SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, who was known for prosecuting the legal case against Apple to get them to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, has published an extraordinary essay on Lawfare where he surprisingly argues rather for strong encryption without government back doors.
From Schneier on Security:
In the face of congressional inaction, and in light of the magnitude of the threat, it is time for governmental authorities -- including law enforcement -- to embrace encryption because it is one of the few mechanisms that the United States and its allies can use to more effectively protect themselves from existential cybersecurity threats, particularly from China. This is true even though encryption will impose costs on society, especially victims of other types of crime.
[...] I am unaware of a technical solution that will effectively and simultaneously reconcile all of the societal interests at stake in the encryption debate, such as public safety, cybersecurity and privacy as well as simultaneously fostering innovation and the economic competitiveness of American companies in a global marketplace.
[...] All public safety officials should think of protecting the cybersecurity of the United States as an essential part of their core mission to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. And they should be doing so even if there will be real and painful costs associated with such a cybersecurity-forward orientation. The stakes are too high and our current cybersecurity situation too grave to adopt a different approach.
Baker joins the growing list of former US law enforcement and national security senior officials who have come out in favor of strong encryption over backdoors, such as former NSA directors Gen. Michael Hayden and V. Adm. Mike McConnell, former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, Counter-Terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, and former deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @07:32PM (6 children)
Law enforcement's argument is that they need backdoors to stay ahead of the really bad guys. (Terrorists, drug cartels, and think of the children.)
So if you make a law to require back doors, what makes these really bad folks obey these laws when they are obviously not concerned with obeying others?
Given that the backdoors are far from free, having no answer to this question seems the best argument against them.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:52PM (2 children)
Those are mostly the same arguments made during the 1990's when the US government decided encryption was naughty, and slapped export controls on strong encryption.
Of course, those of us who don't live the US carried on using strong encryption because your export controls don't apply to us, and I am assuming people within the US could download whatever tools they needed from Sweden, or Germany (or any other country not concerned with the US government's stupid rules).
These people can say or do whatever they want. It makes no difference to maths.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:18PM (1 child)
It also apparently made no difference to export controls [milk.com] either (sorry, ancient story).
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:59PM
I may be ancient, but it is still very interesting.
Weird sort of security theatre story really.
This guy [wikipedia.org] wrote a book about how that whole world works. It is hard going, but worth a read.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:11AM (2 children)
That exactly. The gun rights supporters have been saying it for a long long time. Ever more draconian laws, ever more obtuse, confusing laws DO NOT make people safer. Lawbreakers are going to break the laws, no matter how liberal the laws are, or how draconian. You can stack the mystical, the draconian, the restrictive, and prohibitionary laws hundreds deep, and the law breakers will cheerfully break all of the laws. Gun free zones are worse than meaningless to those who would shoot helpless people, and encryption free zones will be the same. In fact, like gun free zones, a ban on encryption will invite the attention of those who would encrypt. And, the laws are impotent to actually stop a violator.
Laws will always be meaningless or worse, to those who would break them, and especially so when the laws are inherently meaningless.
What do I mean by "worse than meaningless"? I mean people who are lawfully going about their business, encrypting their data (or carrying a weapon) one day, become criminals the next day because an idiot law was written specifically to target those people. Overnight, thousands, or even millions of people become criminals, because someone at the capital decided, "We don't like people doing this and that, so we'll make it illegal."
In view of the fact that gubbermint has long considered encryption to be a "munition", I'm amused that people who don't care much about the second amendment are using the same arguments that second amendment supporters have been using for decades now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)
As always, it's more complex than that. People will indeed continue to break laws no matter what occurs, true. But one can and does find that with increased penalties individuals might start considering whether they might consider paying the price for a given crime. Utility is real, although it doesn't always control, either because a person doesn't believe they'll be caught or isn't deterred by the penalty.
As to gun-free zones.... What they do is make anyone with a gun in them (except the police) immediately a criminal and suspect. One of the hardest things for cops to do in an active shooter environment is try to figure out who the "bad guys" are from nominal good guys who have guns and just want to help. That doesn't mean the cops just kill anyone with a gun in a gun-free zone, but it does allow them to automatically consider any non-police armed person in such an area a hostile party and does allow them to open fire if the gun holder makes the slightest hostile move. That actually protects the cops' lives, at the potential sacrifice of lives until such time as the cops can arrive.
Anyway, it's more than just "we don't like people doing that," which is under consideration here. Strong encryption can indeed facilitate crime just as it facilitates legal activities. Neither of which means it is good to outlaw either encryption or mandate the use of backdoors. It's also not "overnight" that such an action would occur - just as now a law would be passed and a date would be set for enforcement. But that's basically true for any criminal law, so just because people would become criminals because a law is enacted is no excuse to not pass a law.
But what is really means is just that your argument is flawed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:50PM
I don't believe it's as complex as you make it sound. People who fear and/or don't like guns want to pass laws making guns illegal. People who fear and/or don't like encryption want to make effective encryption illegal. In both cases, We the People need to send a message to Washington. We will not comply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOolKy-l0E [youtube.com]