warrant to attack the digital asset.It is different in other nations (variations), but more or less those governments work with their law enforcement and security services in such a way that their investigations are successful.It is not a backdoor. All the government needs to do is ask Microsoft to give it access through various mechanisms. Microsoft cooperates fully.I am not paranoid. I just know that governments must be able to decrypt communications and other encrypted data &amp; information to be able to provide security.What I know from direct in-person experience is that governments do not violate privacy protections. When it comes to national security, an individual either does not by law or should not (such rights do not exist in the first place) have individual &quot;digital rights&quot; that prevent the government security services from fulfilling their missions.A person is OK. Beyond the individual, people are ALWAYS the problem. ALWAYS. When the scale gets beyond just a few people, then a state needs to be competent and ruthlessly enforce authoritarian policies.The war on cyber criminals fails to a large extent because of ridiculous &quot;individual digital rights.&quot; So law enforcement and security services have to use create, completely legal methods to track and hunt down criminals, threat actors and terrorists.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1109937, member: 114717"] I work very closely with government law enforcement and security services. The U.S. Government, for example, does not require a warrant for any Executive Agency to hack anybody's computer. Hacking a computer is not prohibited by the U.S. constitution. The SCOTUS ruled on this about 10 years ago. Law enforcement needs a warrant to seize a digital asset (laptop, desktop, mobile phone, online account, etc). But they do not need a warrant to attack the digital asset. It is different in other nations (variations), but more or less those governments work with their law enforcement and security services in such a way that their investigations are successful. It is not a backdoor. All the government needs to do is ask Microsoft to give it access through various mechanisms. Microsoft cooperates fully. I am not paranoid. I just know that governments must be able to decrypt communications and other encrypted data & information to be able to provide security. What I know from direct in-person experience is that governments do not violate privacy protections. When it comes to national security, an individual either does not by law or should not (such rights do not exist in the first place) have individual "digital rights" that prevent the government security services from fulfilling their missions. A person is OK. Beyond the individual, people are ALWAYS the problem. ALWAYS. When the scale gets beyond just a few people, then a state needs to be competent and ruthlessly enforce authoritarian policies. The war on cyber criminals fails to a large extent because of ridiculous "individual digital rights." So law enforcement and security services have to use create, completely legal methods to track and hunt down criminals, threat actors and terrorists. [/QUOTE]

Verification