Homeland Security’s big encryption report wasn’t fact-checked by Violet Blue.
From the post:
This past week, everyone’s been so focused on Hillary, Trump, police shootings and Dallas that few noticed that the Majority Staff of the House Homeland Security Committee finally released its encryption report — with some pretty big falsehoods in it. “Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate” is a guide for Congress and stakeholders that makes me wonder if we have a full-blown American hiring crisis for fact-checkers.
The report relied on more than “100 meetings with … experts from the technology industry, federal, state, and local law enforcement, privacy and civil liberties, computer science and cryptology, economics, law and academia, and the Intelligence Community.” And just a little bit of creative license.
The first line of the report is based on flat-out incorrect information.
…
Do us all a favor, read Violet Blue’s summary of the report and not the report itself.
Reading “Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate” will leave you mis-informed, annoyed/amazed at congressional committee ignorance, despairing over the future of civilization, and dumber.
I differ from Violet because I think the report is intended to mis-inform, mis-lead and set false terms into play for a debate over encryption.
That is not an issue of fact-checking but of malice.
Consider the “big lie” that Violet quotes from the report (its opening line):
“Public engagement on encryption issues surged following the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, particularly when it became clear that the attackers used encrypted communications to evade detection — a phenomenon known as ‘going dark.'”
Every time that claim is made and repeated in popular media, a disclaimer should immediately appear:
The claim that encrypted communications were used to evade detection in the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino is a lie. A lie told with the intend to deceive and manipulate everyone who hears it.
I know, it’s too long to be an effective disclaimer. Do you think “Lying bastards!” in closed captioning would be clear enough?
Counter false narratives like Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate.
Otherwise, the encryption “debate” will be held on false terms.