Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance Argues 'Privacy is Not Absolute' in Push For Encryption Backdoors (itnews.com.au) 421
The Five Eyes, the intelligence alliance between the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, issued a statement warning they believe "privacy is not absolute" and tech companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions." Slashdot reader Bismillah shares a report: The governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have made the strongest statement yet that they intend to force technology providers to provide lawful access to users' encrypted communications. At the Five Country Ministerial meeting on the Gold Coast last week, security and immigration ministers put forward a range of proposals to combat terrorism and crime, with a particular emphasis on the internet. As part of that, the countries that share intelligence with each other under the Five-Eyes umbrella agreement, intend to "encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services." Such solutions will apply to products and services operated in the Five-Eyes countries which could legislate to compel their implementation. "Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions," the Five-Eyes joint statement on encryption said.
Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is not absolute.
article summarised (Score:2)
Cartoonishly villainous yet comically inept
Gestapo officers, ostensibly responsible for computer security, advocate for draconian new badlaws to weaken computer security.
Re:Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:5, Insightful)
Very basic and to the point. People should be reminded that 9/11 (not the car, the bowling with planes) happened not because intelligence had too little power but because they weren't doing their job. They were busy with the war on drugs and with keeping things secret from each other. But since then the constant mantra has been 'We need more power!' and they've been getting away with it too.
Re:Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
English is my first language. This seems pretty clear to me.
You want access to data (encrypted or not) on my my potentially locked phone? Get a warrant! (If I still refuse to unlock and/or decrypt it after that then find me in contempt of court and jail me.
Now if only the gun nuts – who are so vocal about their Second Amendment rights when someone tries to tell them they shouldn't have AKs and M15s and bump stocks, or that there ought to be better background checks – were as vocal about "protecting" this Constitutional Right.
(By all means, keep your Saturday Night Specials, shotguns, and 22 and 30-06 rifles. "We" don't have a problem with people having those, with proper background checks.)
And whoever is perpetrating the myth the the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord had Gatling Guns? Knock that shit off. And the rest of you that believe it – because it fits your narrative – shame on you. They had muzzle loading flintlocks. That's it. The Gatling gun wasn't invented until the 1861, in time for the Civil war. If you don't know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War then it's back to eighth grade history for you.
Re: (Score:3)
They had muzzle loading flintlocks. That's it. The Gatling gun wasn't invented until the 1861, in time for the Civil war. If you don't know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War then it's back to eighth grade history for you.
They didn't have gatling guns.
BUT repeating arms had been around since before the first British colony was established since 1606. They were just very expensive, that's all.
A fully automatic gun, called the "Puckle Gun" was invented in 1708. Here's a replica of it. [postimg.cc]
They didn't "not exist", they were just not affordable by your average army.
They were certainly known about by the founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written. So yeah... the guys who wrote the second amendment knew about
Re: (Score:2)
You just pulled the trigger, cranked the lever, and pulled the trigger again.
Re: (Score:3)
You just pulled the trigger, cranked the lever, and pulled the trigger again.
If you have to crank the lever in between trigger pulls, it's not automatic. In fact, it's not even semi-automatic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the 2nd Amendment was written so that the People could form a citizen army to defend the country (i.e. the state guards), to prevent the formation of a standing army. The Founders opposed the US having a standing army, as it would corrupt the Democracy.
The Founders also were quite clear that they didn't think that civilians had the right to military oppose their own elected government. When people tried, the Founders labeled that treason, but the rebellion down, and arrested and/or executed the the traitors. If you don't like what our government is doing, you have free speech and the vote. If you can't make a case, and you lose the vote, you don't have the "right" to start shooting at the majority who voted against you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the entire point is that being armed prevents them from becoming tyrannical due to people being able to shoot any potential Hitler before they get powerful
That filed to help Germany (guns were not uncommon at the time, private ownership was legal) and it failed to stop the US getting to where it is now.
Re:Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:5, Funny)
To get the gun nuts interested in the fourth amendment, you just need to package in language they can understand: The Deep State wants access to your cell phones so they can spy on your use of guns...and Hillary is behind this push so she can cover her tracks in Benghazi, where she'd jet off to for intimate lunches with al Qaeda. And she and Obama are planning for a Muslim America by accessing your phone and planting secret subliminal messages from the Koran.
Re:Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:4, Insightful)
And we don't have problems with YOU having a "Right to Privacy". After an appropriate background check, of course. And at the discretion of local law enforcement wherever you happen to live. Or visit. Or just pass through....
Ditto for Freedom of Speech/Press/etc. Once you've gotten the approval of local law enforcement in every location that can HEAR/READ what you want to say, then you should be allowed to say/print what you like. Until then, you can shut up and do as you're told....
So, why do you think an appropriate background check is applicable to Rights you don't like, but totally uncalled for for Rights you like?
As to flintlocks, it should be pointed out that the Second allowed everyone to own MILITARY-GRADE weapons (yeah, the flintlocks owned by the average citizen were pretty much the same as what the Army was using. Hell, since rifled guns were common among the citizenry, and only issued to special troops (most soldiers used smoothbores), it could be argued that the Second allowed better then military grade weapons to be freely owned.
For that matter, does the word "privateer" mean anything to you? Yep, those privately owned warships were armed with perfectly legal cannon. At a time when cannon were the most powerful weapons known to man....
Re: (Score:2)
What about when they've got a warrant or probably cause and they come while you're not home?
Re: Citizens argue that power of government... (Score:4, Informative)
Or they'll just enjoy having a 5x lower murder rate than USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The SC has ruled the second amendment is not limited to arms in use when it was written. This is why anti-taser laws are being overturned left and right.
People who suggest otherwise are already wrong when the words pass their lips.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least King Charles I [wikipedia.org] wishes they were.
'Privacy is Not Absolute' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 'Privacy is Not Absolute' (Score:2, Interesting)
Pass an amendment requiring full open financial information on all elected officials and their family members, spouse & children... then we can find out how $65,000 a year democrats purchase $4.5 million dollar homes, while unemployment and homelessness & heroin floods their districts...
Re: 'Privacy is Not Absolute' (Score:5, Insightful)
how $65,000 a year democrats purchase $4.5 million dollar homes.
I guess someone is not watching the news. This is a politics problem, not a democrat / republican problem.
Back doors are bad. Encryption is ALWAYS available (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up! We live in societies that lack a depth of understanding. We are forced to vote for people we don't really know. Most people are ignorant about much of what happens around them that affects their lives.
Many people in government and in management of private companies have NO knowledge of technical issues. That doesn't prevent them from having what they consider to be a strong and sensible opinion. They don't recognize they are wildly ignorant.
De-encryption back doors are not an answer. They will ALWAYS eventually be compromised.
Encryption is ALWAYS available. Forcing back doors will merely hasten the development of additional encryption methods.
Re:Back doors are bad. Encryption is ALWAYS availa (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption will be broken, but each time this gets close to happening, new and more interesting and novel encryption methods are published.
We did not grant rights to these elected governments to have ultimate surveillance powers over us, citizens.
Those that read this: vote. Query your candidates for their position on privacy and surveillance. Ask them outright, and feel free to distribute the answers to these questions. Then vote. Get those who can't easily vote to the polls. Make your positions known.
Re: (Score:2)
Encryption need not necessarily be broken. One-time pads, for example, remain crypotgraphically robust, even with quantum computing applied to them.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, I suspect this is half our problem with our "elected officials". The other half is, no matter how honest you are the system forces you to be corrupt. Where corrupt is defined by anything you or I would call corrupt, but congress sees as business as usual. See also congresscri
Re: (Score:2)
It's about power and control. Government likes it. Police like it. Intimidation in the name of public safety is a time-honored madness.
That politicians exempt themselves from most things is to be expected. You'll know corruption has ended and snowballs will make it through hell when they stop being privileged. We're animals, and being alpha is part of your legacy and mine.... and some of use exercise that tendency more than others.
Handing over your keys is a big problem for most people. Others will trusting
Those with no technical exper. know "Decryption"? (Score:2)
There was a reason I said de-encryption. I am hoping a Slashdot reader sends a link to my comment to someone with no technical knowledge, but who has power over governmental issues. I was thinking maybe that person wouldn't know the meaning of decryption.
Also, Slashdot comments represent me at my worst, in some ways. Often I spend time writing a Slashdot comment when I am very busy doing other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness Republicans are beyond reproach and come by their money honestly! But seriously, this is a very good idea. I'm unsure how wide a net to cast. Many elected people at local level donate much of their time to the public cause, perhaps receiving a per diem, and still maintain other forms of income (day jobs). Is that honest and legal? Depends on what the elected job is I suppose.
Re: (Score:3)
The notion of paying elected officials largely evolved because political patronage often meant those elected members were little more than paid votes. The theory was that if you paid a lawmaker a good salary his primary debt of obligation would be to the voters. It certainly made things better (read how corrupt MPs could be in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries) but of course there's always more money to be made being a paid shill for some moneyed interest or another.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Thank Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
This was happening long before Snowden. Remember the objections to Clinton's Clipper chip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip [wikipedia.org]
Clinton proposed it in 1993, but by 1996 it was already dead. Even then the Internet reacted quickly to oppose this.
Re:Thank Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
This was happening long before Snowden.
Sure, but back then authoritarians tried to dismiss the objectors as paranoid. They can't do that anymore.
Re:Thank Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, they lost the Clipper chip battle.
It's now a generation later, of course they're trying again. If they lose this one, they'll probably try again in another twenty five years, if not sooner.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and all that. I just wish there were some way to get rid of the fuckwits who keep pushing this crap.
Re: Thank Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
Did they really lose the clipper chip? What is the Intel Management Engine then?
Thank Booz Allen & the Feds more than Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
I blame Booz Allen and the NSA more than Snowden. Even if Snowden hadn't leaked, the slipshod way everyone was dealing with classified information would have eventually led to some form of disclosure.
Spycraft is a highly specialized and weird world, and the tradecraft and secrets involved should not be available to those without a need to know. The NSA should have compartmentalized and encrypted their own secrets much better. All Snowden should have seen, as an IT worker and poorly-vetted young contractor, were streams of random characters sitting in inboxes and file systems. He could still mount filesystems and keep data flowing through networks without being able to read or understand the data.
If the NSA isn't employing quantum computing both for encryption and decryption by now, then every US citizen should be prepared to have foreign terms forced upon them in some arena. That's a polite way of saying we'll get our asses kicked. I sincerely hope that the ad nauseam calls for back doors is just a smoke screen or false flag maneuver.
Now, this is probably going to be highly unpopular here, but here's my take on privacy: If the feds are able to crack my private encrypted messages, the all the more power to them. If they use my private information in dealing with hostile foreign actors, I got no complaint. However, if they use this information - directly - to persecute me for any activity, illegal or not, then that's crossing a red line. If instead they tip the FBI who are able to obtain warrants, and then they bust me, then that's fair. if, on the other hand, I use encryption techniques that they cannot reasonably crack, then they can park a van across the street from my house and peer at me through the windows. Or just knock on the door and offer to clean my carpets for free.
But trying to tell a US citizen within the borders of the United States that they cannot communicate and encrypt using any method available to them - i.e. math and creative problem solving - is crossing the red line of tyranny.
Shpx lbh, lbh ynml pbpx fhpxref. Dhvg ovgpuvat gung lbhe wbo vf uneq naq chfu gur obhaqnevrf bs grpuabybtl gb trg lbhe fuvg qbar. Sbe rknzcyr, frr gur uvfgbel bs gur Ravtzn pbqr naq gur ahpyrne obzo.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the documents that was leaked or referenced was the system used to crack encryption (WindsorGreen/WindsorBlue).
https://theintercept.com/2017/... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which, in a democracy, is every citizen.
Security-state information hoarding is incompatible with democracy and liberty.
Reference please.
The buying and selling of information and secrets has been alive and well in every democracy since the Greeks created it. In fact, ancient Greeks were famous for hiding secrets in creative ways [wikipedia.org].
Now, if you were to say:
Which, in a democracy, should be every citizen.
Then I would be inclined to agree with you. But, that's a subjective judgement call. If enough of our peers agree, then it should be codified into law.
Re: (Score:3)
That was rather abstract evidence, and if they kept that knowledge to themselves it didn't have any obvious impact on anyone's daily life.
It's when recruitment agencies start getting my mail feeds that it became directly obvious to me. Every time I sent off a private Email on my desktop PC as an application to a company or just an update to my parents, that within the space of a few days, I'd start having all sorts of recruitment agents who I had never contacted try to connect to me via social media or they
Re:Thank Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
It tells me you are intentionally lying, and you know better.
He did not "defect to Russia". The USA revoked his travel visa when he was IN Russia on his way somewhere else, and he was unable to proceed further. He doesn't want to be Russia, but almost anywhere else he goes, the US will grab him under the theory that it should punish the messenger.
Re: Thank Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have _any_ reason to think that Mr. Snowden's behavior was _anything_ other than an honest man trying to report criminal behavior by his employers? He reported it internally, he tried to escalate it through his own NSA superiors, and he was ignored repeatedly. Mr. Putin is a former KGB head, of course he's taking advantage of it. But Mr. Snowden has behaved cautiously, and as ethically as possible, at every stage.
Re: (Score:2)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He may not have started out as a puppet, but that's what he became, and worst of all for him, like Assange, sooner or later his protectors will tire of him, or decide he's a useful bargaining chip, and happily hand him over.
Re: Thank Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
The "road to hell" you describe is paved with the footsteps of the NSA personnel who were committing criminal acts against USA citizens and violating international treaties. Mr. Snowden reported _criminal activity_ by the NSA, activity which threatened the rights and liberties of millions of Americans. As best we can tell, Mr. Snowden did his best to _stop_ the criminal activity, and only escalated when the activity continued and he was blatantly ignored. It seemed clear that no court would be allowed to hear the evidence: what act, other than whistleblowing, would be moral at that point?
Mr. Assange is a different situation. the charges for which his extradition is being sought are for actions that do not involve his whistleblowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A hero who will sell out to anyone, like Kim Dotcom.
need to tell them to fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
We need more encryption not less.
I'd rather every single criminal go free than have the government able to snoop on innocent people.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the government could prove (to a standard that would hold up in court) that backdoors in widely available software would save the lives of innocent people, I wouldn't support such backdoors.
If anyone out there is talking to politicians and trying to convince them why all this stuff is a bad idea, point them at the excellent Bruce Schneier book Data and Goliath. It spells out in language that even a politician could probably understand exactly why all this crap is bad (IIRC there are even arguments t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming this is more about backdoors in to hardware and online platforms. Even if you have end to end encryption, if they can sniff your data from your phone, then the fact that is encrypted over the wire doesn't mean very much.
Government is not Absolute (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not some sort of challenge to government. It's a fact of the universe. All the efforts by each government to outwit the other by creating "unbreakable encryption" has resulted in it getting into the hands of the civilians. No amount of government restricts will undo the laws of mathematics they so carefully tried to exploit to ensure the security of their own messages. Now it can be used by anyone and no amount of collusion by technological companies, legislation, or other measures will adequately provide the backdoors they so desperately desire.
The cat is out of the bag. Instead of embracing this fact and working around the limitations this means, like finding loose links or offering immunity to some for access when it comes to criminal organizations/groups or simply other detective/intelligence work in a world that will never return all the answers, this parade of begging and threats only lures in a few useful idiots who tend to not be useful enough.
Either that or it's all a charade and the encryption has already been broken. But given their behavior, I tend to doubt it. That, by far, is actually the most crippling thing: admitting how powerless they are when encryption is used correctly. It's little wonder "Five Eyes" acts such like a petulant child. It's also incredibly pathetic.
Re:Government is not Absolute (Score:5, Insightful)
No amount of government restricts will undo the laws of mathematics they so carefully tried to exploit to ensure the security of their own messages.
No, this is dangerous hubris. I want to believe that too - so very badly - but it's a dangerous argument.
Sure they can't beat the "laws of mathematics", but they don't have to! They merely have to legally mandate back doors in devices before your laws of mathematics get hold of the data. Hell, even just doing that for the top 5 devices and chat apps will effectively backdoor the vast majority of the population.
They don't care if a few ubergeeks figure out ways around. There aren't enough people like that to matter in the big picture. The point is about mass surveillance, and getting 99% is good enough... but it's still a disaster for a free society.
Don't get too caught up in technical hubris. This is a dangerous game, and the people playing the other side of it play dirty. They have the power to penalize companies, block them from markers, and generally coerce lots of very smart engineers at said companies into giving them access to people's data by hook or by crook. They don't care about the lone guy on BSD running gnupg from the command line. They care about the teeming masses on phones and Windows PCs using $CHATAPPOFTHEWEEK.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to the distibutive capabilities of the internet, there are.... specifically, if only a couple of experts figure out ways around and happen to publish, then everybody has access to that method...
So they can go right on ahead and arrest people who came up with what amounts to a math proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is that very barrier that I am saying that people with the right skills and expertise have a way of lowering.... for everybody. Historically, this has always been the case in computing. Experts figure out how to do something they find useful.... they make it easier and easier to do and eventually the threshold of difficulty is low enough that practically anyone can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it has evaded your notice that is entirely possible to distribute apps without using those app stores... and while it's true that this would exclude a majority of people, as more and more less technically inclined people find out about a useful application's existence, its popularity will rise even without an official distribution channel. Maybe it won't reach ever a majority, but it sure as heck could be a statistically significant percentage of the population.
Systemically, there's absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways around that is what I'm saying... at least two that come to mind, and for at least one of them, short of not allowing independent developers to write apps for the iPhone at all, there is nothing that Apple can do to stop it.
Internet is so secure now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Internet is so secure now (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds about right for most government departments
How shocking is it... (Score:3)
that an alliance of intelligence agencies that uses snooping through private material to gather intelligence attempts to set forth the narrative that "privacy is not an absolute"? Not very shocking at all...
I hope that the rule of law and the legislative bodies elected by representatives of the people weigh in on this rather one-sided pronouncement.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I get it: when you're trying to stop the worst criminals in the world it seems stupid to let trivial stuff like privacy of people you don't care about get in the way. Because if you don't, people will die.
But there are three problems: (1) you haven't earned the public trust. Episode after episode (lying to congress, for-profit prisons, coercion of innocent people to plead guilty through a bad plea bargain system, backdoor unconstitutional evidence, even standard interrogation techniques) show that despite lots of good people in law enforcement, law enforcement as a whole should not be trusted. If you want the public trust, you need to put MUCH better systems in place to ensure accountability and transparency. The end result will be *worse* for the bad guys, *better* for law enforcement, and would *enable* the kind of trust-ful environment you want to go after terrorists. (2) it weakens security generally, for technical reasons, and that's not to be glossed over. (3) It's not just about how it gets in the way of you going after the asshole who's trying to plan the next 9/11. It's also about what's the worst thing a person in government abusing their power would do with the information you're collecting. It's not about you; it's about the guy who stores information on the entire population and uses it for political purposes later when those people become Presidents, Senators, and CEOs.
It's about J. Edgar Hoover and Senator McCarthy. It's about people making lists of undesireables from information about religion or belief or google search or sexual mores. It's about control by the most evil of people using all the power of your office and the offices around you--the people who, even if you have a good culture today, could be in those offices with surprising speed.
Defense of Democracy is not just about Defense from foreign threats. It's about defense from domestic ones. It's about threats from enemies within our own power structure, and more than anything about preventing the corruption of power.
Exactly why you shouldn't trust locked firmware. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your phone/computer OEM can force you to use only specified firmware, the spooks can force them to modify the firmware in ways that betray the user.
Re:Exactly why you shouldn't trust locked firmware (Score:5, Interesting)
If your phone/computer OEM can force you to use only specified firmware, the spooks can force them to modify the firmware in ways that betray the user.
Except that the spooks have no legal authority to compel the tech firms to do that, and the tech firms have a huge incentive to refuse to cooperate and to publicly fight back.
The people will win on this because the corporations are on our side.
Re:Exactly why you shouldn't trust locked firmware (Score:5, Informative)
> Except that the spooks have no legal authority to compel the tech firms to do that,
They can, and have, in the past. Remember when SSL keys were limited to 80-bits for export use? Remember when they've insisted that Cisco include backdoor keys in their hardware? Remember the design of the Clipper Chip, which was only discarded when it was found that people could generate their own private keys that passed the checks for the "Law Enforcement Agency Field" checks?
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say the corporations are on our side. They're on their own side.
But to the extent they'll start losing sales as people realize those small but expensive boxes they sell are little more than 1984's "televisors" made portable (great, Big Brother is not just watching and listening, he's in your pocket), it is in their self-interest to resist this.
However, with enough pressure, they'll knuckle under. Look at Google's principled stand on censored search-engines in China (*cough*), for example.
This is why control over HW is _critical_ (Score:4, Insightful)
People always say "encryption can't be broken" but that is missing the point. They can mandate a pre-encryption backdoor in phones and tablets, and because those are relatively locked down platforms, it'll do the trick, forking over your data before it is encrypted, or on the other end, after it is decrypted for you to view it. Sure some people will find ways around, but the point is that 99.9% of the population never will even try, they won't even be aware it's a thing.
This is why it is so critical to keep control over hardware. The more we buy locked down hardware, the more control slips from our fingers. Even now PC hardware is edging that way, with all the hardware level DRM and "ring -1" features anymore.
Make no mistake: there is a war going on over who gets to control the mechanisms of the digital world. It's a long, slow loss, but the trend is clear. We're not winning this. Personal computers were much more under your control 30 years ago than today.
Lawfull access is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the target is using end to end ecryption, get a F'ing warrant and hack the endpoint(s), assign tail teams... Mass surveillance does not protect the "citizens", and enables a government of the state, by the state, for the state, doing material harm to everyone on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there goes the fishing expedition.
If they have me in custody and reasonable cause, then a warrant shouldn't be a problem. But that spoils their ability to go sniffing around undetected.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRA (Score:5, Informative)
Without the internet, without computer based encryption the IRA was able to coordinate terrorist activities for decades.
There are still "Numbers stations" which publicly just broadcast a series of numbers
There are thousands of ways to transmit information, all undetectable.
For example if a child wears a red t-shirt it could mean the house is under surveillance, the child knows nothing, its just what he was given to wear that day.
A loaf of bead gets bought before mid day, or after , there is a different meaning
If someone posts on a message board saying their cat has run away, it could have another meaning to others
Those that want to hide in plain sight and transmit encrypted information will still be able to do so with impunity, this just puts honest people at risk.
As for the "nothing to hide" argument , of course people have something to hide.
A GP who likes to dress as a baby in nappies, a male lawyer who likes to dress as cinderella, a wife who is having an affair with the gardener, a Jew who likes bacon, someone being an atheist , being gay, ex member of a hate group, illegitimate child, paying off a porn star and playboy model. There are millions of things we keep to ourselves and the government wants to be trusted with that information.... "I don't think so Tim".
Re: (Score:3)
True... in fact, if I ever met somebody who tried to present this rationale, I would ask why they are wearing clothes right now.
Everybody has things to hide.... not because they have necessarily done anything wrong, but because some things are simply private.
And that's not even considering the inescapable fact that even *IF* you give the government the benefit of the doubt that they have only the purest and most noble intent
What's good for the goose.... (Score:3)
Re:What's good for the goose.... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the government can have as much privacy as it's citizens.
I think a government should have far _less_ privacy than it's citizens.
They can go sod off (Score:2)
They would say that wouldn't they. (Score:4, Funny)
Headline: Agency who's job it is to spy on citizens thinks citizens shouldn't have technology which makes it difficult for them to be spied on.
It's sure gonna suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when Wikileaks, Anonymous, the Russians, etc. find the backdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
Just some Trumptard getting triggered—or some troll pretending to be.
Cardinal Richelieu (Score:2, Troll)
The breakthough is not needing those 6 lines at all.
If they get the law they think they can get (by blackmailing the politicians? Dragnet had to include them, probably them first) - they can then demand you decrypt random bits - and bust you if you can't - or they can - make
It won't matter if you use effectively unbreakable crypto - the laws of math and all that. It'l
Is that legal? (Score:3)
companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions
They ask for legal access, and should they be denied, they will change to law to make it legal?
This is why..... (Score:4, Interesting)
If we can't have gun control becuase "the constitution says the right to own guns (arms technically) shall not be infringed"...then law enforcement should have to actually do a little work and deal with encryption since the constitution doesn't make exceptions for our right to privacy.
Otherwise your government is just a bunch of oppressive asshates; illegtimate; and need to be overthrown.
So... (Score:2)
There really is no difference between the good guys and the bad guys, is there?
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just leave this here. Note the date: https://phys.org/news/2011-10-... [phys.org]
I think you can work out the impli
Note to the governments (Score:2)
Try not to annoy or threaten the very folks you're relying upon for a solution.
Just like pissing off the wait staff before your food arrives, nothing good can come of it.
Though government officials aren't typically known for their amazing insight :|
Bottom line (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a backdoor, there's no encryption.
Given we don't see politicians publishing their bank account details and credit card numbers, we can assume politicians really don't understand the consequences of their proposals.
Ignorance is a really bad place to be making decisions from.
I guess when they outlaw encryption (Score:4, Interesting)
only outlaws will have encryption.
I thought there were some constitutional protections in the US to prevent this type of thing from happening, but I guess not.
Most of the terrorist activities I've seen reported were using unencrypted communications.
Social media sites provide a treasure trove of suspects with simple searches. I mean really, just start with all the twitter/youtube/facebook rants and work your way down from that.
But I guess that's too hard for the 5 eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
>"I thought there were some constitutional protections in the US to prevent this type of thing from happening, but I guess not."
Not directly, but indirectly, yes:
"Congress shall make no law [...]abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall [...] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
Cryptography survival pack torrent? (Score:3)
Anyone know of anything like this?
I swear to fuck. They're morons. (Score:3)
ANY BACK DOORS YOU PUT INTO ENCRYPTION WILL BE USED BY EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!
Moreover, any back doors you put into encryption will be ABUSED by everyone...INCLUDING the Government.
So. In response.
No. Eat a dick.
They believe privacy is not absolute. (Score:2)
And I believe that stupid intelligence apparat need to be executed in the most inhumane and humiliating manner possible. ON LIVE TV!
Isn't it nice to have beliefs?
Also, beliefs are what you have when you lack any real evidence (in short, you're making shit up).
Goodfellas (Score:2)
Henry Hill: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh
Sure thing! (Score:2)
IRL, any laws passed to enforce this will have the following effects: 1. APT will just make their own "clean" variations of various encryption protocols, and these will forever be beyond the grasp of Five Eyes. 2. Someone will find the "master keys", and the REAL fun will begin as all compromised protocols will be "open season", and the entire system will be compromised 3. The Five Eyes will develop
The NSA failed to keep their data secret (Score:2)
If the NSA, one of the worlds largest and most sophisticated intelligence organizations failed to keep some extremely sensitive and classified information secret, how can any other organization be trusted. I'm afraid that we *CAN* fault the entire program for a single slip up. if government agencies have backdoors to data, then those backdoors would be very valuable to a wide range of organizations.
I say we give the government another chance in say 50 years after this last breach. That should give them
Idiots. (Score:2)
I'm not promoting or implying that I would take part in any rebellious acts when I point out that there are historical precedents that those in power would do well to consider. They are vastly outnumbered and as a result of this their power is not absolute.
Fatually, they are wrong (Score:2)
Same goes for free speech, free speech IS absolute, once you have restrictions on speech, speech is by definition restricted and not free.
This is a big reason why establishment parties left and right in all 5 of those countries need to be kicked out. Trump and Brexit are not loud enough warnings.
Show me viable options. (Score:2)
I won't hold my breath.
Then we'll use systems they can't even track (Score:2)
The encryption is bothering them because they get a box they can't open... what if they don't even have a box?
Abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem of lawless law enforcers is it leads durectly to abuse abd exploitation, embezzlement and theft.
Corportation and private citizens need heavier and harder encyption to protect their individual interests from public theft or politically motivated exploitation.
US local states and towns governments are well known for their unconstitutional racist bigoted rulings demying political minority groups even basic civil rights, basic feedom of speech and self expression, religious freedom, private property
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only difference between a white nationalist and a white supremacist is that the latter is at least openly honest about his racism. Racism is a real thing, whether it makes you feel bad or not.
Re: (Score:2)
...the fact that a lot of people like to pretend like being opposed to religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of association and the like is based on a skewed understanding of equality and the 1st Amendment doesn't make it any less bigoted.
FTFY
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine they are thinking more about government installed and run back doors, not finding zero-days. Like what the phone co uses.
Re: If I were them (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a "government only" backdoor. At the very least, it's not YOUR government-only for long. Backdoors allowing decryption of data are the holy grail of espionage. You think actors like North Korea would have any qualms of hijacking your wife and kids if you're holder of such a key to get you to hand it over? Not that they survive, mind you, you're killed alongside them but the key is in the hands of NKor afterwards. And that key is the key to your companies' trade secrets, their R&D, their development and yes, your cutting edge weapon technology.
Aside of that direct damage to your economy, there's the indirect one. Because no company on this planet will store their data with you. They'll send that data abroad. If need be, to Iran or even China, if that's the last place where it's safe from your laws. You are essentially destroying your data storage industry with such a law.
And in the end, you don't even accomplish anything with it. Because what will you get. A few felons with some trivial charges you can tack onto them. You will catch exactly zero terrorists with it. As soon as this becomes law, they will simply shift to the next variant of hiding from you. They have one asset you do not have: Manpower. They have access to cheap manpower. If everything fails, you'll see them use written messages transported via sneakernet again.
I know it's tempting to think that this is the way ahead. But at best it's useless. At worst, and way more likely, it's an economic disaster.
Re: If I were them (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the force of law is absolute and apparently trumps the law of physics. Am I the only one here rolling my eyes at the Five Eyes? The reason that cluster exists is TO SKIRT THEIR OWN LAWS. The governments are breaking their own laws by unlawfully obtaining information by proxy. That way they can claim someone else provided the information and they weren't actually spying on their own people.
After that there isn't really any point having laws and they become a pure tool of oppression.
Lo and behold though, the cost of the fraud they enable via these backdoors will be passed on to the citizenry. I don't think we can do anything about it now though, you can't vote against an international council. That's basically "we understand your objections but fuck you".
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not a particularly visionary leader or anything. Bit of a buffoon really. The all-important thing is that he's not part of the aristocracy...
He's sure got you fooled, doesn't he.