Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IACR Finally Gets Around To Repudiating Mass Surveillance

Posted by timothy on from the hey-many-you're-making-us-look-bad dept.

First time accepted submitter TechyImmigrant (175943) writes "Following the focus on government mass surveillance resulting from the information revealed by Edward Snowden, many organizations involved in security and communications put out statements essentially repudiating that surveillance. As of yesterday (May 15th 2014) the IACR (International Association for Cryptologic Research) who one might expect to have a position on this, has finally one year after the anniversary of the leaks, got around to making a position statement. 'The membership of the IACR repudiates mass surveillance and the undermining of cryptographic solutions and standards. Population-wide surveillance threatens democracy and human dignity. We call for expediting research and deployment of effective techniques to protect personal privacy against governmental and corporate overreach.' So the crypto guys don't like it either. Now we know." They're not the only ones: reader Juha Saarinen (2822817) writes "Stung by concerns that the NSA may have introduced deliberately weakened crypto algorithms, NIST is embarking on a review of its existing standards and developments."

20 comments

  1. There is no privacy on the internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We live in a new era. Adapt, or die out. There is no fighting this trend.

  2. Re:our imaginary secrets will be safe again someda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's a good thing that our President(D) campaigned against this.

    Now we have hope that it will end.
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,
    Still waiting

  3. Johnny Come Latelys by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 3, Funny

    These guys are a little late to the party. I opposed mass surveilence back in the 20th century!

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    1. Re:Johnny Come Latelys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is still good news to have organized opposition from the field

    2. Re:Johnny Come Latelys by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Troll

      They probably never felt a need to bother. "What? People listening in on your shit? Yeah, that's our job. We make shit like that impossible."

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:Johnny Come Latelys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I opposed mass surveilence back in the 20th century!

      I did too, back then. But now opposing mass surveillance is too mainstream for me.

  4. It must be much easier now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all the talk of "traitor" and "spy" and "hang em high" has died down. What a brave organization to take such a stand like this.

  5. Actually... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    "We actually think that mass surveillance is pretty neat. Just think of all the advances we've made just trying to protect Alice and Bob from Eve and Mallory... If we can extend surveillance to the entire human population, and the number of eavesdroppers to the hundreds of thousands, just think of the pace of cryptographic discovery!"

  6. Privacy terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you watch TV shows like Person of Interest, you will learn that people who don't like mass surveillance are violent domestic terrorists who want to blow up planes and buildings, and shoot people responsible for surveillance. The new 24 Live Another Day series also has a wikileaks-like group which received a lot of hate from establishment hero Jack. 24 also has people protesting drones... I'm waiting for them to be portrayed as the bad guys too. TV dramas are now propaganda mouthpieces.

    1. Re:Privacy terrorists by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea, I've noticed that since 9/11. I'm sure the DOHS has input and influence over any script for any film or tv program dealing with "national security". It was like that when Hoover was around.
      It's like the 1950's with the threat of Communism around every corner, and how film and television pushed that fear on the American public.

      If you question anything, or want to get the real reason decisions are made, then you're a bad guy.

      Rational thought and deductive reasoning aren't taught in school, and now we see the consequences, where the younger generations coming up simply tune out all this talk of privacy. They don't have a problem with the NSA, or anyone else, monitoring their every thought, word and deed.
      The ultimate irony will be when Orwells 1984 isn't banned, it just won't be read or studied because his vision has come true.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  7. typo in headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refudiating

    1. Re:typo in headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Refudiating

      It may have been a typo, but it's a good word to remember next time we see an article containing FUD.

  8. "Stung" ??? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Stung by concerns that the NSA may have introduced deliberately weakened crypto algorithms, NIST is embarking on a review of its existing standards and developments.

    Give me a break. NIST was solidly behind Skipjack and the Clipper Chip in the early 90s, an deliberately went ahead with approval even though during the public comment period, they received approximately 80,000 negative comments, and exactly 3 positive comments.

    The very idea that they were "stung by the revelation" that NSA might have been behind subverting crypto is blatant BS. They have been the primary avenue for pushing this crap off onto the public.

    1. Re:"Stung" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skipjack was a good cipher. Key escrow was the problem.

    2. Re:"Stung" ??? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Skipjack was a good cipher. Key escrow was the problem.

      Skipjack was not known to be compromised. That is true. But key escrow was a REAL problem. The whole thing was just plain a bad idea that would have enabled government spying and intrusion, and NIST knew that. (It's not enough to say there were "inadequate controls" on the keys. When government is involved there are never enough controls.)

      None of this has much to do with my original point. Government was trying to get a foothold on your communications, and NIST was determined to allow it.

  9. Just One Minute by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    My only objection to mass surveillance or data compilation focusing on a subject has to do with different levels of legal privilege. If we are all allowed to do investigation, surveillance and data acquisition then I think it is wonderful. Good people will simply shine and lesser people will appear as they are. There are other elements in play as well. We may now have a lie detector that works quite differently than past lie detectors and people in a court room may not be able to lie or cover up anything any more. Imagine going to renew a driver's license and having a device ask you if you have driven drunk or under the influence of illegal drugs in the past three years? How about employers asking the same question? How about politicians being asked if they received compensation for their votes? Or how about stock brokers asked if they have acted in the buyers' best interest? Or husbands and wives asking about adultery? How about school kids being asked if they have listed all the names of anyone who gave them drugs? Or how about parents being asked if they have had sexual contact with children? Can we live in an honest society? Honesty might be the greatest social experiment of all times.

    1. Re:Just One Minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was equal for everyone it would indeed be interesting. However an interesting social experiment, it is a scary thought to think about how even the smallest censorship makes it all that much unfair. But the idea that everyone's(even the government's) dirt is out there, is interesting.
      If people would realize that this or that politician is not the shining star that they thought it would be itneresting. It would be a humbling and humanizing change. But I fear that somehow the rich, the politicians, the officers will be able to get their exposed information removed before available.

      It would be very interesting to see what changes are necessarily made to compensate for the (forced) honesty. Will entrance into politics be easier or harder? there are many implications. But it is all supposing that it would be equal and be available for all, which is a large maybe impossible task.

  10. IACR Repudiates Mass Surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's nothing!

    NSA and GCHQ both repudiate mass surveillance as well. They despise it utterly, and promise NEVER to do it again.

    So that's all right, isn't it?