SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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.