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: 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?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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