Slashdot Mirror


Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

According to an article at The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has sided with British Prime Minister David Cameron in saying that police and government agencies should not be blocked by encryption from viewing the content of cellphone or online communications, making the pro-spying arguments everyone has come to expect: “If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.” ... The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves. The Clinton administration fought and lost a similar battle during the 1990s when it pushed for a “clipper chip” that would allow only the government to decrypt scrambled messages.

50 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. No. by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never.

    1. Re:No. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.

      If the court approves, they can just go and obtain the computers. That is already solved.

      If the hard disk is encrypted (very rare I suspect), the expectation of legal costs or indefinite holding at Gitmo without any trial are already there as motivation to comply.

      No, better spying is not what we need. It destroys our freedom of speech and quality of life. We need due process. We need protection of all those not proven guilty yet, because it could be any one of us.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:No. by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So first they can obtain computers. People were upset, but nothing changed and they are able to do it.
      Next they were able to put people into Gitmo without due process. People were upset, but nothing changed and they are able to do it.

      Now they want to spy even more. People are upset. So what will change now?

      And you know if it doesn't work to put it into law this time, it will the next time. People will be upset and nothing will happen.

      If your kid steals a cookie and all you do is being upset, it will steal again. Just telling the kid it should not do that is not enough.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:No. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only that but if this ever became policy, it would create an interesting line that will have to be drawn: What constitutes a hidden message that needs to have its keys or its otherwise actual meaning revealed to the government in plain English?

      For example, the US government itself hid its communications from the enemy in the WWII Pacific Theater by simply translating it to another language that the enemy couldn't understand, and then using code within that language.

      Although that was actually so weak it was rather pathetic (side note: even more pathetic that the Japanese never broke it, but then again it was never used in long range communication so they rarely had ever heard it in action during a time that they could meaningfully use it) there are a lot of ways you can encode information that aren't necessarily for cryptography, yet even more advanced datamining techniques will easily miss it.

      And what's the punishment for sending a message to somebody in a manner that the government cant decrypt without providing them with key escrow, even if your actions were completely benign and you had no intention of hiding anything to begin with?

    4. Re:No. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pathetic? Let's see how well you can deal when you lack some extremely obscure knowledge, and live in a world with no Internet. Security through obscurity used to work damn well in the past, which is why so many people still think they can rely on it.

    5. Re:No. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe it or not, most people aren't upset (I don't know why, but that's a different topic). If a politician wants to make a wise move, he will choose to be on the side of the people who are not upset. If he doesn't, he will get voted out. That's how politics works.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:No. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, the kids behave as long as the cameras are rolling, only to get back to their old behavior as soon as Mrs. Proper is gone. Not unlike the US government, which also returns to its actual self the moment the peoples' attention (who were just protesting a bill that would have eliminated yet another few rights) is on something else and the bill can be passed quietly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Hope and change by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope that we can soon change to another administration before anything like this comes to pass.

    1. Re:Hope and change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.

    2. Re:Hope and change by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      The administrations never change, they simply put on a different baseball cap and hire a sharp-lookin' and smart-talkin' guy who will make you believe in things like hope and change.

      Oh yeah? Explain George Bush.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Hope and change by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fake as all the others.

      The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.

    4. Re:Hope and change by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fake as all the others.

      The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.

      Yes, Heaven forbid the man occupying the highest office of the land and charged with making important decisions be known as an intellectual. I mean, this IS America...

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Yeah by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just ignore that bit about being secure in your papers and possessions! The Government should be able to take what it wants, for your protection!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re: Yeah by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You still have your copy. Information should be free. Don't buy imaginary property

      I'm getting sick and tired of people chanting that false mantra. Information doesn't "want" anything, so stop anthropomorphising. Should your genome be available to anyone on request because, after all, you'll still have the original, and "information wants to be free?"

      Be careful what you wish for - you may get it, and it will get you in the end.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re: Yeah by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take out the anthropomorphising and you can see the intended meaning: "It is a unavoidable property of information that it can be and will be replicated and dispersed."

    3. Re: Yeah by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So why should information be free? It's not a law of nature, a property of the universe, or any other such. If someone creates the cure for the common cold and keeps it secret even to their grave, that's entirely their business. Sure, they're being dicks, but there's not a law against that (yet).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Yeah by Technician · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The government should defend the Constitution instead of tear it apart.

      The people should be secure. The people should have the right to assemble, and exclude a government representative from the meeting.

      A meeting my phone should have the same protection.

      It is illegal for citizens to wiretap a cell phone signal. This should apply to everyone.

      It became clear this was not true. Other tools were made to enforce what should have been standard.

      Now the government is a little upset that encryption exists.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  4. Just be glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of government laws and tactics, hiding your communications is incredibly easy for anyone who isn't an idiot.

    What this means is that most terrorists must be incredibly stupid... or the government wants to spy on normal people more easily.

    1. Re:Just be glad by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given how unbelievably rare terrorists are, clearly they want these powers to spy on you.

  5. Pure fantasy, but that is what he must sell by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.

    Simply impossible with the inherent corruption in the system. He's making the same speech as the Supreme Chancellor in front of the senate, and he will get his thunderous applause.

    There is nothing left to do but try to keep up and protect our selves as best we can.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by jonwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.

    1. Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes! For fucks sake yes! Let's turn your argument around then? Where would you stop to not make what you say happen? What if it took cameras on each and every person's forehead that are constantly streaming to the NSA? That's fine with you? If that's what it takes to stop killing mothers I mean... If so, where do YOU draw the line? If I can't have private communication with people, I don't feel like I'm human anymore. Then nothing is worth anything to me. Get it?

    2. Re: I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I am really trying to say is "we should not use terrorism as an excuse to make the world less secure or less free" (this includes bans or restrictions on encryption, internet censorship, unconstitutional or illegal acts by governments and their agencies, deliberate backdoors in off-the-shelf software and hardware to make it easier to break and wholesale collection and retention of data or metadata without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity)

      As one of the founding fathers of the United States said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    3. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I would rather not die.

      If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.

      But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.

      The question is whether you believe there are more terrorists in the USofA or more bad cops/contractors/other-people-with-access-to-track-your-daughter.

      Once you sign away her privacy she probably won't be getting it back.

      And she will still be in more danger from her boyfriend/husband (and ex-boyfriends/husbands) than she is from any terrorist in the USofA.

    4. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if that means you daughter grows up in a fascist dictatorship? There are things worse than death...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by bug1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or to say it another way...

      âoeIt is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

      But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.â - John Adams

    6. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corrupt police kill more Americans than Terrorists do. So giving them more tools to track and attack you increases the risks to you and your family.

    7. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by Slashjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.

      Unless you've missed the whole thing about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA molesting people at airports, the government doing loads of unconstitutional spying, and tons of other privacy-violating issues, you should know that that is simply false. You don't have privacy if government thugs are spying on you, or using automated tools to do so.

    8. Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In risk management you learn early that there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. Actually, you DO accept risks quite a lot. Yes, even in everyday life. When you get into your car and drive to work, there's always the risk that you get into a fatal car accident. All it takes is some drunk driver hitting you head on and a hint of bad luck, and you're a goner. Happens every year, a few thousands of times. When you pit that risk of losing your very life against the quite mundane gain of getting to work, are you nuts to dive head first into that risk, are you a bad parent because you put the rather minor goal of getting to work ahead of your chance to watch your daughter grow up? Of course not. Yes, the risk exists and yes, people die. But the chance of it happening is sufficiently small that you accept the risk in favor of being able to get to and from work, keep the job and keep earning money.

      The same is true with terrorism. Is there a chance that some terrorists will kill you? Yes. They could well be plotting right now that they plan to blow up the building your office is in on Monday with you getting killed in the process. Should we now throw away any and all liberties we have to avoid this? No. First and foremost, if the whole shit that went down in Paris proved anything then that no matter what freedoms you relinquish, you don't buy security with it. France has about the broadest surveillance laws in the EU and the most ridiculous limitations on encryption, and it meant jack shit. Personally I consider it amazing that something that proved without a doubt that total surveillance serves no purpose in terms of terrorism prevention can be used as an argument for MORE privacy erosion.

      But second, even IF it did serve any meaningful terrorism prevention, which we now know it does not: Does such a small chance of being a terror target warrant the total elimination of privacy? One might easily say "Of course, I don't want to die!"

      But then I'd rather not drive to work anymore. If the chance to die is all that matters, going to work is WAY, WAY more dangerous than not throwing away your freedom.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. No thanks by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not afraid of terrorists. I am not afraid of religious extremists. I am not afraid of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drug addicts, carjackers, burglars, home invaders, "active shooters," or copyright violators. No, the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government, and that makes me sad.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "the biggest threat to my freedom comes from my own government"

      Yes and no.

      Obama was elected twice; the people have put him - and the rest of the statist tyrants in these positions of power. And yes, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it is the state vs the people.

      It is your neighbor voiting to steal your money to get "free healthcare", the man in line at the grocery store next to you voted for Obama to get "paid days off", the woman in the car next to you voted for Boehner, to get "tax the rich" and to enact "common sense gun control".

      We are living in a post-constitutional period, the state violates this compact whenever it pleases them. Our individual rights and liberties are for all practical purposes already gone. Your money isn't yours, you are only allowed what they decide you can keep. You cannot choose what kind of toilet you want without the state entering the transaction to "protect" you.

      The problem isn't the politicians. A scrorpion only does what a scorpion does after all.

      It's you fellow citizen you cannot be made to spend 5 minutes to think anything through when assessing claims such as "this will reduce your health insurance by $2,500 dollars! All men have a right to healthcare!" while they blindly vote for more and more government intrusion in their lives.

      The problem is you. Wakt the fuck up America. It is far past time for a 5th amendment convention of the states.

    2. Re:No thanks by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While you do point out some serious problems, you are placing your blame too firmly on one side. For every citizen who can't spend the time to think through the 'reduce your health insurance by $2,500' claim, there is another of equally simplistic thinking who sees only 'big gubment be coming to take my money.' The problem is neither too much more too little government - the problem is people who are so caught up in supporting their overarching political ideals in all cases, they fail to properly consider each issue presented as an independent decision. They do not ask 'What is the right policy?' They ask 'What is the Conservative policy?' or 'What is the Liberal policy?'

  8. That is what you lost... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... When you abused the trust people put in the Government and the NSA.

    Previously... before all this arrogant bullshit... you would have gotten that cooperation either publicly or covertly. But you gave everyone the finger and told them you could do what you want.

    You told everyone that Due Process was for suckers and you could just do whatever whenever however. And that has a price.

    You're paying it now. The whole country will be paying it.

    I don't want to put this all on Obama. It is also on the people that run these agencies and it is of course on the previous administration as well.

    None of them have any regard for the constitution. It is a social contract to be obeyed by the letter and the spirit. Not either or neither. Both. You do what it says and if you've come up with a clever way to get around it without breaking the letter of the law... you don't do it.

    It isn't just a law. It is a relationship. It is a code. It is what other societies have for a holy writ. You don't break it or the nation cracks.

    And that is what has happened. The nation has cracked... and cracked again... and it is starting to break.

    Patriotism he says? This would be the patriotism that so many on the political left laugh at and spit upon? Well... why would patriotism shuffle over to the likes of Obama covered in phlegm and do his bidding?

    All this anti America garbage has a price as well. How could it not. If you devalue patriotism then patriotism has been devalued. When you call upon it... the check bounces.

    Take me... My patriotism is just about used up. It hasn't been honored. It hasn't been replenished. It has been condemned and devalued.

    Then Obama presumes to call upon it in the name of what? More unconstitutional spying? He wants to use my love of country which he laughs at to destroy my country?

    The man is delusional.

    The country needs to be run people that at the very least understand what they're doing. I don't even need someone that is honest. I need someone that knows their job. Obama and the people he's got running the government do not. They don't understand what binds the country together or keeps it running.

    I'll take anyone of any political bent so long as they know their jobs and honor their oaths. Beyond that they can do anything at this point. I won't be picky.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the big by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    corporations that control the government. They are the ones paying real money to prevent and remedy security breaches. It seems it would be in their best interests to have strong encryption to prevent a lot of expensive problems, yet they seem unusually quiet on the subject.

    The terrorists will always find a way to communicate in secret. Eliminating secure encryption will simply raise the cost of secure communication for them. Meanwhile the rest of us will be left with our asses showing.

  10. Oh God, he said "Patriots"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here we go again, 911 all over again.
    Let me tell you who the REAL PATRIOTS are.... ...the ones who get out in the streets right fucking now and REJECT this bullshit spying with every ounce of their soul.
    America is a free country of brave independant self sufficient self defending souls, we dont need your fucking nanny state.
    So go ahead Obama and congress and lawmen gone bad politics and all you other state terrorists and control freaks and plain old ragheaded terrists... you just try to take away americans freedom and slave us to your game.
    Go ahead, wind that clock closer to 1770's again...
    We'll show you who the REAL PATRIOTS are.

  11. No right to privacy of self, is no rights at all. by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The next step is thought police.

  12. Is Obama stupid? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or does he intentionally want to bankrupt Silicon Valley?

    No-one in their right mind wants anything to do with US software products any more, because we've no idea how many backdoors they've built in, and can't trust them an inch.

  13. Prior art by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The technology required is the "warrant" - issued by a judge on probable cause. I believe the technology has been around for several hundred years.

    I mean, Obama couldn't possibly have been referring to intercepting communications without a lawful warrant, and certainly not without cause, right?

  14. Totally a Problem by firewrought · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By definition, no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure.

    But with strong crypto it's secure enough that the 3rd party can see (or alter) your communications. Obama and Cameron and (undoubtedly) all other future leaders want to strip away this protection using the force of law to change how crypto products are designed. You will live your life under the state microscope and, as always, the proper prerogatives of government will be twisted to cover up incompetence and serve the powerful few instead of protecting the dignity of the individual.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    1. Re:Totally a Problem by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "You will live your life under the state microscope".

      So it'll be like having my own "The Truman Show"

      Do I get paid union scale? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will lead to some nice overtime :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  15. Re:Precedence? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?

    They try again and again to implement the same bad ideas, knowing that defeats don't matter, understanding that they only need to score a single victory and their maladaptive proposals will be forever enshrined in law, never to be repealed. These are people who play chess and as such they learned to take a long view of things, realizing that most Americans have incredibly short memories and are only considering the here and now.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  16. Email Back Doors = Steganography Boom by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's get real.

  17. Re:I'm surprised we aren't hearing more from the b by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is all down to matters of principle. So lets extend out the argument that encryption obstructs police activity and should be banned. Clothing allows people to hide dangerous items that could threaten the life of police, so let's ban it and require people to be naked at all times so they can not hide dangerous items on their person. People can run from the police and get away, so lets require that everyone must wear leg irons so that they can not run away. It's a great meme, let's add to it.

    It is not the job of the citizen to surrender their liberty and privacy to make it easier for the people they employ to assist those citizens in the upholding of the law. I will not be naked and in chains because it makes it easier for law enforcement to control and abuse me, neither would I accept a leash around my neck or that I require permission from law enforcement before I do anything at all.

    So fuck the autocrats, we 'EMPLOY' them to make out lives better not so they can fucking control them, be that politicians or police officers. Seriously 'What The Fuck' is going on?

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  18. Backdoors for everyone by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, so we'll have an American Backdoor for the Americans, but they don't just anyone accessing their data so they won't share it with everyone, which means we'll also need a German Backdoor for the Germans and a French Backdoor for the French and obviously multiple law-enforcement agencies in each of those countries will need access and frankly even assuming that by some miracle none of the agencies in any of the countries have anyone on staff who is either corrupt or incompetent there's somewhere around a 100% chance that other people with (more) malicious intents will gain access to said backdoors.

    Meanwhile these supposed terrorists that these backdoors are designed to stop are either a) already too stupid to properly secure their communications or b) smart enough to "manually" encrypt the message itself and not simply the envelope, which means all this is for naught anyway.

  19. Re:Nosey fuckers by easyTree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Makes no difference - I don't understand the process by which these things happen but I'm assuming that the feedback loop involving the public has a zero weighting.

  20. Re:ALL politicians in power sound the same by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't speak to the UK, but the US doesn't have that problem at the legislative level. At the executive level, so much of the government is a black box. We don't really know what they're doing and they have been caught lying to congress. So... the conspiracy theories are going to run wild. Why try to stop them.

    Price of lying to congress which is a thing the NSA was caught red handed doing.

    Of course, the IRS also recently lied to congress.

    And the head of the new ACA or Obama care system just resigned mostly for lying to congress as well.

    So... it is a thing. The executive is lying a lot. Congress really needs to get a spine and gut the executive.

    The legislature is our most democratic body. The executive should fear them. But they don't. They see the legislature as a joke they can control. Largely at this point because it is full of so many useful idiots.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  21. And locks too! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one am tired of the government from being slowed by locks whenever they need to find a terrorist suspect, I think the government needs a master key that can open any lock, and everyone combination lock needs to have a master unlock code to unlock it.

    Since the master keys would only be available to a few thousand (ok, maybe a few hundred thousand) law enforcement personnel, I fail to see how the "bad guys" would ever get access to them. The government has our best interests at heart, and they carefully screen employees to ensure that none of them are the "bad guys".

  22. Re:IRS Targeting Scandal by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The IRS targeting 'scandal' is still lacking in evidence that might confirm intent or systematic bias. Without this, there is little substantial to the accusations. It may simply be that one end of the political spectrum is more prone to pushing the limits of non-profit status.

  23. Could you hire an IT security person? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before making such idiotic statements? Pretty please? It needn't be me (actually, it sure as FUCK wouldn't be me!) but hire someone who has at least half a clue before making yourself look like a total Cameron to someone who knows even a little bit about security.

    A "government backdoor" is NEVER EVER a "government ONLY backdoor". There is no such thing as "government only" when it comes to something where it is impossible to detect if it is being used. If you create a "VIPs only" door to a club and you cannot put a watchman there to guard it and you can't even monitor the entrance to see who goes in or out, how long do you think it will take for people to know that this entrance exists (no matter how well you camouflage it and write "Jehova's Witness recruitment center" over the entrance), notice that it's the easy way into a club and simply USE it, knowing that there won't be anyone who will find out?

    And no, requiring some superspecialawesome Goverment-only key doesn't do diddly jack. Because since some government goon with half a day of training has to be able to use it, anyone who knows his way around doors will be able to forge it. And no matter what you say, I simply cannot imagine this being the one awesome exception to the rule of government accepting any half assed job as "a-ok" because they themselves have no idea how to gauge the quality of the work and will accept anything because nobody gives a shit.

    No. Sorry. Government-only backdoors do not exist. They're by definition public. At the very least, they are public enough that every OTHER government will have the keys to it, too. One way or another.

    And now let's ponder for a moment whether we want the Iran to have backdoors to computers at, say, Lockheed Martin.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. A weakness is a weakness is a weakness by monkeyzoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A backdoor/vulnerability/weakness that the government can exploit is one that a bad actor can exploit. Digital data of many sorts *requires* integrity and confidentiality. To allow an opening for surveillance is to allow an opening for hackers. It is simply not tenable to the economic functioning of the planet to allow communications and storage that are other than secure.