Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The FBI's director says the agency is collecting data that he will present next year in hopes of sparking a national conversation about law enforcement's increasing inability to access encrypted electronic devices.
Speaking on Friday at the American Bar Association conference in San Francisco, James Comey says the agency was unable to access 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months.
Comey says encryption technology makes it impossible in a growing number of cases to search electronic devices. He says it's up to U.S. citizens to decide whether to modify the technology.
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-chief-calls-national-talk-over-encryption-vs-safety-n624101
Related Stories
James Comey has been asked by President Trump to stay on as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Comey is three years into a ten-year term.
News at NYT (which broke the story), USA Today, Washington Post, CNN, and The Hill.
Here's the bulk of our extensive past coverage of FBI Director Comey's career (oldest first):
2014:
FBI Director Concerned about Encryption on Smartphones
F.B.I. Director Calls "Dark" Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving
To FBI Director Comey: You Reap What You Sow!
2015:
F.B.I. Has No Doubt that North Korea Attacked Sony, says Director
FBI Chief Links Video Scrutiny of Police to Rise in Violent Crime
2016:
Apple Ordered by Judge to Help Decrypt San Bernadino Shooter's phone
FBI Unable to Decrypt California Terrorists' Cell Phone
FBI vs. Apple Encryption Fight Continues
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
FBI Error Locked San Bernardino Attacker's iPhone
FBI's iPhone Hack Only Works on 5C and Older
Washington Post: The FBI Paid "Gray Hat(s)", Not Cellebrite, for iPhone Unlock
FBI Director Blames 'Viral Video Effect' for Spike in Violent Crime
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
The new FBI Director Christopher Wray has been repeating the broken rhetoric of the Crypto Wars:
In recent testimony before Congress, the director of the FBI has again highlighted what the government sees as the problem of easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption.
In prepared remarks from last Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that encryption presents a "significant challenge to conducting lawful court-ordered access," he said, again using the longstanding government moniker "Going Dark."
The statement was just one portion of his testimony about the agency's priorities for the coming year.
The FBI and its parent agency, the Department of Justice, have recently stepped up public rhetoric about the so-called dangers of "Going Dark." In recent months, both Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have given numerous public statements about this issue.
Remember to use encryption irresponsibly, and stay salty, my FBI friends.
Previously: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
PureVPN Logs Helped FBI Net Alleged Cyberstalker
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
Great, Now There's "Responsible Encryption"
FBI Bemoans Phone Encryption After Texas Shooting, but Refuses Apple's Help
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
Apple argues stronger encryption will thwart criminals in letter to Australian government
Apple has long been a proponent for strong on-device encryption, most notably for its iPhones and the iOS operating system. This has often frustrated law enforcement agencies both in the US and overseas, many of which claim the company's encryption tools and policies are letting criminals avoid capture by masking communications and securing data from the hands of investigators.
Now, in a letter to the Australian government, Apple says it thinks encryption is in fact a benefit and public good that will only strength our protections against cyberattacks and terrorism. In Apple's eyes, encryption makes everyone's devices harder to hack and less vulnerable to take-overs, viruses, and other malicious attacks that could undermine personal and corporate security, as well as public infrastructure and services. Apple is specifically responding to the Australian Parliament's Assistance and Access Bill, which was introduced late last month and is designed to help the government more easily access the devices and data of criminals during active investigations.
Letter here (#53), or at Scribd and DocumentCloud.
Also at Ars Technica, Engadget, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider.
Police told to avoid looking at recent iPhones to avoid lockouts
Police have yet to completely wrap their heads around modern iPhones like the X and XS, and that's clearer than ever thanks to a leak. Motherboard has obtained a presentation slide from forensics company Elcomsoft telling law enforcement to avoid looking at iPhones with Face ID. If they gaze at it too many times (five), the company said, they risk being locked out much like Apple's Craig Federighi was during the iPhone X launch event. They'd then have to enter a passcode that they likely can't obtain under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from having to provide self-incriminating testimony.
Also at 9to5Mac.
Related:
California Lawmaker Tries Hand at Banning Encryption
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Hacker Decrypts Apple's Secure Enclave Processor (SEP) Firmware
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
Law Enforcement Agencies Increasingly Cracking iPhones Using "GrayKey"
Australian Government Pursues "Golden Key" for Encryption
When's A Backdoor Not A Backdoor? When The Oz Government Says It Isn't
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
FBI Used Cooperative Suspect's Face to Unlock His iPhone
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Is an Infectious Problem
Just in case there were any lingering doubts about U.S. law enforcement's stance on end-to-end encryption, which prevents information from being read by anyone but its intended recipient, FBI executive assistant director Amy Hess told the Wall Street Journal this week that its use "is a problem that infects law enforcement and the intelligence community more and more so every day."
The quote was published in a piece about efforts from the UK, Australia and India to undermine end-to-end encryption. All three countries have passed or proposed legislation that compels tech companies to supply certain information to government agencies. The laws vary in their specifics, including restrictions on to what information law enforcement can request access, but the gist is that they don't want any data to be completely inaccessible.
Related: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
Split Key Cryptography is Back... Again – Why Government Back Doors Don't Work
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hartree on Sunday August 07 2016, @02:55AM
"FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety"
It's my nation , too. And you may not like what I have to say.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:18AM
Perhaps he should be having this talk with Hillary Clinton. Or not, the more bumbling idiots revealing their criminality, the easier it will be to topple them.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Gaaark on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:49AM
Well, really!, AGREED!
Hillary leaks confidential info like I leak crap after eating dairy products, but that is fine.
But others aren't so FUCKING STUPID, and OMG, terrorists!!!!!
Did this crap from Comey REALLY come from Hillary instead???
Man, she is evil, and the US is sucking her clit. Does it smell like teen spirit?, I'm guessing........NOT!!! More like NIN's 'Closer'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday August 07 2016, @04:11AM
It's the lizard people. It's one of their last bids to harness the spiral power they've found on this planet.
They are going to overplay their hand.
John May lives!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:54AM
FTFY.
With the drain-bamaged competition, no wonder.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 07 2016, @04:30AM
I can think of a more wise man to turn to to speak than myself...Ben Franklin..."Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".
Honestly that says it better than I ever could.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:28PM
I can think of a more wise man to turn to to speak than myself...Ben Franklin..."Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".
While I agree with the sentiment, I really wish people would quit dragging out that (supposed) Ben Franklin quotation to make this argument. In the context of that quotation [npr.org], Ben Franklin was actually arguing in FAVOR of a state legislature's power to have greater power over private citizens. (Wealthy private citizens in this case, who were trying to buy off the governor to veto the legislature instead of letting themselves be taxed for defense. Franklin was arguing -- as a legislator -- that it was in the interest of our collective welfare for the government -- elected by the people -- to have greater power (i.e., "liberty") to tax. Wealthy people were instead trying to disrupt this process for their own "security," which in this case was a word that implied power as well as literally money.)
So, when Franklin wrote it, he meant roughly the opposite of what most people who use the quote mean: he wanted greater government power to tax private citizens for the war effort.
(Score: 4, Informative) by davester666 on Sunday August 07 2016, @07:25AM
And we already had a "conversation". We're fine with you not being able to read every single fucking message/email/whatever on every single fucking phone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:38AM
More to the point, the adage that if you outlaw encryption then only outlaws will have encryption couldn't be more true. Applied Cryptography demonstrated a simple way of getting around the previous attempts by the USA to restrict access to strong crypto: the example code in the books had symbolic constants for key length that were defined to the 'weak' variants for which export was permitted. To turn them into the strong variants, you modified the key length constant. Anyone who wanted strong encryption illegally had it trivially. Unfortunately, the legacy of forcing standards like SSL to incorporate weak cyphers to allow export has led to a huge cost to the world economy (including the USA) in compromises due to attacks that trigger downgrading to one of the weaker algorithms.
The debate hinges on a false premise: that it's possible to control access to effective crypto. Unless you're going to be decrypting everything and analysing it to see if it looks like plausible plaintext, then it's very difficult to even identify which people on a network are using strong crypto vs weak crypto (vs transferring unencrypted data that doesn't fit your model). It's trivial to use one-time pads and linguistic steganography to embed secret messages that are almost impossible for an attacker to track, let alone decrypt, in troll messages. The basic idea of linguistic steganography is that you take a piece of text known to both parties (for example, the famous 'BSD is dying' post) and permute it subtly, introducing typos, displacing punctuation, substituting homonyms, and so on to encode a low bitrate message. If someone does this, it's very hard to tell the difference between messages that made these changes to encode information and messages that made these changes to get around spam filters. If you post the result, which includes a message that's encrypted with a one-time pad on the green site (or similar), then someone doing traffic analysis just knows that you posted some spam and that a few million people loaded a page that contains the spam. They don't know what the message says (unless they've copied the code book using some more traditional means) and they don't know who received it. Making Internet banking less secure won't help.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @02:57AM
If it weren't for your proven track record of unconstitutional actions, including the outright illegal and blatantly corrupt perversion of justice known as parallel construction [wikipedia.org]... if you'd actually honor the constitution and the law and only go after people when you have a valid warrant in hand and only looked in the specific places listed in the warrant for only the specific thing listed in the warrant, like the constitution demands, then maybe we wouldn't have to go about encrypting everything just to try to keep our fundamental human rights and constitutional rights from being routinely trampled by the occupying military force formerly known as our law enforcement agencies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:02AM
If the fibbies can break my encryption so can the bad guys. We'll assume for the sake of argument the fibbies aren't the bad guys.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Funny) by physicsmajor on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:29AM
Never assume.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday August 07 2016, @04:49AM
..even "for the sake of argument"?
I read that as a way to reduce the number of variables in a though experiment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday August 07 2016, @01:03PM
Never assume.
If you really are a physics major, then you have assumed. There is blood on your hands. (Spherical cow blood which for the sake of this argument we'll assume is perfectly incompressible.)
But the use of assumption is as a standard rhetorical device. Even if we assume generously, the implicit conditions and assumptions of Comey's viewpoint, we're still left with bad guys having an easier time of getting into our encrypted stuff and no way to prevent bad guys from using or developing unbroken encryption. In other words, there is a huge internal logic flaw in Comey's argument that breaks it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @04:58AM
They won't break your encryption, they'll request the right to imprison you as guilty until you break it for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:43PM
Sure works great against singular targets but not so well against entire nations. On the other hand the US already has both the largest prison population and highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 07 2016, @07:29AM
Again, an "insightfunny" mod would come in very handy.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:29AM
That's not true. The government has tons of hardware. There is probably some size of encryption key such that the (okay, a) government can brute force it, but a standard bad actor cannot.
Now, that doesn't scale to breaking everyone's encryption simultaneously....
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday August 08 2016, @01:24AM
There is probably some size of encryption key such that the (okay, a) government can brute force it, but a standard bad actor cannot.
That's not my understanding. Using the right algorithm with the right key makes your stuff pretty much unbreakable. The main point is "right key", it needs to be A) Long (40+ characters); B) Non-obvious (duh); and C) use all the ascii characters 0-0x7f, and 0-0xff if your system can handle it.
Although I was a math major I never studied encryption. I don't understand encryption. I rely on the experts to judge how secure I am. If Bruce Schneier says "this is good", I tend to think this is good. If some random web page says "this is good", I tend to think "hmmm, has the NSA funnelled any money to this guy recently?"
I understand the NSA was caught tweaking encryption algorithms, providing magic numbers that turned out to be not so magic. It's my understanding that, even though the NSA knows how un-magic those numbers are, using a good key can mean the NSA will take a decade or two to decrypt your message.
That, of course, is if the NSA thinks your message is worth spending the resources on. If you typically use AES with a good key then A) the NSA has to notice you; and B) decide which of your messages they want to try to crack.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday August 09 2016, @07:40AM
It's true that there are (probably) algorithms and keys that are safe from the NSA. What I said was different. I said there is probably an algorithm/key combo , such that the NSA can brute force it in a timely manner (or MI6 or similar), but traditionally baddies cannot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:32AM
What the Government also has is the power to make life easy or hard for corporations. Tax law. Patent law. IP law. Just to name a few.
Corprations ( especially software corporations ) are at a strong disadvantage if they don't co-operate with the government - likely making special back doors just for them, and agreeing to secrecy so that only some people in the corporation and some people in the government is privy to the backdoors.
I get the strong impression the only reason we have so many security holes in our software, and the government is tolerating it, is that those were back doors inserted at Government request - that were discovered when astute computer users noted something amiss. I have no doubt in my mind that Government and the software industry are doing their darndest to promote ignorance of the innards of computer operations using things like "intellectual property" restrictions on disassembling stuff, or even talking about it. Gag orders.
Now, if the people in Washington started all coming down with illness traced to their food, how welcome would some "law-makers" who pass law forbidding disassembly of food so as to trace the causes of infection be? I think this is a big problem with the American Way.
We let others make law, we agree to abide by it, but do not hold them responsible for it.
When it comes to law written like this DMCA stuff I saw them pass, I would love to see the law enforcement people put their guns back in the holster and say "Honorable Congressman.... you passed this crazy law - YOU go enforce it!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:14AM
Pointless.
It's like asking for a national discussion on banning vaccines, denying global warming, or restricting the Second Amendment.
You're going to get slaughtered on the biggest stage.
Actually, I would love to see this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:22AM
Comey says encryption technology makes it impossible in a growing number of cases to search electronic devices. He says it's up to U.S. citizens to decide whether to modify the technology.
No.
There, that was an easy decision.
I'll tell you what: if you feel unsafe, you modify your technology, okay? The main danger to me is the people who want to be able to snoop on anything I do.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fnord666 on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:38AM
No.
There, that was an easy decision.
I'll tell you what: if you feel unsafe, you modify your technology, okay? The main danger to me is the people who want to be able to snoop on anything I do.
Exactly. Comey, the FBI and the various LE agencies are by far the greater threat to our our liberty and security than any other terrorist group I know of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:28AM
Department of Justice Official Tells Hundred Federal Judges to Use Tor:
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/department-of-justice-official-tells-hundred-federal-judges-to-use-tor [vice.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @03:57AM
Remember when we had all that encryption-is-a-munition stuff? Remember how the best and brightest in the country were being wooed to leave the country where they could do their work? Remember t-shirts with encryption code on them in perl?
Comey, the best case scenario is that you will drive the exact people you cry about wanting to be able to hire out of the country, and you will leave the US of A worse off in terms of international competition, in terms of encryption technologies, in terms of being able to simply protect itself.
Of course this is all consistent with your persistent crapping on the bill of rights, so maybe rather than being all surprised we should simply elect someone who will hang you for treason. Judging by your selective recommendations on prosecution, that would not be Clinton.
(Score: 3, Informative) by anubi on Sunday August 07 2016, @08:54AM
I really wonder if anyone has the mindset and driven for this kind of stuff, would this kind if individual be tolerated in the workplace?
For instance, would a student of +Fravia and +ORC ( or even knew who these people were ) be considered for a classified position?
My personal observation is the government establishments are looking more for someone who looks good in a suit, has a good firm business handshake, and knows not to rock the boat - no matter what they see coming up.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 07 2016, @07:51PM
Unfortunately, while I believe you could make a very good case for malfeasance, it doesn't meet the constitutional definition of treason.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @02:26AM
Intentionally weakening encryption to allow enemies easier access to our systems wouldn't count to you as giving aid to our enemies? Because thats how I see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:40AM
The enemies can be foreign or domestic. The government is trying to completely destroy the highest law of the land, which sure seems like treason to me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @04:16AM
How about we talk about the constitution? Instead of trying to achieve some mythical "balance" fabricated by rights-violating government thugs, how about we just let the constitution be our balance? You know, like the fourth amendment and the first amendment (trying to ban certain kinds of encryption would certainly violate freedom of speech).
And how about we stop pretending that the fourth amendment does anything more than allow the government to attempt to find what it wants if it gets a valid warrant? The fourth amendment does not say that the government has the power to ban any technology that makes it extremely difficult or even impossible to find something once the government has a valid warrant. The fourth amendment only allows the government to try to get what it wants; it does not mandate that their success be guaranteed, easy, or even possible. The idea that we should ban certain technologies because they make the government's job harder is completely at odds with the principles this country is supposed to stand for and the highest law of the land. It's much better that many guilty people go free than for everyone's rights to be violated in the name of safety at the hands of a government that is supposed to respect their rights.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday August 07 2016, @05:12AM
Talk and talk and talk. Keep talking until you've scared the American people enough to stand by and watch their rights get taken away. Show us "evidence" that we don't care about anyway.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:52PM
Don't forget the talk and talk corollary: We vote democratically about issues... that is again and again until finally the correct vote is cast. After that, when the New Enabling Act has been chosen there will never again be need to vote.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 [wikipedia.org] )
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dingus on Sunday August 07 2016, @05:34AM
"In other news, according to the FBI, 650 out of 5,000 safes searched in 2015 were too secure to break open. The FBI says it wants to pass a law that would require all safes to made of cardboard, so that they will have easy access."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @07:21AM
You want OS working hard?
You want best friend who will never let you down?
Enter Plan9 OS!!
Nothing better in combination than a cold beer, Plan9 OS, and free AOL email!
I feel safe, warm, and secure when I sit down with a cold beer, boot up Plan9, and check out what my best friends
forever are doing with FREE AOL EMAIL!
AOL + Plan9 OS: The winning combo no one will see coming. No one will expect. Adapt, evolve, and triumph!
You will win all mighty battles.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 08 2016, @02:47AM
Don't forget Inferno, the successor to plan9.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday August 07 2016, @01:32PM
Encryption is safety.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @02:55PM
The FBI's director says the agency is collecting data
Collecting data you say? I thought you guys prevented thousands of plots already, that you already had millions of encrypted conversations into which you could not tap that could lead to attacks already. Attacks that are imminent, thousands of them I thought... I thought this was an urgent issue for you guys, not something where you'd want to set precedent... But that's only if I were dumb enough to believe a word you say, and I'm not!
"Enemies foreign or domestic" and all that...
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday August 08 2016, @12:14AM
This is the kind of guy that, once he gets what he wants, he'll ask for more. Even when he has banned all encryption and crime still happens, he'll want psychics next to label potential criminals, kinda like in Minority Report. What a loser.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:22PM
I don't think we're the intended audience for this. In fact, he probably wants to keep techies out of things as much as possible.
What he wants is to be able to stand up and say "We've held a full public consultation, and most people are in favour of restricting encryption so that we can keep them safe." Then TPTB will have clear, ethical grounds for doing what they want.
And the best way of being able to (honestly) say that is to have the consultation on their terms, with the argument framed in their way. If they can engage as many non-techies as possible, then they'll be able to scare them with all sorts of worrying-sounding stories and claims (probably involving terrorism, pædophiles, and/or whatever the next Big Scary Thing turns out to be), and the listeners won't know enough to disclaim them.
So what can we do? I guess the best way to foil that is to educate people. Or at least, convince them that security and privacy are good, and that removing them has risks.
As I've said before, what we're missing is concrete examples. Simple scenarios that you can explain in a few words, demonstrating those risks. Saying "But the gummint can read your emails!" doesn't cut it any more, because in most cases, that won't have any direct ill effects that people can see. (And because people don't seriously distrust TPTB now, they can't seriously imagine a time when they would.) Most of the discussion about security and privacy is too abstract, too hypothetical, and people often don't relate to that. We need people to feel the dangers, to understand them at a gut level, in a dramatic, obvious, personal way.
We also need to demonstrate clearly that restricting encryption won't really have the desired effect of keeping people safer, either.
If we can come up with strong enough examples of the risks, and spread them widely enough, then there may be a chance of heading this off. But it needs to be clearer, more direct, and more personal than "But... surveillance is baaad, mmmkay?".
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:38AM
Bungling Microsoft Singlehandedly Proves that Golden Backdoor Keys are a Terrible Idea [soylentnews.org]