Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the responsible-encryption-=-unbreakable-encryption dept.

Techdirt covers a new paper published by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine regarding the general access that the FBI and DOJ want to encrypted communications.

Another paper has been released, adding to the current encryption discussion. The FBI and DOJ want access to the contents of locked devices. They call encryption that can be bypassed by law enforcement "responsible encryption." It isn't. A recent paper by cryptograpghy expert Riana Pfefferkorn explained in detail how irresponsible these suggestions for broken or weakened encryption are.

This new paper [PDF] was put together by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (h/t Lawfare) It covers a lot of ground others have and rehashes the history of encryption, along with many of the pro/con arguments. That said, it's still worth reading. It raises some good questions and spends a great deal of time discussing the multitude of options law enforcement has available, but which are ignored by FBI officials when discussing the backdoors/key escrow/weakened encryption they'd rather have.

The paper's suggestions have not been rigorously investigated by those with domain expertise, yet.

Source : Report On Device Encryption Suggests A Few Ways Forward For Law Enforcement


Original Submission

Related Stories

U.S. Legislators Trying to Weaken Encryption Yet Again 40 comments

Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are preparing legislation that would regulate encryption and potentially mandate "backdoors." The Senate Judiciary Committee has been meeting with tech lobbyists and at least three researchers to come up with a "secure way" to allow only law enforcement to access encrypted information:

US lawmakers are yet again trying to force backdoors into tech products, allowing Uncle Sam, and anyone else with the necessary skills, to rifle through people's private encrypted information. Two years after her effort to introduce new legislation died, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is again spearheading an effort to make it possible for law enforcement to access any information sent or stored electronically. Such a backdoor could be exploited by skilled miscreants to also read people's files and communications, crypto-experts continue to warn.

Tech lobbyists this month met the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the proposed legislation – a sign that politicians have changed tactics since trying, and failing, to force through new laws back in 2016. New York District Attorney and backdoor advocate Cyrus Vance (D-NY) also briefed the same committee late last month about why he felt new legislation was necessary. Vance has been arguing for fresh anti-encryption laws for several years, even producing a 42-page report back in November 2015 that walked through how the inability to trawl through people's personal communications was making his job harder.

Tech lobbyists and Congressional staffers have been leaking details of the meetings to, among others, Politico and the New York Times.

From the NYT article:

A National Academy of Sciences committee completed an 18-month study of the encryption debate, publishing a report last month. While it largely described challenges to solving the problem, one section cited presentations by several technologists who are developing potential approaches. They included Ray Ozzie, a former chief software architect at Microsoft; Stefan Savage, a computer science professor at the University of California, San Diego; and Ernie Brickell, a former chief security officer at Intel.

[...] The researchers, Mr. Ozzie said, recognized that "this issue is not going away," and were trying to foster "constructive dialogue" rather than declaring that no solution is possible.

Also at The Hill.

Previously: New Paper on The Risks of "Responsible Encryption"
Report On Device Encryption Suggests A Few Ways Forward For Law Enforcement
Senator Wyden Calls on Digital Rights Activists to Block Legislative Efforts to Weaken Encryption


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.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:31PM (3 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:31PM (#643211)

    If you can read my encrypted communications with my bank then so can the Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Norks. Not to mention the 12 year old script kiddie the street that my kid was babysitting a couple years ago.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:42PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:42PM (#643218)

      I dunno about your bank communications, but I'm having trouble with your second sentence.

      • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:56PM (1 child)

        by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:56PM (#643226)

        down. I edited that and sat on it for a good 30 minutes. Left out the word down. If you can't figure out where 'down' should have been then, well, whatever.

        --
        Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:09AM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:09AM (#643231) Homepage

          You're lying. I think what you meant to say was that your 12 year old kid is the best script kiddie on the street.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:18AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:18AM (#643236)

    Why is there all this effort to appease law enforcement?? Let's just make the best encryption possible, and spend our valuable time talking about the weather and baseball. Spring training starts next month. Let's focus on the important things in life

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:35AM (4 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:35AM (#643246)

      Why is there all this effort to appease law enforcement??

      Because we're quite afraid of them.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @01:31AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @01:31AM (#643258)

        If your neighbor breaks your face, they were "up to no good"; if a police officer breaks your face, you were "up to no good."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:09AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:09AM (#643299)

          Really? So Andrew Finch was "up to no good?"

          Do you at least have the common courtesy to wash the boot polish out of your mouth before you deep throat cop cock?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:21AM (#643333)

            Poorly phrased, but I think that was a whoosh for you. There is definite sarcasm there. The parent to that comment and the use of quotes make it seem that way to me, at least. That comment seems to be elaborating on its parent in terms of the default thinking people have in the parallel situations.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:33AM (#643339)

            Poe-Poe [wikipedia.org] strikes again!

            See what I did there? I just slay me!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @01:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @01:58AM (#643262)

      Why is there all this effort to appease law enforcement?? Let's just make the best encryption possible, and spend our valuable time talking about the weather and baseball. Spring training starts next month. Let's focus on the important things in life

      Spring training started a couple weeks ago. Spring training *games* started yesterday.

      Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:45AM (3 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:45AM (#643345) Journal

      Why is there all this effort to appease law enforcement??

      There's a world of difference between the "peace officers" of four plus decades back and many of the "law enforcement" teams around now, both in their attitudes, equipment, and their use in the larger political schemes.

      Expanding on RS3's comment, Trump has been making most of his pitches to his base, law enforcement [washingtonexaminer.com], which has been getting armed to the teeth with full military equipment [newsweek.com]. It won't make us any safer [fortune.com], it is about controlling the population through beat-downs and fear of beat-downs. Putting holes in the encryption so that it does not work just eliminates the need for manual investigations such that those in need of a beat-down can then be identified automatically, give or take a wide margin of error.

      As everyone here sees, they are pushing for encryption that doesn't work. I notice that both major US parties appear eager for that. They're not concerned even a little about how many foreign interests are crawling all around in things. Law enforcement and their blind supporters are keen on that too as long as they can snoop around in it too without lifting a finger. It appears that various factions are learning that it is now time to announce whose backs they are willing to scratch in return for the same. As everyone here already knows, and points out regularly, encryption is either the kind that works or it is the kind that does not. There is no middle ground.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:25AM (2 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:25AM (#643387) Journal

        encryption is either the kind that works or it is the kind that does not. There is no middle ground.

        Any keys to back doors would probably be leaked within a month, appear in everyone's sig, people would have them tattooed.

        At least that't the theory. But is that actually true?

        Could there be a combination of an encryption method and a device, such the device is needed to use the encryption
        (or more precisely to defeat the on-device encryption). The device is made illegal to possess, with death penalty,
        manufactured by the government, held by the government, mandated by the government, etc.

        You could probably keep that at least as secret as the nuclear launch codes, for at least as many years.

        Remember, what the government wants is not to crack ssl/tls but rather the encryption used to encrypt the storage of the device.
        Because everybody knows that as soon as you kidnap the little girl, you write her location into your phone and taunt the police with it.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:18AM

          by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:18AM (#643403) Journal

          Because everybody knows that as soon as you kidnap the little girl, you write her location into your phone and taunt the police with it.

          There are quite a few TV shows like that aren't there?

          A few times, I tried to debate with various fans of those shows some of the hot topics that the individual episodes attacked, such as the importance of attorney-client privilege. It makes me seriously wonder if the main purpose of those shows is not entertainment but turning people against pesky things like due process, the US Bill of Rights, or that peskiest of all pieces of paper, the US Constitution [counterpunch.org]. Or maybe it is to wind them up against similar rules around the world, where they exist, because the shows are spread rather quickly to global targets.

          --
          Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
        • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:30AM

          by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:30AM (#643409) Journal

          Any keys to back doors would probably be leaked within a month, appear in everyone's sig, people would have them tattooed.

          At least that't the theory. But is that actually true?

          I'll defer to the recognized specialists on that, and they assert unamiously that the backdoors would inevitably be leaked in short order.

          I notice that the data breaches around the world show that the chance of holding backdoor keys secret would be close to zero if the same companies and technologies and companies would be involved. Maybe there is a parallel set of established, but secret, companies that will show up any moment and make themsevels known. But the current ones cannot do the job. Perhaps the various governments are holding out on us and have something magical that does exactly the task that all recognized cryptography experts assert is impossible. But that is most unlikely given how much they are begging, pleading, cajoling, and threatening the different ICT-related industries over the matter. Actions speak quite loudly.

          --
          Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday February 25 2018, @02:12PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 25 2018, @02:12PM (#643434)

      the FBI and DOJ want

      Want in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first

      They want spouses to testify against each other, torture, big brother telescreens in every living and bed room, etc. They're not doing their job unless in the spirit of the justice system they're oppositional. As we've seen in several recent famous cases, the purpose of the FBI is to be the Democrats secret police force, they don't do "cop stuff" anymore like in movies. Some kid about to shoot up a school, they simply don't care. Some republican caught jaywalking they're on that case. That one parties secret police force wants unlimited power is not interesting at all.

      Now what is interesting is Techdirt is kissing up to their side by providing free neutral-ish coverage of their extremist beliefs, they're not exactly no-platform censoring what the FBI 'wants". What's their kickback? And the semi-academic paper authors, whats in it for them for engaging what amounts to crooks?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:20AM (5 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:20AM (#643238)

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Anything that I have taken the care to encrypt should be within my right to be secure in my effects against unreasonable search. As secure as a paper note I have burned. Besides, why does law enforcement need to search encrypted communications when people post things like this to open social media?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/7zp9dq/lets_post_the_dumb_illegal_things_we_do_to_social/ [reddit.com]

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:26AM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:26AM (#643242) Journal

      why does law enforcement need to search encrypted communications when people post things like this to open social media?

      Because the real monsters are people who don't use Facebook, Twitter, etc. People like... SoylentNews users. Murderers, terrorists, and rapists, the lot of 'em.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:35AM (3 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:35AM (#643244) Homepage

        More specifically because it would make it more difficult to plant stuff or otherwise manipulate a person's experience directly by planting false information.

        Now, if we were like Mexico, [wired.com] then maybe it would be a good idea for the "good guys" to have indiscriminate access to all comms systems. But that is not really a good point because you wonder how much assistance the Zetas received from, heh, "American advisors."

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @06:10AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @06:10AM (#643355)

          Mexico's situation could have been nominally shut down by the US legalizing and regulating criminal drugs and economically shutting down the drug trade (which would probably result in more human trafficking, but not enough to keep the cartels of the size or influence they are today.

          Instead we have lots of Pharma opiates being 'illegally prescribed' for their street value inside the US, Weed legal, but only in some places leading to cultivation and sale across state lines, in some cases by cartel growers, and the cartels themselves buying/cultivating/etc other illicit substances as well as manufactured weapons from south of the border and shipping them up into the US for big bucks.

          As far as the 'planting of evidence' goes: The US has already bragged they can compromise tech companies without a warrant. Being able to break/weaken encryption would actually give you a better benefit of doubt (although still not enough to win) than the current 'TrustZone/ME/Secure Processor' backdoors, which not only exist but have become pervasive down to the level of microcontrollers (Go look, there is now TrustZone support in the smaller ARM Cortex chips!)

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 25 2018, @10:57PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 25 2018, @10:57PM (#643624) Homepage

            " As far as the 'planting of evidence' goes: The US has already bragged they can compromise tech companies without a warrant. "

            Yeah, because those tech companies are totally willing to let them, then cry crocodile tears when they get found out.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @02:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @02:53PM (#643952)

            The cartels aren't selling guns to the US yet. They're still buying them. I sincerely doubt they're behind any large scale grow ops in the US either, that bs brickweed still sells in places that don't have medical and have to import it at high cost from medical or recreational states.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:51AM (3 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:51AM (#643249) Journal

    Report On Device Encryption Suggests A Few Ways Forward For Law Enforcement

    A few ways forward? A long walk on a short pier, for example. Wear good, heavy shoes.

    If "law enforcement" or anyone else is engaged in a battle against me to read what I have encrypted, then they are the bad guys. Amendment 4.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 25 2018, @02:08AM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday February 25 2018, @02:08AM (#643267) Homepage Journal

      Report On Device Encryption Suggests A Few Ways Forward For Law Enforcement

      A few ways forward? A long walk on a short pier, for example. Wear good, heavy shoes.

      If "law enforcement" or anyone else is engaged in a battle against me to read what I have encrypted, then they are the bad guys. Amendment 4.

      How about LEOs do some, you know, actual police work instaad of trampling on the 4th and 5th Amendments with Stingrays, orders to decrypt data, searching phones without warrants, surreptitious planting of GPS devices, etc., etc., etc.

      LE was able to bring down most of La Cosa Nostra without trampling all over the bill of rights. Yes, it took them a long time and they had to put actual work and resources into it. But that's kind of the point.

      Most sane, rational people don't want killers, rapists and other scumbags to walk free, but that's not a reason to violate *anyone's* civil rights.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @09:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @09:40AM (#643857)

        Most sane, rational people don't want killers, rapists and other scumbags to walk free, but that's not a reason to violate *anyone's* civil rights.

        Which is why the priority should be that the cops should get better and stop being killers, rapists and scumbags that walk free after violating peoples civil rights.

        If the cops start doing their jobs properly then it starts making more sense for people to cooperate with the police and maybe even help them solve cases.

        But till then the cops are in the similar category as organized crime, except they're taxpayer funded and maybe even more dangerous. And where possible you shouldn't talk to them and let your lawyer talk to them.

        Actually I suspect the Yakuza are even more disciplined than the US cops: https://japantoday.com/category/features/opinions/my-very-brief-fight-with-a-yakuza [japantoday.com]

        Maybe that Yakuza guy realized that he might lose his pinkie if he messed with a gaijin "civilian". Whereas a US cop could just yell "Stop Resisting" and clobber/kill whoever he wants and at most get transferred to a different PD.

         

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 26 2018, @09:06AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday February 26 2018, @09:06AM (#643834) Homepage
      In that case you need to get it, like the rest of the ocument, reworded, without the "reasonable" weasel-wording.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:08AM (2 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:08AM (#643297) Journal

    Seriously, calling it "responsible encryption" is such Orwellion doublespeak, such targeted, evil twisting of words to mean precisely the opposite of what the fuck they mean, that I can only conclude the people pushing for this are openly contemptuous of us and, for that matter, the Constitution.

    They think we're fucking morons. And unfortunately, they're probably right about at least 3/4 of us :(

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:11AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:11AM (#643331)

      TBH, "pro-choice" is also a bit of a euphemism. Everyone tries to market their cause.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:30AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:30AM (#643336) Homepage Journal

        TBH, "pro-choice" is also a bit of a euphemism. Everyone tries to market their cause.

        While it is true that many folks who have specific views couch them in euphemistic terms.

        However, "pro-choice" isn't one of them. It's exactly what it says it is. Pro-choice is the idea that a woman (and no one else) has agency and choice with regard to what happens to her body.

        It's most emphatically not *just* pro-abortion, nor is it anti-life.

        tl;dr: Pro-choice = For/supporting the agency and right of each woman to choose, for herself, whether or not she wishes to gestate a child within her body. Full stop.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @05:12AM (#643332)

    Deal with it. The people have never had any obligation to make law enforcement's job easier. It sucks that they might not get all the necessary information in criminal investigations, and some criminals might walk free as a result, but it would suck far, far more to give them the power to break any cryptographic system, which power they will certainly use not only in the context of legitimate criminal investigation. The FBI has already shown what they will do when given power, as we saw in the days of COINTELPRO, and I don't think anyone wants to go back to those dark days.

  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:08AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:08AM (#643381) Homepage Journal

    ...after the fact. If someone is a suspect, the police can use a warrant to read the content as it is being created - i.e., to monitor the person when they are using their phone or computer. Communications are only encrypted enroute; at the endpoints, they are by definition unencrypted. The very existence of a record of communications on the smartphones is something that didn't exist in the past. Phone conversations happened in real-time - there was no recording. So law enforcement is really pining after something that they never had in the past.

    The way justice in the US works, they're hoping for additional evidence, so that they can throw even more charges at suspects, so that they can force even more plea bargains. Not that Europe is totally innocence, but the US is a longs ways down an unpleasant path - the American justice system is really screwed up.

    OT: And now it's four cops who waited outside, while kids were being killed. [vox.com]

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:52PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:52PM (#643568) Homepage Journal

    If you're not breaking the law what do you have to hide?

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:04PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:04PM (#643574) Homepage Journal

    SRSLY

    Your arguments against law enforcement access to the keys sound just like the arguments posted by NRA members in opposition to gun control

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @09:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @09:31AM (#643854)

    You let them have the word "responsible" when they came up with "responsible disclosure", and now they have found another use for it: "Responsible encryption".

    What did you expect?

    Responsible disclosure: Letting the bad guys get six months to abuse a security hole, before you tell the victims "oh, btw, we have a security hole, you might want to block port 666 at the firewall until we have a patch ready".

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 26 2018, @06:07PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday February 26 2018, @06:07PM (#644058) Journal

    What it really means is that interpersonal ethics will change, one way or the other.

    The effort required to encrypt previously was mostly upon the consumer or user. Make a mistake, any number of ways (from utilizing dictionary-attackable or social-engineering guessable keys to brute force), and law enforcement still had your ticket. Now the capability for extremely solid encryption that cannot be reasonably broken by any publicly disclosed method is at hand. Collectively there are at least two sides and neither side agrees with the other; no matter who is "right" there is legitimate disagreement IMVVHO.

    This isn't just law enforcement, either. The major economic power nations have also relied upon the ability to compromise encryption to gain intelligence as well. If information is required, the state has always had methods to gain information in one shape or another. (Even if not prosecuted, law enforcement has had the ability to draw intelligence. You might not always like the results, but it is the reality.)

    Neither pathway is really acceptable. For those who insist upon absolutely unbreakable encryption: it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask if you want child pornographers to be able to conceal their kiddie porn. No scare, no FUD, just that question: Is letting society have unbreakably encrypted storage worth that price? For those who advocate "reasonable encryption": You cannot assure anyone that the system will not be abused - governments have lost their moral ground so thoroughly (if they ever had it) to make that not assured. Not just on an individual level, but agency-wide. So, is letting government have access worth that price?

    So why not look at a third path and find a new ethical framework to address what is workable and reasonable in terms of privacy, how we define what crimes are, and when and how an intrusion is defined. One parallel, that may be completely bogus: You are pulled over for drinking and driving. You refuse any form of submitting to chemical analysis (breathalyzer, blood draw, urinalysis). While the officer can get a warrant to compel the draw, they can instead (or also) cite your refusal and just take your license. Stepping back from the warrant issue (which I've never understood when the refusal doctrine exists), is there some ground looking at where self-incrimination should be less sacrosanct? (A court is presented with a compelling case you are a child pornographer. You refuse to turn over your encryption. You are not presumed guilty, but your refusal entails consequences.)

    Even if the above is unworkable, our collective ethical understanding must shift to one side, the other, or find a new ground. But nobody ever seems to discuss it in terms of ethical values and prioritization - we'd much rather jerk our knees on both sides.

    --
    This sig for rent.
(1)