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: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:13PM (6 children)
Indeed. I assume many here may be familiar with it, but if not, take some time to read "My life as an international arms courier" [epic.org] written in 1995 by someone who attempted to "follow the law" when traveling internationally by getting a license for his encrypted devices.
If the government can treat encrypted devices as "arms," why can't we make a 2nd Amendment argument against them?
(Note that I haven't looked into relevant law, and I suspect this is just a joke that we can laugh about. But the funny thing is these sorts of technicalities are sometimes what ends up overturning a court ruling... Also, the invocation of Bill Clinton isn't necessarily apt here, as he inherited Cold War era restrictions and actually eased them [wikipedia.org] by reclassifying encrypted devices from military "munitions" to regulation by the Commerce Department, though still with far too cumbersome restrictions.)
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:24PM (5 children)
Dangerous turf, because it is already upheld as legal that some types of arms and accoutrement (automatic firearms, SBRs, suppressors) may be restricted by requiring tax stamps and approval, and local jurisdictions may enable further regulation. If anything, that supports Barr's argument that the government has a legitimate interest in restriction - can see it now that you have to pay a tax for encryption and part of getting whatever it is approved is to have a backdoor in it.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @05:30PM (1 child)
All true... though as I said, it was mostly a joke.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:45PM
Yeah, I guess my humor module is burnt out when it comes to anybody in the current administration. Should try to cultivate it more to give the crying some sharp relief.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:07PM (2 children)
i know they require tax stamps for some things, but what court cases are you referring to?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:01PM
Primarily United States v. Miller [wikipedia.org] held that the National Firearms Act, which imposes a transfer tax as well as registration requirements for the devices above plus others, was not a violation of the Second Amendment.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:03PM
And an example of the tax stamp can be seen here [wikipedia.org].
This sig for rent.