Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-so-subtle-approach dept.

Another day, another U.S. law enforcement official calling for regulation and weakening of encryption. This time, Michael Steinbach, assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, has told Congress that Internet communication services are helping ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist groups as they are now "Going Dark," and the FBI needs a "front door":

As far as the FBI is concerned, private companies must "build technological solutions to prevent encryption above all else," the Washington Post reports Steinbach as saying. That's a pretty sharp reverse ferret from the FBI, which four years ago was recommending encryption as a basic security measure. But Steinbach said evildoers are hiding behind US-made technology to mask their actions.

Steinbach told the committee that encrypted communications were the bane of the agency's efforts to keep the American public safe from terror. But the FBI wasn't insisting on back door access to encryption; rather, it wants companies to work directly with law enforcement where necessary. "Privacy above all other things, including safety and freedom from terrorism, is not where we want to go," Steinbach said. "We're not looking at going through a back door or being nefarious."

Instead the FBI wants a front door; a system to allow it to break encryption created by US companies. Understandably, US tech firms aren't that keen on the idea, since "we have borked encryption" isn't much of a selling point.

Steinbach claims that while "traditional voice telephone companies are required by CALEA to develop and maintain capabilities to intercept communications when law enforcement has lawful authority, that requirement does not extend to most Internet communications services." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, fought unsuccessfully against the expansion of CALEA in 2004 to cover Internet and some VoIP providers. Efforts to expand CALEA continued in 2010, when the FBI first began to complain about "Going Dark":

In 2010, the FBI began its "Going Dark" campaign. Despite the fact that we are in a Golden Age of Surveillance, the campaign is a charm offensive to convince politicians that FBI is unable to listen in on Internet users' digital communications after obtaining a court order because of recent advances in technology. The proposed legislation would have forced all communications services to build secret backdoors for the government to spy on users and to decrypt any encrypted messages exchanged via the service. The proposal's problems were many, and it quietly died after a tremendous amount of uproar.

In the beginning of 2013, it was reported the FBI was again pushing for a wholesale expansion of CALEA to all Internet communications services. Similar to 2010, the FBI wants to force all companies with messaging services to engineer their products with a secret government backdoor and to decrypt all encrypted messages. The proposal also adds another component: fining companies for not cooperating. In May 2013, the New York Times revealed that the White House was "on the verge" of backing the proposal. While the bill was not introduced in 2013, updating CALEA was a stated priority for FBI Director James Comey in 2014 and we expect it to be so for 2015 as well.


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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @04:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @04:57PM (#193291)

    ...ban encryption outright, and give U.S. citizens a reason to put that "right to bear arms" to good use. Cos' shit is gonna get whack (or at least, it should, but probably won't).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @05:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @05:10PM (#193293)

    If the billions (trillions?) of dollars that went into developing and buying weapons (and lining the pockets of warmongering despicable greedy mofo's) had gone into research into alternative fuel sources instead then the U.S. could have kept its nose out of the damned middle-east and not gotten itself into this mess in the first place! Unless that was part of the plan all along? Was it?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:24AM (#193537)

      Unless that was part of the plan all along? Was it?

      I think it certainly was. The cold war didn't make too much sense after Soviet Union imploded and there were thousands of people working for the military industrial complex suddenly feeling the very real prospect of unemployment. Billions of dollars might stop flowing their way. There was a desperate need for a new enemy. And like the war on any noun, this was the perfect enemy: it could be never vanquished.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:27AM (#193486)

    give U.S. citizens a reason to put that "right to bear arms" to good use

    If all the undermining, subverting, and ignoring of the constitution the government has done so far isn't enough reason to "put that 'right to bear arms' to good use" then nothing is or ever will be. Anyone claiming bullshit like "The second amendment is to protect the rest" while not taking any action is so transparently full of shit its disgusting. Something gun nutters fail to understand is that the second is meaningless when the constitution itself has been made irrelevant.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:00PM (#193703)

    Does nobody think of the poor bears? Yeah, you might have a right to their arms, but it's still cruel!