SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The EFF addresses some shortcomings in the recent report to policy makers by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) on encryption.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a much-anticipated report yesterday that attempts to influence the encryption debate by proposing a "framework for decisionmakers." At best, the report is unhelpful. At worst, its framing makes the task of defending encryption harder.
The report collapses the question of whether the government should mandate "exceptional access" to the contents of encrypted communications with how the government could accomplish this mandate. We wish the report gave as much weight to the benefits of encryption and risks that exceptional access poses to everyone's civil liberties as it does to the needs—real and professed—of law enforcement and the intelligence community.
The report via the link in the quote above is available free of charge but holds several hoops to hop through between you and the final PDF. The EFF recognizes that the NAS report was undertaken in good faith, but identifies two main points of contention with the final product. Specifically, the framing is problematic and the discussion of the possible risks to civil liberties is quite brief.
Source : New National Academy of Sciences Report on Encryption Asks the Wrong Questions
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:46AM (4 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:53AM (3 children)
The problem lies in technology and weasel words.
In 1500, when two people communicated orally, NO ONE could hear them, except for people standing within a few feet of them. There were no recording devices, no telecommunications, words weren't etched into stone (unless someone was hired for that very purpose). Communications were "private", unless and until those persons present disclosed those communications to outsiders.
Today - your most casual conversations might be recorded. More, most communications outside of immediate family are electronic. Telephone, chat rooms, forums, email, and more. Everything is recordable - and spyable.
Weasel words? Law makers have forgotten what life was like in 1000 BC, 1000 AD, 1500 AD, and even 1900 AD. They only remember the past few decades, when government has had the ability to eavesdrop on telephones, telegraph, radio, television, and more recently, the internet. They can't conceive of a time when private communications were really PRIVATE. So, "The right of the people to be secure" only applies to personal, oral, face-to-face communications, in their opinion. Everything else MUST BE visible to government.
Or, phrased another way - if your communications are reduced to digital media, you have granted government permission to monitor it.
That is the mindset that we have to overcome. Inertia is working against us.
Except, of course, for one simple fact. It is impossible to build a secure communication, while at the same time giving government the "keys" to unlock that communication. It just isn't possible. The moment government has a key, criminals have that same key, and communications are no longer secure.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:51AM
You're making my point. You waste time talking about government, when we should be getting the privacy tools out. Who gives a shit what the government thinks on these matters? Our private communications are simply none of their business. That simple. The government is supposed to be serving its people (you know, building roads, proving national defense, social security, AND healthcare!), and it would be if people actually demanded it. So, fuck 'em all and let's get on with the business at hand, please. Let's hear some good news on circumventing the state for a change, and let's ignore their whining about it. And of course we could vote for a privacy respecting congress, but that is unlikely, so let's take the technical route.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:32AM
> It is impossible to build a secure communication, while at the same time giving government the "keys" to unlock that communication.
True. Either secure communication is possible, or it is not possible. Seems highly likely that it's possible. Problem is, they (the military brass and high level bureaucrats at spy agencies) seem to think they can have it both ways-- secure communication for themselves, and back doors for everyone else. If you pin them to the wall, they will admit it doesn't make sense, and profess that they understand that and so you are insulting their intelligence.
But as soon as they're off the hot seat, they go right back to demanding exactly that. They want the happy situation the Allies had in WWII-- both German and Japanese communication broken, and Allied communication secure from the Axis. It's like they feel that state of affairs is the status quo, rather than the result of the good fortune of the Germans having the arrogance to believe the Enigma machine was unbreakable, or if not unbreakable, having too much contempt for Allied science, thought the Allies were such bad scientists they couldn't break it anyway.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 19 2018, @06:45AM
I'm failing to find that "digital" vs "non-digital" distinction in the constitution.
Some other issues to ponder:
- Were cants ever illegal? Cants are effectively ECB encryption.
- Why doesn't the government simply issue a warrant on the Voynich manuscript, if "warrants" have some magical power to turn the encrypted into the unencrypted?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves