IACR Finally Gets Around To Repudiating Mass Surveillance

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."

Comments

Johnny Come Latelys

[Austrian Anarchy]

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

Actually...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"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!"

Privacy terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Privacy terrorists

[Sir_Eptishous]

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.

"Stung" ???

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:"Stung" ???

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Just One Minute

[JimSadler]

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.