Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the dipshit dept.

Low Barr: Don't give me that crap about security, just put the backdoors in the encryption, roars US Attorney General

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


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:11PM (7 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:11PM (#871074)

    I assume the argument all these jerks make is that "papers and effects" somehow doesn't cover communications and personal data in the 21st Century.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:38PM

    by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:38PM (#871091)

    Let's all get together and send Barr a case or two of this.....as the first of many, many targets.
    https://constitutiontp.com/ [constitutiontp.com]

    Too bad their kickstarter failed.

    --
    Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:55PM (5 children)

    by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:55PM (#871098)

    Yeah. Somehow electronic communications devices aren't covered by the 4th, yet somehow an M134 minigun capable of firing 2000-6000 rounds per minute, is covered by the second.

    But what do you expect? The US govt has blatantly ignored the Constitution since Eisenhower ignored the 1st with his directive to add space-fairy references to the pledge of allegiance and their currency.

    --
    Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:55PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:55PM (#871130)

      You obviously aren't actually familiar with federal firearms laws, as any new automatic weapon is flat-out illegal to own. Now, theoretically the M134 was made early enough that a few years production is technically viable, but I can't think of anyone who'd actually be able to get through the certification process to buy one of the things.

      Well, maybe Feinstein.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:16PM (#871274)

        The M134 originated in 1963. I wouldn't call 23 years worth of production "a few". And while the background process is indeed a bitch, one can and does see M134's listed occasionally with six figure prices. And there were plenty of full automatic weapons made prior to 1986. Not that I agree with the arbitrary line in the sand.

      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday July 26 2019, @12:32AM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Friday July 26 2019, @12:32AM (#871299)

        A class III license is very difficult, but not impossible to obtain. Jesse James, the motorcycle builder turned gunsmith even builds them legally.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl-MrDw8ahg [youtube.com]

        1:52 for machine gun.

        --
        Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:37PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:37PM (#871222)

      It's more like trying to argue that speech on the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment. It's just absurd on its face.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 26 2019, @02:57PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday July 26 2019, @02:57PM (#871492)

        Well if "on a computer" is enough to make a patent unique, than "on the Internet" must mean it's not speech /s

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"