Replies to post #242865 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[aleajactaest]

hi 24601,

seizure of and access to a device (whether encrypted or unencrypted) from an individual whose behaviour is deemed suspicious is not a case i would call surveillance either.

i am thinking of a definition of the surveillance of data-at-rest meaning the secret capture of private information stored on users' devices which they have not sent to a third party. so if i and other people have family photos stored in our devices, i would think a third party who surreptitiously accessed those photos on a systematic basis without permission was operating a surveillance programme.

i don't think this falls into either of the two categories you offered. but i think it is a valid category.

in my view, a person not behaving in a way that would give rise to reasonable suspicion retains a privacy interest in such information in us law. and the us government should not violate the principles that govern its behaviour.

for me, the really difficult thing is trying to operate a shades of law model in a binary universe. the physicality of a tpm perhaps gives back a little bit of the nuance. but if cypher is right, perhaps not.

[Bluefang]

John: Doesn't that definition bump up against the Constitution in a bad way?

The government's argument seems to be, "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to be concerned about." How does that important concept "privacy" enter into this argument?

Did the mere threat of more terror allow this country to secretly become more of a surveillance state than the previous World Champions--E. Germany's Stasi (secret police) who tapped all phones; read all mail; broke into living quarters to steal underwear, to store at HQ, in case the 'suspect' ran--the SS dogs could track them down.

A lot of people may agree with that sentiment, but let me remind you of Ben Franklin's wise words:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor Safety."

Along the same lines, Sam Adams wrote:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity* of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

* in this context, it means security/safety
______

IMO, the govt's viewpoint is an extremely short-sighted one and does not consider the far-reaching consequences of requiring all US tech companies to build in a back door for various agencies to check on us and make sure we are all 'safe,' and that we are not involved in anything nefarious.

In a short time under such provisions, all tech involving communication or communication devices will be made elsewhere in the world and we will be no safer, in fact less safe than we were before. And we will have forfeited much of our technological edge for what is IMO, a most stupid reason.

It is crazy to give govt or anyone open access to all devices. Make it a hard line to cross, getting warrants.

The fear of terrorism has already cost us much freedom already and those responsible for the terrorism want to rob us of the rest of it and transform this free country into a tightly-controlled dictatorship where its citizens have no rights at all--the state has them. Think China, N Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia and virtually all of the X-stans just to cite a few.

It looks as if our Congress and govt intelligence and law enforcement agencies are unwitting and unwilling co-conspirators on this matter, despite the fact our freedom is the most attractive quality of America, even while our government is secretly burrowing beneath, hollowing out our democracy and laying the foundation for a fear-based government who can read everything except your thoughts and they are working on that.

I do hope Wave does not go along with the govt., but know it will, if it means the difference between selling or not selling product.

Blue