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: 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.