Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
"We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he [Rod Rosenstein] told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption."
[...] In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption."
"I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption."
[...] He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable."
[...] Rosenstein closed his interview by noting that he understands re-engineering encryption to accommodate government may make it weaker.
"And I think that's a legitimate issue that we can debate—how much risk are we willing to take in return for the reward?" he said.
Related Stories
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
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"
Intelligence agency heads have warned against using Huawei and ZTE products and services:
The heads of six major US intelligence agencies have warned that American citizens shouldn't use products and services made by Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE. According to a report from CNBC, the intelligence chiefs made the recommendation during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday. The group included the heads of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the director of national intelligence.
During his testimony, FBI Director Chris Wray said the the government was "deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks." He added that this would provide "the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage."
These warnings are nothing new. The US intelligence community has long been wary of Huawei, which was founded by a former engineer in China's People's Liberation Army and has been described by US politicians as "effectively an arm of the Chinese government." This caution led to a ban on Huawei bidding for US government contracts in 2014, and it's now causing problems for the company's push into consumer electronics.
Verizon and AT&T recently cancelled plans to sell Huawei's Mate 10 Pro smartphone.
Don't use a Huawei phone because it's too Chinese. Don't use an Apple phone because strong encryption is not "responsible encryption". Which phone is just right for the FBI?
Previously: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei
Related: FBI Director Christopher Wray Keeps War on Encryption Alive
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying
The Washington Post has a story which says:
FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Tuesday renewed a call for tech companies to help law enforcement officials gain access to encrypted smartphones, describing it as a "major public safety issue."
Wray said the bureau was unable to gain access to the content of 7,775 devices in fiscal 2017 — more than half of all the smartphones it tried to crack in that time period — despite having a warrant from a judge.
"Being unable to access nearly 7,800 devices in a single year is a major public safety issue," he said, taking up a theme that was a signature issue of his predecessor, James B. Comey.
Wray was then quoted as saying:
"We're not interested in the millions of devices of everyday citizens," he said in New York at Fordham University's International Conference on Cyber Security. "We're interested in those devices that have been used to plan or execute terrorist or criminal activities."
He then went on to promote the long-disparaged idea of key escrow:
As an example of a possible compromise, Wray cited a case from New York several years ago. Four major banks, he said, were using a chat messaging platform called Symphony, which was marketed as offering "guaranteed data deletion." State financial regulators became concerned that the chat platform would hamper investigations of Wall Street.
"In response," Wray said, "the four banks reached an agreement with the regulators to ensure responsible use" of Symphony. They agreed to keep a copy of their communications sent through the app for seven years and to store duplicate copies of their encryption keys with independent custodians not controlled by the banks, he said.
To me this is more of the utter nonsense the government has spouted. When will they understand that key escrow only works when one trusts the government and the keeper of the keys?
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 Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @10:52PM (3 children)
F-U and the horse you rode in on.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:48PM
Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:49PM
Because I am pretty sure it was his goddamn predecessors, or he himself if he's been there long enough, that was responsible for the Infineon 'flaw' being implemented. We had this discussion 20 years ago which eventually resulted in foreign crypto technology overshadowing the US's and the US only limiting crypto export to its embargoed countries, leading to it becoming ubiquitous everywhere (because you can't really control the crypto unless you monopolize and backdoor the processors... oh wait.)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:03AM
Saved in my quote file from a Techdirt article about the previous occasion when Rosenstein was speaking about encryption:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday November 11 2017, @10:53PM (17 children)
What he's saying is that the legitimate conversation concerns just how much risk WE will be required to assume in order to make HIS job easier.
The moment one of us wants to discuss *whether or not* he gets to impose this additional risk on us at all, well that's just not a legitimate issue for debate.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:16PM (15 children)
After proving how often and to what degree the Government abused its power and violated statutory provisions of spying on citizens it take a special sort of Chutzpah to suggest they should be trusted with anything. They can never be trusted, and there isn't anything to be gained by going through a dead terrorists phone, or even a live one.
They've still got an arrest warrant out for Snowden, who should be given the Presidential medal of freedom.
Correct that error and we can talk.
If you could get 100% agreement of at least 8 supreme court judges, 4 State supreme court judges, at least 5 local defense attorneys (no prosecutors) that a phone needs to be decrypted then maybe. Take it to court, and get a secret ballot from all those people. Then Maybe.
Any Judge that volunteers for or accepts Fisa duty is automatically disqualified (and should probably be put on trial for his life).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:49PM
hey didn't trump promise to both drain the swamp and also cut back regulations?
this is one heck of swampy regulation to introduce
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maggotbrain on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:59PM (2 children)
Why would you provide any exception for this? There should be no exceptions to wanting encryption to be unbreakable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:47AM (1 child)
I don't wan't an exception. But I can think of some situations where it might be reasonable.
Remember, you were only promised protection from unreasonable [wikipedia.org] search and seizure.
I'm suggesting there might be a way to make the process of getting a warrant tougher than the rubber stamp processes used now.
In the end, I doubt its practical to entrust government with the means of decryption, because if they have the technology, they will use it, with or without a warrant. The only solution is to continue to develop unbreakable encryption.
However, Encryption was outlawed once in this country already. You'd do well to remember that. It was easy. It was just declared a munition.
This trial balloon by the DOJ, which uses the key word "unreasonable" (see the link I provided above) sounds to me like they are laying the legal ground work to walk encryption back doors right through a loophole in the constitution.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:56AM
They didn't need legislation to walk backdoors right on into our systems, just a consolidated enough ecosystem of computer hardware to keep actual security and system variation to a minimum.
There are a lot of people who need to be executed for treason against both the laws and values of this country, and I posit that this guy if tried and sentenced would be among them.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:31AM
Can't mod you any higher than you are already, but very well said.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:16AM (8 children)
> there isn't anything to be gained by going through a dead terrorists phone, or even a live one.
Are you retarded? Of course there is. Otherwise they wouldn't want to do it so bad.
A list of contacts and recent calls. Who his friends and relatives are. Who he buys guns from. Possible links to other terrorists or the leaders who give the orders. Call logs with triangulated location data to know where the terrorist has been.
All of these are quite valuable information.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday November 12 2017, @05:30AM (7 children)
Despite your flamebaitery, you are correct. There is something to be gained. I'm still not willing to trade strong encryption for that something (and I would go further than frojack -- his criteria for allowing government backdoors doesn't impress me).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday November 13 2017, @01:34AM (6 children)
I doubt there is anything of importance on the phone that they can't get by other means.
Texts, phone calls, will all be on pen register down at the phone company. They quickly find out where these guys live, and track down their landlord, friends, credit cards and where they were used, and who's phone was in the area the perpetrator's phone was in in the weeks, days before the attack. Dump all that into a computer and its worth more than a text message saying "Grandma is doing fine".
What exactly were you expecting to find? There was nothing on the phones of the Bataclan terrorists, they didn't even bother to encrypt. There was nothing on the phone of the 2015 San Bernardino shooters after the phones were decrypted. (you might have noticed how the feds just shut up about that after the Israelis decrypted it for them. )
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @02:27AM (5 children)
But what if they hypothetically did encrypt their messages? Or what if they saved the name of a contact who was using an otherwise hard to trace burner phone? Accepting that the government gained nothing from a couple of anecdotal cases doesn't disprove the general principle. We can't simultaneously argue that we need to hide things from the government and that the government has access to all of those things already (though you could still oppose a backdoor on the grounds that it could be exploited by actors without access to those other channels).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 13 2017, @10:12AM (4 children)
If terrorists go free because of encryption, so be it.
Fuck the government.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @01:19PM (3 children)
I agree, I'm just saying they might!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 13 2017, @01:56PM (2 children)
Yeah. Some people pretend it can't happen because when pressed for evidence that this is an actual problem, the FBI gives out a list of dogshit examples [theintercept.com]. Or because they have other means to catch criminals (which may be true in many cases).
Encryption could aid terrorism if used properly, by allowing secure communications, or at least hide information (say on a locked iPhone) that would otherwise lead to more people getting caught. The problem is that it's not worth it to ban/restrict encryption to stop a fraction of a tiny threat. Most terrorists won't get caught beforehand unless they are dumb or baited by FBI informants. All you need is a nice motor vehicle to get started, maybe with easily obtainable guns as a garnish. Maybe view your preferred propaganda over Tor to work up the nerve, and don't make inflammatory statements on social media.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @03:39PM (1 child)
If the amount of preventable deaths was huge -- say, comparable to car wrecks -- my answer would be the same. Even scaling far past that, I'd look for other solutions rather than allow the government to peek at everything (but I'm opposed to the mere existence federal government).
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 13 2017, @03:54PM
existence of the federal
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:35PM
In other news [in.gov]: the Indiana legislature considered that the area of a circle shall be calculated by simpler means than use of the irrational constant pi.
Strong encryption exists, the ability to employ it exists, and has existed since time immemorial, one time pads have always been unbreakable.
The question here is whether or not we are going to forbid from commerce convenient consumer vehicles for employment of strong encryption?
I can't help drawing the absurd analogy to gun control: when strong crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will use strong crypto. The implications are pretty staggering for private information. Personally, I'd rather forbid from commerce convenient consumer vehicles for the deployment of fast lead projectiles - they scare me much more than what my neighbor might be recording or communicating privately. Of course, the easy availability of guns is one reason why we need a super-snooper organization in the first place. The more powerful the intelligence community is, the faster they can interdict "dangerous" social uprisings. It's clear that they are ineffective against lone gunmen, but anytime a group of people get together and form an armed militia they seem to be pretty effective at finding and neutralizing them before they can do anything impressive. Groups that diligently use strong crypto in their communications will hamper efforts to suppress their organization.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday November 12 2017, @06:49PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 11 2017, @10:53PM
Rosenstein has the typical 9th grade junior high school student's understanding of math. In effect, he's saying, "Let's reengineer math so that it's more to our liking."
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KiloByte on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:04PM (1 child)
We must admit, though, that these guys are real experts on what "unreasonable" means. Comes with practice.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:00AM
That's the thing right there. People use encryption in large part because it's so easy to use on those phones. They're so easy to use on those phones because law enforcement and criminals have a habit of breaking in and looking at our stuff without our permission.
If law enforcement would stop breaking the law and disrespecting the constitutional rights of citizens, it would make it that much less likely that people would use the encryption in the first place. Or at least, a form that they couldn't break.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:14PM (8 children)
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/10/28/1946227 [soylentnews.org]
compiling...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:08AM (7 children)
RamiK, I've noticed your propensity to use a backslash whenever convention demands a [forward] slash.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:24AM (1 child)
He's a contrarian.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday November 12 2017, @08:48PM
At least he's not an Albigensian.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:28AM (1 child)
Maybe he just likes microsoft?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:10AM
Yes, as first ac said, a contratrian.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Sunday November 12 2017, @10:30AM (2 children)
I alternate between 5 different (ANSI) keyboard languages that map the forwards slash through 3 different keys but keep the backwards slash at the same place.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:38PM (1 child)
That's a relief, I was afraid it had something to do with your filesystem preference.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by RamiK on Sunday November 12 2017, @09:28PM
Have no fear. I store all my files as embedded elements in RARed Word documents which I archive on my trusty FAT16 tape drives using the Dewey Decimal Classification to organize the folders.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 11 2017, @11:39PM (3 children)
This is end-stage political-power narcissism. This is when people start thinking they can rewrite reality to suit their ends. Fuck this guy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:26AM
And give him satisfaction? He doesn't worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Funny) by NotSanguine on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:10AM
That reminds me of that old bit:
Joe the mailman is delivering mail on his last day before retirement. He goes to the Millers' door and is depositing mail into the mail slot when Mrs. Miller comes to the door in a skimpy negligee.
She invites Joe in, takes him upstairs and gives him a good fucking. Joe gets dressed and goes downstairs, where Mrs. Miller greets him with a plate full of freshly-baked cookies. She gives Joe the cookies, hands him a dollar bill and wishes him the best for his retirement.
Joe, flabbergasted at the what's happened, says, "What's this all about?"
Mrs. Miller replies, "I was talking with my husband last night about it being your last day today and he said 'Fuck him! Give him a dollar!' The cookies were my idea!"
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @06:12AM
One line of defense is that this is a freedom of speech or freedom of the press issue. It is reasonable to argue that if we have the freedom to print what we want, then printing encrypted texts is included.
Another line of reasoning is that encryption is a munition as the government designated it as such in order to limit export of encryption tools. If we have the right to keep and bear arms, we have the right to use encryption.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:07AM (4 children)
These types of arguments are well understood by the experienced among us, who often see through them as tired and absurd political bullshit. The reason they keep recurring is because those in power understand that upcoming generations of people will gradually become more accepting of their ideas and they'll eventually win. In short, they're playing the long game and based on what I've witnessed in my lifetime, my money is on them being right.
Police and federal agencies solved crimes long before consumer crypto became a thing, they're just too fucking lazy to keep doing the work and want a magic key to everything. All the while, those same powerful forces continue to do everything they can to resist and fight government transparency so they themselves can commit crimes far worse than any group of citizens ever could -- like crashing the economy, starting wars for profit, etc.
People think government is too difficult to understand so they don't bother trying to; then they vote uninformed or not at all. That same mentality will ensure crypto is eventually backdoored.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:50AM
Exactly...
In the past there used to be this thing called "police work." People were paid to go and spend time investigating things. Of course now, they don't want to work, they want it handed to them on a silver platter.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday November 12 2017, @04:08AM (2 children)
Crypto may be backdoored eventually, but the cat is out of the bag, dear friends, and there is no way it's going back in. It'll be similar to what critics of gun control say: if strong encryption is outlawed, then only outlaws will have strong encryption.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:34PM
Except that strong crypto doesn't kill anybody and it has constructive uses and it's virtually impossible to trace.
And the fact that we'd be right.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @01:19AM
and in effect: Outlaws will be the only ones with freedom..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:19AM
Defund the DoJ.
Also WTF is Politico Pro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:26AM (10 children)
I am 100% serious, I've thought of going the buddhist monk route of lighting myself on fire with a pile of leaflets explaining the various things that drove me to leave society in such a dramatic fashion. Our country is so very fucked and has been for so very long that I often want to check out. Of course it would only work in a VERY public place so that it couldn't be easily swept under the rug.
The high suicide rate of young adults should be a very telling symptom, but asshole politicians still like to pretend that selling out the country is what's best. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:33AM (1 child)
They would edit it out of the narrative. Better to bring them all physically to heel. That they can't spin.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:37AM
No, something like that would go viral fast... I don't know if it would impact Americans the way it worked for the Vietnamese or the guy who's credited with triggering the Arab Spring though. I feel that most would just say "What an idiot" or "We need regulations restricting kerosene to protect people from themselves!".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:34AM (1 child)
What dow FTATHTRIO mean?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:38AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:37AM
Any suicide without a political aim is a wasted opportunity. At least try to take out a politician or other scumbag. Hell, take out some criminals vigilante style. Wire yourself so you can blow when you get your ass beat.
Your idea has some merit but it doesn't clean up the trash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:00AM (4 children)
Be man enough to formally renounce your citizenship and then afterwards post it on youtube with an extended explanation of why.
The first one might not make a difference, but after a few dozen, and then few hundred, and then few thousand start defecting from America in the same way, those who aren't 'true patriots' *snicker* might start looking around and thinking about what those people said for why they left and come to the same conclusion themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:07AM (3 children)
1. Actually renouncing your citizenship costs money.
2. Where do you go?
3. Who other than kids watches shit on youtube?
4. Your definition of "being a man" is strange. I was always raised to think that men shouldn't do things simply to get attention...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:43PM (2 children)
And yet you post on a web site where the only thing your comments achieve are a little bit of attention.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:06PM (1 child)
Just attention, not discussion or debate? Maybe that's why you post, but I'd rather bounce my views off other people and learn something, otherwise I wouldn't be posting AC...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:19PM
Attention is the precondition for discussion or debate.
And I don't see what it has to do with posting as AC (other than the fact that some people will not see — and thus not discuss — your posts as AC). You don't think my real name is "maxwell demon", do you?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:38AM (6 children)
...JTAO QCNC ZLNH W
If we all have reasonably unbreakable encryption, then you'll have even less business because you won't even need to bother trying to decrypt anything! You can all go home early on a Friday!
Encryption that is not unreasonably breakable is not strong.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:05AM (2 children)
There's things they could do that would result in "strong encryption" from anybody who doesn't have access to the device, that would severely weaken it if somebody could take it apart. Nobody does that because we don't really want phones and devices that can just be stolen and cracked in a few minutes. Ideally, it would take so long to break into the device that the data would no longer be of any value.
Having a second private key that's hardwired into a section of the phone that's not accessible would allow people in easily if they have the phone, but barely reduce the strength of the encryption to people who don't have the phone in their possession.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Sunday November 12 2017, @02:15AM (1 child)
Does this mean you have your passwords written on your monitor? Having a key ON the device seems to be the same thing...
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:38PM
It doesn't imply that. It would imply having the password stuffed inside of the monitor.
The second point is really a question of what you're trying to protect against. If it's just casual theft, it would be fine, if it's law enforcement it's a huge problem.
And there's no need for it to be in cleartext, it could be a certificate.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:27PM (2 children)
I'm sure that's not what you wanted to write. Indeed, I think it's very much the opposite of it. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday November 12 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
Replace "not unreasonbly" with "reaonably" and see what I mean.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 12 2017, @07:45PM
I'm not sure that is a valid parse; if it is, your sentence is still hopelessly ambiguous.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:20AM
I'm happy for you gault evil people that care nothing for anyone else,
no wait You should be vivisected
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slap on Sunday November 12 2017, @08:30AM
These are some of the problems with "access"
1) The law enforcement agencies have continually demonstrated that they will break the law when given the chance. The
backdoor keys will be abused.
2) The law enforcement agencies have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with secrets - as an example, the release of
the NSA hacking tools. The second that the backdoor keys are compromised, all encryption will be at risk. And that is "when" and not "if".
3) All governments will require backdoor keys. And even if the backdoor keys are for country specific versions of the software, the US
government will try to force US based companies to give those foreign keys to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:02PM
They do have access to strong encryption, just like everyone else. Just run GPG or another crypto program.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)
"And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security,"
"I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud"
"This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
He is correct, there are two distinct issues here:
1) The factual properties of encryption and what is breakable and not.
2) The needs and desires of law enforcement to catch the bad guys.
I think he is correct, they are related, but I fear the thing that connects them is that you can't have both.
To date, no one has proposed a workable solution which meets the needs of both.
That does not prove that such a solution is not possible.
But it does put the burden on the the person asking for the apparently impossible to say how it can be possible.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday November 13 2017, @01:43PM
Depends what you mean. Tech-savvy criminals will use unbreakably strong, non-backdoored crypto whether or not you ban it, and there's nothing you can do about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @05:57PM
any gov employee pushing to weaken the country's defenses should be indicted for treason. the prosecution of his sentence can be live streamed.