SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the We-[want-to]-see-what-you-did-there dept.
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Is an Infectious Problem
Just in case there were any lingering doubts about U.S. law enforcement's stance on end-to-end encryption, which prevents information from being read by anyone but its intended recipient, FBI executive assistant director Amy Hess told the Wall Street Journal this week that its use "is a problem that infects law enforcement and the intelligence community more and more so every day."
The quote was published in a piece about efforts from the UK, Australia and India to undermine end-to-end encryption. All three countries have passed or proposed legislation that compels tech companies to supply certain information to government agencies. The laws vary in their specifics, including restrictions on to what information law enforcement can request access, but the gist is that they don't want any data to be completely inaccessible.
Related: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
Split Key Cryptography is Back... Again – Why Government Back Doors Don't Work
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @09:48PM (17 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 27 2019, @10:49PM (8 children)
What rights do you think you have, exactly?
The reality of encryption is that there are too many tools readily available with such low barriers to acquisition and use that the old saw "when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will encrypt" applies, in spades.
All that the legislators can do is target large entities that make things like cellphones, PCs, network equipment, etc. and attempt to influence them to make user's data accessible to law enforcement, but all such efforts will fall short of stopping anyone who cares to from "talking in code."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Thursday February 28 2019, @06:29AM (7 children)
How about this one [cornell.edu]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:33AM (1 child)
Your 4th amendment rights have been dead since PRISM was started. For all the talk about needing guns in case tyrants try to infringe people's freedoms, nobody stood up to the government when they flaunted the fact that they were spying on everybody and tried to arrest Snowden for exposing them.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 28 2019, @08:15PM
Are you sure? Did you RTFA?
The FBI has nobody but themselves to blame for the wide deployment of end to end crypto.TFA is them taking aim at the other foot.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 28 2019, @02:29PM (3 children)
That one still stands while you are on private property and have not been issued a warrant or demonstrated probable cause for a search.
The rights you never had were for large corporations to provide you with cheap communication and recording tools that implement strong encryption.
If you want to build them yourself, nobody is ever going to stop that in a practical sense, and I think you can make a good case in court that any law which prevents you from using your own homebrew secret decoder ring is unconscionable and unenforceable - assuming you can afford a competent lawyer.
On the other hand, if you're just using Chat-App-12 on your commodity phone, you're going to have a hard time "enforcing the corporations' rights" to provide strong encryption on that. Rolling your own chat app software should always be a possibility, but if your strong encryption app ever gets too popular, you shouldn't be surprised if you are contacted and have law enforcement attempt to incentivize you to make their jobs easier, using whatever tools and rights they have to do so.
How this plays out on the world stage is even more interesting, revealing how much/little international power the various police agencies have.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @06:58PM (1 child)
By the time you're in court arguing against the police's version of the story and what's probable cause then you've already been punished. The cop however may even be getting paid overtime to show up to court and in the event that things start looking like there could be personal repercussions they'll have their lawyers deal with it and you'll have a hard time paying for an attorney that has the same level of expertise arguing things like probable cause.
After that you'll need to move or else you're getting pulled over for "swerving" and then getting searched for the "suspicious odor" in your car every single time your plate pops up on their buddy's automated plate scanner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:01PM
Forgot to finish this thought. If you have to defend yourself in court you've already been punished.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Friday March 01 2019, @01:56AM
I agree. There's nothing that says anyone has to provide me with strong crypto. What I oppose is when they say I'm not allowed to have strong crypto from end to end if I want it. If they've got a legitimate subpoena to see a particular conversation then I can show it to them. Until that time though thing stay locked up, just like the papers in my safe.
As for "nobody is ever going to stop that in a practical sense", you're just looking at the wrong dictatorship. If the TLAs have their way they would allow just enough encryption that they can break easily and lock you up as a terrorist for using anything stronger.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:01PM
Yeah, except for the part where The Man has demonstrated multiple times that he doesn't give a flying fuck about what a logical interpretation of "papers and effects" is, i.e. forcing people to divulge their encryption keys for encrypted hard drives, which a reasonable person would agree also violates the Fifth Amendment.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @11:28PM (5 children)
Do you mean that? You got guns to back up your words?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 27 2019, @11:54PM (4 children)
Congress could pass a law so heinous that nerds are compelled to violence.
What would it take to get incel nerds to pick up the ammo box? Encryption ban? Anime ban?
The problem is that E2E is becoming too mainstream. So we may see some kind of "failure to decrypt" law instead. You can have your crypto, just be sure to lower all defenses when asked or face the slammer.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:38AM (2 children)
Sexbot ban.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Thursday February 28 2019, @02:17AM (1 child)
Yeah, that could do it. Bonus points if they can get the sex bots to fire the guns.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:28AM
Bonus points allowed ONLY if they have BOOB GUNS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTv9AhCuSU4 [youtube.com]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:35AM
Congress could pass a law so heinous that nerds are compelled to violence.
Yeah, and people could vote for a less heinous congress... Really, why keep the servants around after they broke all the best china?
What would it take to get incel nerds to pick up the ammo box?
Can't you get 'em to the ballot box first?
We have to develop robust E2E so we can avoid arguing about it.
As far as "failure to decrypt", we have to demand they prove who sent the message to begin with. Good E2E will make that very difficult also.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday February 27 2019, @11:31PM
>where heads can roll
where heads SHOULD roll, in all countries whose constitution says private communication is a right of the sovereign citizen.
Constitutional right INFECTS law enforcement? then law is illegal.
Private communication can be used for crimes Yes. Crimes have real world perpetrators and real world consequences, I am afraid law will have to look for those. If pleasing law enforcement and intelligence is more important, I suggest a dictatorship, the ability of making laws on the spot by policemen, and other 1984ish improvements.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:35PM
yes, this stupid whore needs to hang for sedition.