Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Says He's 'A Strong Believer In Strong Encryption'

Posted by Soulskill on from the except-when-it-helps-the-terrists dept.

An anonymous reader writes: U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with Re/code recently on a variety of topics relating to technology. The talk included the president's thoughts on encryption, which has been a controversial subject in tech circles lately after government officials (including Obama himself) have publicly complained about default encryption in modern communication tools. In the interview, he says he's a "strong believer in strong encryption," adding, "I lean probably further on side of strong encryption than some in law enforcement." Obama puts it another way, more bluntly: "There's no scenario in which we don't want really strong encryption." However, the president says the public itself is driving concern for leaving law enforcement a way in: "The first time that an attack takes place in which it turns out that we had a lead and we couldn't follow up on it, the public's going to demand answers."

18 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by bagboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The first time that an attack takes place in which it turns out that we had a lead and we couldn't follow up on it, the public's going to demand answers." - Welcome to leadership Obama. Where sometimes you have to make unpopular/hard choices and live with the consequences.

    1. Re:Huh? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama Says He's 'A Strong Believer In Strong Encryption'...

      As long as he has a way to defeat it

    2. Re:Huh? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he's had enough chances to prove that he's a champion of The People.

      he failed. every.single.time.

      I refuse to trust him anymore. his lips are moving, so he's lying.

      not saying I trust republicans, either. I trust them even less. but my faith in democrats is at zero and so I'd prefer we scrub the whole R and D party system, redesign the WHOLE thing and start all over again.

      until then, you can present all the talking heads you want. no one with any sense believes a word they say, anymore.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Huh? by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama said,"The first time that an attack takes place in which it turns out that we had a lead and we couldn't follow up on it, the public's going to demand answers."

      That's utter BS.
      * If it's some local law enforcement types, they've already been unable to do this in a timely manor for ages. The public doesn't demand answers because the answer is clear - the data was thoroughly encrypted.
      * On the other end of the spectrum, if it's something we're not allowed to know about (NSA level terrorist stuff), then the public won't know about it to ask any of those questions.

      Some edge cases in between those:
      * it's still high level, but the public does know the NSA knows... then they can clearly get a warrant and trace the source. They also have the most massive amounts of cpu power and maths to throw at the problem, so if anyone will get to the root, they will (assuming it's something they have full authority to rampage after full force).
      * If it's still local law level, but pretty important, they can also escalate and get warrants and get the FBI/etc involved as needed.

      In either case, a backdoor doesn't solve the problem if said person is using something that doesn't have a backdoor (or has one unknown to the agency working the case). Backdoors have been identified (and originated in the NSA) before, and none of those helped all the normal cases (state/local). We have no idea if that helped any other cases that were top secret (and/or questionably legal), or to what extent... but that doesn't matter with regards to Obama's statement because we, the public, won't be demanding answers if we don't know about it.

      Besides, if he's only worried about saving face, that's an awful reason for anything.

    4. Re:Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It only matters that people believe there is no other choice. It works. Simple as that. What can I say? This has always been a psychological game.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being President is a hard job - you're constantly faced with choosing who to pander to next.

      "Choosing who to pander to next" doesn't make your hair go grey in six years.

      The man is younger than I am, and looks like he's aged 20 years since he got in office.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Huh? by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not saying I trust republicans, either. I trust them even less. but my faith in democrats is at zero and so I'd prefer we scrub the whole R and D party system

      You're lack of faith is disturbing. Now all we need is another Sandy Hook to get the Democrats attacking the 2nd amendment and Republicans attacking abortion and that'll scare you and everyone else back into a two party frenzy.

    7. Re:Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When Obama was elected I hoped that he would see his presidency as an opportunity to take a stand against at least some of the great injustice that still exists in this world

      What injustice did you want him to take a stand against?

      And what injustice are you thinking of that's worth suspending habeus corpus?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Oh look, he did talk to Silicon Valley after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's a shame that Snowden did so much damage. Obama could have kept the NSA snooping on everybody and US tech could have continued keeping people in the dark about it. Wait, that's what's going to happen anyway. Keep moving, nothing to see here.

  3. He said lots of things by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What he has done is something completely different..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember when he was a strong believer in transparency too.

    1. Re:Transparency by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember when he was a strong believer in transparency too.

      Of all the promises that he failed to keep, this is the one I regret most. The other promises would make a difference in the short term, but an improvement in transparency would have made a huge improvement in the long term.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Transparency by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, who cares about the murders he is directly responsible for

      No one said to ignore that.

      Let's regret missing transparency.

      Yes, because in the long run transparency would prevent a lot more murders.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Obama is a strong believer in strong encryption... by cyba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of HIS data.

  6. I'm a strong believer in good deadbolts by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet I want you to give me a copy of the key and trust that it wont fall into the wrong hands or be used illegally against me. See how stupid that sounds Obama?

  7. Anyone who still supports that asshole... by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is just not paying attention.

    I never bought what he was selling, but any democrat who still supported him after he signed an extension of the PATRIOT act is a goddamned hypocrite.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  8. so by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "leaving law enforcement a way in"
    like a warrant?

  9. Re:Here's the problem by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny things is, it's not encryption that's foiling the government. It's stupidity. They had all the info they needed on the 9/11 hijackers but they ignored it. It was all in the open, nothing hidden at all. They just were too stupid to see it and too lazy to do their fucking jobs. No one got fired. Nobody! We just got the fucking Patriot act. Why? The same stupid fuckers are running things so what is that going to help. They can put a camera in every house in the US of A and they'll still fail because you can't fix stupid. The problem isn't with encryption it's with incompetent people running things. They fuck up over and over and over and over and never get fired. They just go whine about encryption and privacy like that's going to solve the problem of stupid fuckers that can't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed on the bottom. Yeah, lets just abolish privacy, then when shit blows up what is the answer then? The Damn Russians practically handed them the Boston Marathon bomber dipshits and they couldn't handle that either. Stupid. The only thing saving us is the ISIS/Al Qaeda numbnuts are crazy and stupid too. Vicious but not all that bright or we'd be in real trouble.