Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the US-is-screwed dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:16PM (2 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:16PM (#639700) Journal

    They'd just throw your ass in jail until you cough up the key. However, since there is no key, you'd just stay there indefinitely.

    In a much dodgier case [arstechnica.com], that has already happened.

    It's a clever idea otherwise and could be tried. I suspect though that if there were enough suspicion to warrant closer attention and a larger budget, they'd just work toward an end-point compromise and eventually figure out that it was just noise.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by redneckmother on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:39PM (1 child)

    by redneckmother (3597) on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:39PM (#639708)

    As others have noted, it's all about money.

    If there were a "blind drop", and enough individuals would send (and read) gibberish posts, the TLAs could chase their tails until they decided to abandon such nonsensical efforts.

    Who knows, perhaps one could put a little wheat in with the chaff? That possibility would give them nightmares.

    I wish the gubmitt would spend more resources on improving life and respecting individual (as in living, breathing people) rights.

    --
    Mas cerveza por favor.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @12:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @12:14AM (#639880)

      If there were a "blind drop", and enough individuals would send (and read) gibberish posts, the TLAs could chase their tails until they decided to abandon such nonsensical efforts.

      Aha, I knew there had to be more to that one ACs posts!