SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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. I have always been here. ---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