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: 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.