Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
"We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he [Rod Rosenstein] told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption."
[...] In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption."
"I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption."
[...] He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable."
[...] Rosenstein closed his interview by noting that he understands re-engineering encryption to accommodate government may make it weaker.
"And I think that's a legitimate issue that we can debate—how much risk are we willing to take in return for the reward?" he said.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:49PM
Because I am pretty sure it was his goddamn predecessors, or he himself if he's been there long enough, that was responsible for the Infineon 'flaw' being implemented. We had this discussion 20 years ago which eventually resulted in foreign crypto technology overshadowing the US's and the US only limiting crypto export to its embargoed countries, leading to it becoming ubiquitous everywhere (because you can't really control the crypto unless you monopolize and backdoor the processors... oh wait.)