Slashdot Mirror
FSF Responds To Microsoft's Privacy and Encryption Announcement
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft announced yesterday their plans to encrypt customer data to prevent government snooping. Free Software Foundation executive director John Sullivan questions the logic of trusting non-free software, regardless of promises or even intent. He says, 'Microsoft has made renewed security promises before. In the end, these promises are meaningless. Proprietary software like Windows is fundamentally insecure not because of Microsoft's privacy policies but because its code is hidden from the very users whose interests it is supposed to secure. A lock on your own house to which you do not have the master key is not a security system, it is a jail. ... If the NSA revelations have taught us anything, it is that journalists, governments, schools, advocacy organizations, companies, and individuals, must be using operating systems whose code can be reviewed and modified without Microsoft or any other third party's blessing. When we don't have that, back doors and privacy violations are inevitable.'"
How is encrypting data in motion going to help when they will simply provide the NSA the keys or otherwise provide access to the data. They are just another participant in the 'we never provided direct access' lie, when you simply provide everything on demand they don't need direct access, nor do they need to decrypt data off the wire.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Who cares if the software is non-free? That's not even the issue.
You are correct, the issue is that it must be open source and build-able from source.
Welcome to the good fight -- the FSF has been at it for a long time, and now the EFF realizes that you can't have freedom without knowledge. That is after all why we believe in a free press in the west, right? Whether the press lives up to its obligations or not, the idea is that without full disclosure, people cannot make good decisions.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
No, Microsoft *claims* to do something nobody could object to -- you're missing the whole point of the statement.
If Microsoft told you they were implementing security and it turned out they were using DES with a key hashed from the word 'Scroogled', would you be pleased? What if they're using good encryption but the keys never rotate? What if the keys rotate but they're on a fixed loop of 16 keys? How would you know?
As an everyday non-programmer, a casual user wouldn't know the difference either way. If however that user is on a fully open source operating system, they at least know that -some- others using that system have had a peek under the hood and still trusted it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
So, Microsoft finally does something no geek could object to...
I see what you did there. You tried to insert a faulty premise to support your argument. Any geek worth the title understands that any encryption technology that can not be vetted is, by definition, not trustworthy. So this latest PR stunt by Microsoft is just that, a PR stunt.
And I bet Microsoft will just hand over the encryption keys / passwords to the NSA.
Things like these are still a step forward, as NSA has to actually ask for the keys from companies, instead of just passively snooping everywhere it wants to.
>> I don't honestly believe that people would actually compile all their tools from source code they've reviewed personally to check for security holes
We do use some open source in our aviation products. We are required to heavily review literally every line of source code (both ours and open source) in order to get our product certified for aircraft use.
Let's face it: as far as we know, the door lock manufacturers also have a master key to all our houses. The schematics and design of the lock are not publicly available, and most people lack the skills to know if the schematics they are looking at are secure or not. It's the same with an OS. And while I *could* take the lock apart and figure out how it works, I still wouldn't know if my particular lock were secure or not, because I have not seen enough locks to know if this particular one is good or not.
Anytime this condition arises, we replace our own lack of knowledge with a trust in experts. We have to defer the judgement of security worthiness to an expert we trust, in which case we are again disinter-mediated from knowing if the lock is actually secure or not. We all trust *someone* with very specific knowledge to help us make decisions, whether that be medical, scientific, security or otherwise, and in each of those cases, we can find examples of where the expert has let us down.
Right. Because No Such Agency would never be able to find a way to read data encrypted by an open source program. Why, that's a magical band-aid for everything!
It makes things more difficult for them. Instead of having a neat backdoor they either have to insert obfuscated code, which could be detected or replaced at any time or convince people to use weak algorithms. Being open source people can select any algorithm they want - AES, Twofish, Serpent, Elyptic Curve, or rot13. The chances are that not all of them will be compromised. (if they all are then open or closed source doesn't matter - you're screwed either way)
How would I find out, personally, that Linux Mint is sharing keys with the NSA? The likelihood that I would personally discover that secret is somewhere between slim to none. I can't read code well enough, nor am I likely to spend the time necessary to read every line of code in the programs.
My assurance stems from,
1. Thousands (at least) of other end users actually do peruse the code, looking for errors, back doors, exploits, etc.
2. My OS comes from a "trusted source" - one which I personally trust.
Yes, there is a weakness in there. That weakness is, I have to trust someone. At the same time, there is a strength hidden right beside the weakness. I get to CHOOSE who I trust.
What, exactly, has convinced you that you can actually trust Microsoft? Has MS invited you to personally examine their code, to satisfy yourself that there are no exploits in their system? No? I didn't think so.
Linux, on the other hand, invites me to read any or all of their source.
You choose what you want, I'll choose what I want, thank you very much.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Security isn't a binary function. Open source is more secure than closed source because many independent people can download the source and review it, many people can build binaries, etc..
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!