SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @02:27AM (5 children)
But what if they hypothetically did encrypt their messages? Or what if they saved the name of a contact who was using an otherwise hard to trace burner phone? Accepting that the government gained nothing from a couple of anecdotal cases doesn't disprove the general principle. We can't simultaneously argue that we need to hide things from the government and that the government has access to all of those things already (though you could still oppose a backdoor on the grounds that it could be exploited by actors without access to those other channels).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 13 2017, @10:12AM (4 children)
If terrorists go free because of encryption, so be it.
Fuck the government.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @01:19PM (3 children)
I agree, I'm just saying they might!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 13 2017, @01:56PM (2 children)
Yeah. Some people pretend it can't happen because when pressed for evidence that this is an actual problem, the FBI gives out a list of dogshit examples [theintercept.com]. Or because they have other means to catch criminals (which may be true in many cases).
Encryption could aid terrorism if used properly, by allowing secure communications, or at least hide information (say on a locked iPhone) that would otherwise lead to more people getting caught. The problem is that it's not worth it to ban/restrict encryption to stop a fraction of a tiny threat. Most terrorists won't get caught beforehand unless they are dumb or baited by FBI informants. All you need is a nice motor vehicle to get started, maybe with easily obtainable guns as a garnish. Maybe view your preferred propaganda over Tor to work up the nerve, and don't make inflammatory statements on social media.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @03:39PM (1 child)
If the amount of preventable deaths was huge -- say, comparable to car wrecks -- my answer would be the same. Even scaling far past that, I'd look for other solutions rather than allow the government to peek at everything (but I'm opposed to the mere existence federal government).
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @03:54PM
existence of the federal