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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:40PM (3 children)
That's not in the Constitution, though. Nowhere does it mandate that the government's job must be simple and easy, and that people have a duty to make sure that that is so. The fourth amendment only gives the government the power to try to seize what they need when the proper warrants have been issued; it does not impose a duty on citizens that they must make it easy for the government to actually succeed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:57PM
In a free society, the job of the police is to make the lives of the citizens easier.
In an authoritarian society, the job of the citizens is to make the lives of the police easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:30PM (1 child)
No, but even an outright ban on using encryption (like that could work) does not subvert the 4th Amendment. The fourth says the government cannot search or seize your possessions without a warrant specifying a probable cause for it. (For which there are recognized exceptions, like the vast majority of the constitutional amendments since rights are never absolute). But it says not one damn thing about the government guaranteeing you that you have a right that your possessions can be made to not be searchable nor that they can't be seized. To the contrary, the law could well be constructed that your possessions must be searchable and the 4th would not have a damn thing to say about it, other than whether or not a warrant was used when a government search was executed. (Or any of the numerous exceptions the Supreme Court has defined for that). That's what Barr is threatening and I believe that is a serious threat that would withstand constitutional scrutiny in a court - the only standard that matters. Thus, as I said, the 4th is a thin reed to rely upon in this case.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday July 26 2019, @06:03AM
Nice strawman. The government doesn't have to guarantee you that right. Your electronic documents can be encrypted beyond their ability to decrypt with or without a government guarantee.
Now that's an interesting interpretation and a more relevant point. I could see it being argued that way given the courts ability to demand the production of documents. It certainly wouldn't be more of a stretch than some of the things they have done under the commerce clause.
Many countries already have laws saying you must decrypt on demand. I don't know of any cases yet in AU of people jailed for refusing, but I'm fairly sure the UK has had some under their RIPA.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.