SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.
While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts.
And while this will likely weaken secure data storage and communications – by introducing backdoors that hackers and spies, as well as the cops and FBI, can potentially leverage to snoop on folks – it will be a price worth paying. And, after all, what do you really need that encryption for? Your email and selfies?
"We are not talking about protecting the nation's nuclear launch codes," Barr told the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University. "Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. There have been enough dogmatic pronouncements that lawful access simply cannot be done. It can be, and it must be."
Related: DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
FBI Director Calls Encryption a "Major Public Safety Issue"
FBI Director: Without Compromise on Encryption, Legislation May be the 'Remedy'
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Problem "Infects" Law Enforcement and Intelligence Community
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:48PM (30 children)
Existing is a crime. Rich people just have better lawyers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:46PM (29 children)
We need a 'Fucking Brilliant' mod.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:09PM (22 children)
When is it politically correct to suggest that perhaps the existing white house administration should be voted out?
This site is sort of conservative and seems to get offended if tribal loyalty is threatened in some way.
Complaining in blogs won't stop whats happening.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:44PM (17 children)
Always. (And no, that's not a dig against Trump. I haven't been happy with a single White House administration in my lifetime.)
Meh. There are quite a few posters here who lean liberal too. Lots of libertarian (which doesn't always mesh with "conservative" on all issues). I'll admit that there are lot of prominent voices here that get defensive about conservative politicians. (Note that I don't identify with either "side" here -- I think it's an oversimplification that does more harm than good, and I don't think either "side" tends to typically have a consistent ideology anyway.)
Well, you're right about that. But I'm not sure the problem is only with our "existing white house administration." The Clinton and Obama administrations sought to regulate encryption and find ways to have backdoors just as Bush and Trump have. It's basically been an issue ever since personal encrypted devices/software became common. Granted, Obama pretended to play "Good cop" [sophos.com] on the issue, but behind the scenes his administration was working hard to negotiate some sort of backdoor to encryption too with tech companies.
I don't think "voting out" the White House will do anything unless it's to put in someone truly knowledgeable about technology who also promises to protect these sort of rights. I doubt any such candidate could succeed these days, as the other side will simply argue that someone who doesn't want to break encryption will "let the terrorists* win."
(*NOTE: Replace with evildoer of choice -- child porn distributors, human traffickers, corporate execs who want to get away with criminal activity, Russian hackers, etc., etc.)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:25PM (8 children)
IIRC, it was Clinton when encryption first became classified as a munition.
A chicken move in order to apply desired restrictions that could not otherwise be applied.
So if I were to carry a printed textbook, such as Applied Cryptography, across the border, does that qualify as munitions export? Would they be willing to pull the trigger on that can of worms?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)
Are we supposed to take you seriously after you used caps to yell "applied cryptography"? lolz
jkjk
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @01:23PM
I believe it is proper to capitalize the title of a book, movie, music, or other work.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:18PM (4 children)
I don't know where people keep getting this from. You're the second person to claim this here. As I pointed out in an earlier post further down this thread, it was under Clinton (later in his second term) that much of common encryption technology was reclassified as no longer under the Munitions List but rather now the province of the Commerce Department.
I don't really have time to research this, but it was my understanding that encryption technology was basically classified as "munitions" since WWII. It's harder to pull up documents from pre-1992 on the internet, but a quick search pulled up this in one of my first search hits [nist.gov], a document from a conference on data encryption from 1977. Page 120 in a Q-and-A clearly states that such tech at the time would be assumed to be regulated by the Munitions List, specifically:
I know that it was concern over growing computerized encryption tech in the 1970s that caused the government to get more interested again, as more licenses had to be granted now for common business use than was possible with previous levels of tech before then. Maybe the 1970s led to the specifically being on the "Munitions List" -- I don't know. But export of such technology had certainly been strictly regulated by the U.S. government since WWII.
Perhaps people remember Clinton because there were some revisions earlier in his term to this stuff, combined with the fact that suddenly use of encryption in personal computers became so common as to make these regulations ridiculous, leading to more public interest and backlash from the tech community. But it certainly wasn't Clinton who came up with this classification.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @01:24PM (2 children)
Thank you.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 26 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
No prob. (I like researching things to verify them -- it's a way I try to keep myself honest. If I'd have found something counter to my belief, I would have shared it with you too...)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 26 2019, @08:10PM
I think I'm conflating a number of facts.
I seem to recall that under Clinton the Clipper Chip was going to be a big fight. But it never seemed to happen. Basically government mandated cryptography with secret sauce baked into hardware.
That is probably why I connect Clinton's administration with the encryption as munitions nonsense.
I now suddenly realize 1992 was a long time ago.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:46PM
Because "CLINTON!"
I would not have believed you 10 years ago if you told me he conservatives would bring up Clinton and Obama for every tiny thing that goes wrong, no matter how crazy.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:19PM
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:48PM (6 children)
I may well be that the problem is not "liberals" or "conservatives" but the rich v everyone else.
Unfortunately you guys have a system run by and for the rich. The solution is to buy your own damn government.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:20PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 25 2019, @11:20PM (4 children)
That is not entirely true.
Where I live at least the government is not for sale in quite the way it is in America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @11:47PM (3 children)
Where, pray tell, do you live that is so special?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @01:30AM
The Shire.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 26 2019, @01:47AM (1 child)
Where I live is not that special, it is just that most Western democracies don't have the level of corruption that the US has.
We also tend to have more political parties, so they help to keep each other in check.
You guys should try it, it's not perfect but it's better than what you have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:24AM
They enjoy being miserable and abhor revolution. They're redcoats.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday July 26 2019, @09:29PM
The problem is we only rarely "vote out", not from the level of president down to the lowest local official. We should be giving officials one term on probation, and if they clamber on board with bad ideas toss them out and try the next one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:58PM (3 children)
Why stop at the White House? Fire all of Congress, too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 26 2019, @10:29AM (2 children)
With real fire.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @03:49PM (1 child)
Today my hope that TMB gets a fancy white coat with extra long sleeves edged that much closer to reality.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 27 2019, @02:11AM
You really don't interact with actual people very much, do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:26PM (5 children)
There's been (apparently false) quote attributed to Hitler, something to the effect of: it is most convenient to run a country in which everyone is breaking the law.
In my younger days, I felt the roads were run like this. Virtually everybody breaks the speed limit, so even if you're not breaking the speed limit, it's your word against the cop's and he can definitely pretense his way into stopping you because you were driving too fast, or too slow, or erratically, or whatever. Having stopped you, he can now look inside your car and find probable cause for a deeper search in which he can "find" all manner of things that he could plant there. And, how, exactly, would anybody stop this sequence of events?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:55PM (4 children)
while not perfect, it is heartening how many cops have been caught planting evidence on body cams. Perhaps the control needs to be taken away from the cop and automatically activate every time they step out of the patrol car?
I do find it amusing however that someone who KNOWS they are wearing a camera would still commit the crime.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:13PM (2 children)
I'm all for transparency and while I like the concept of privacy, I think it's largely an illusion that will need redefinition in the coming age...
All public servants, especially cops, also military, and definitely politicians, should be 100% video recorded in high quality and archived for public access any time they are performing public service, exceptions for national security, yadda, yadda.
In ANY situation where a publicly recorded servant is not recording, the courts should degrade their sworn statements in preference of any who proffer conflicting testimony. Recordings to be provided in full, otherwise the assumption is that the redacted segments also are as damaging to the state's case as conceivably possible, etc.
Good luck getting this rolled out, but (assuming civilization doesn't fall in the meantime) it will get out eventually, and I think the world will be a much better place for it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:50PM (1 child)
Far simpler to expand to cameras on the full population. That way any non govt criminals can be found out too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 26 2019, @11:04AM
Cameras are already focused on the population - what needs to be ensured is that they are deliberately focused ON public servants, not away from them. Otherwise, in my opinion, these "public servants" are having the public serve them, instead of them serving the public.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday July 27 2019, @07:45AM
It's amusing because the cops get away scot free. Why would they care about being caught committing a crime on camera? Who's going to sue them? You? Haha.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!