If it weren't amusing enough to hear an acting FBI director complaining about any potential issue pertaining to, with recent increases in encryption standards either on the part of Apple or Google. I wonder with respect to the level and ease that a given argument is actually listened to or believed, or as one might have it, that the FBI might actually have a difficult time engaged in broad surveillance gathering activity, like targeting a particular cell tower, because under lose enough claims to present warranting procedure, a suspect's communication might have passed through this at any given time in the past, but never mind any possibilities of the sort which should entail not going directly to the 'supposed source' problem here. Higher levels of encryption really could be useless if your operating system were infected regardless, as long as vulnerabilities exist on the pre encryption processing pipeline, but really as to the removing a component to the data informatics capabilities in intelligence gathering, and then given the ability of collecting sourced data being far more extreme in this day and age relative to any other, the necessity for broad and indiscriminate surveillance methods simply shouldn't be necessary, and generally in lieu to notorious and glaring examples of failures in intelligence where they might have stuck out like a sore thumb, speaks perhaps greater volumes to the problems of information gathering in general. Consider this basic problem of 10 inter connected nodes. Indiscriminate algorithms, for instance, would have 10^10 points of data and on data that weren't temporal in nature. The biggest problem is that connecting seemingly random points of data in this day and age avoid often times brute force combination computations, and that inherent data mining biases likely should be applied, but when it is so glaring that more obvious lapses with respect to broad intelligence gathering methods, it points often times to why broad surveillance in general is likely to fail as a methodology alone. Of course, you might be led to the argument that targeted surveillance more broadly applied yields data, such as in a given network, or regionally speaking, something of constructed social theory meant that higher probabilities for intercepting something of greater interests, but when the coarse nature of intelligence gathering should rise to nation state levels, I'd offer this should be head scratching turf, and especially when the problem itself is unwieldy if not outright improbable to any degree of usefulness given coarseness at such a level.
I've recently heard another other big brother sympathy apology opinion solicitations on the so called Fox News civil libertarian 'independents' hosting network. Here the contributor describes exactly the argument, one might expect, if having concerns about issues of broad surveillance, namely, yes, the FBI or Federal agency of a similar power capacity had desire in obtaining data, they'd likely be able to get at such data through a myriad of means that extended beyond a warrant less process, but then opinion, on the nuance, describes supposed ineptitude on the part of local law enforcement in terms of information gathering tactics, and then the added problem to this later argument. Here, in recent days, its not just that teens, immature adults, or that any persons neither in position of qualification to handle sensitive personal information, its that local law enforcement tools somehow wind up online and privacy invasions are inevitable. Here, I think we are supposed to sympathize not with starlets that think better to use cloud storage, maybe knowing better or not otherwise, its just that one more tool for significant privacy invasions exists allow from the sorts of nationalized village beating social crisis that exists in this day and age. Of course, Russia gets blamed for these sorts of tools, but if you studied which countries are the biggest offenders on privacy breaches, you'd find the United States and China topping these lists. I think its personally offensive, however, to the degree of seeing the more lowly of individuals telegraphing knowledge, neither given presumably any formal capacity necessitating having any given information of a personal nature, and merely staging knowledge in power tripping and socially abusive ways that had nothing to do with protecting societies or law enforcement in general. The problem is that precisely it is a big maligned lie stating that even local law enforcement don't have similar capabilities relative to methods given at federal levels. Its that the methods available are so in indiscriminately disseminated, any grandmother down the street might be able to gain access into their next door neighbor's system with a little effort that hadn't required a warrant. Consequently I don't know if there really is much of anything of revelation when anonymous users, in recent times, abuse the notions of personal privacy making death threats and publishing another's private data. These sorts of individuals, unfortunately, range in larger numbers these days and have unfortunately I think an all to often 'green light' to use and abuse surveillance tools that were supposedly designed to protect people in society is given.
