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) 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