Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data
jfruh writes: This may not come as a huge shock, but the director of the NSA doesn't believe that you have the right to encrypt your data in a way that the government can't access it. At a cybersecurity policy event, Michael Rogers said that the U.S. should be able to craft a policy that allows the NSA and law enforcement agencies to read encrypted data when they need to.
And? NSA may "want" a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are going to get it. But if a US-based company is holding encrypted data to which they also have access, you had damned well better believe the government is going to seek access to that data if it is supported by law. If companies want to take the direction of removing themselves from the encryption picture altogether, that is their prerogative. And guess what? There are other technical ways to get that data, such as before it's encrypted in the first place.
No, there isn't. And I didn't say there is. I was stating a set of facts, as are you. See? We can talk like adults.
No...you are completely misunderstanding my point. If you reread what I said, you will note that nowhere did I argue that anyone should build a backdoor for anything...but the fact is that some US-based companies DO have the ability to decrypt stored encrypted data, which they sometimes do for any variety of reasons, and, if when those services are storing the foreign communications of adversaries of the United States, which they are, then we should have a legal framework that allows access to said data. That is all.
Arguing for a master key -- which is what you THINK ADM Rogers is arguing for, but actually isn't -- is antithetical to the security interests of the United States, our people, our military, our intelligence community, and anyone else who requires secure communications in any form. But if you have already formed your conclusions, that is fine. What ADM Rogers is arguing for is a legal framework for data access of entities that operate within and under a US legal construct...and if there is encrypted data present that the data holder cannot access, that is just the way it goes. But as you know, there a number of ways to access the contents of what is ultimately encrypted data without breaking the encryption...ways that are as old as this decades-old discussion.
And we are going to seek those ways, and I will say something that is offensive to many slashdotters' sensibilities: if you support the principles that you claim to -- things like freedom, of speech, of choice, of anything else -- then you should support the abilities of one of the strongest powers in the world at actually, materially, and in reality (not in your little internet fantasy) of actually protecting and projecting those ideals. Actually judging the actions of the US Intelligence Community based on facts, to say nothing of having some perspective on history and reality beyond what self-styled internet tech-libertarians tell you, would be helpful also.
You say that as if the same kind of crap doesn't go on under the other party's watch. I mean, it's not like the Bush administration started all of the domestic spying that the Obama administration decided to continue.
Oh... Wait...
CIA was created in 1947 and the NSA in 1952, both under Truman, a Democrat. Due to domestic spying abuses (by both sides), Executive Order 12333 was passed to curtail it in 1991 by Reagan, a Republican.
Both sides have used and abused their authorities regarding monitoring of US person, though be careful when trying to throw stones. The issues you bring up did not first appear under Bush, but each president has had the power to address it, and so far I only see Reagan made a decent attempt at trying to stop it.
It's interesting that you only provide facts that defend one side while conveniently ignoring everything else.
Under which administration did all of the domestic surveillance get started? Under W Bush, a Republican. What did Obama do? Kept going with business as usual. BOTH parties are guilty of letting the NSA run amok. It doesn't matter under what circumstances it was created. Hell, the two parties in this day and age are nothing like they were even back in the 80's, much less the 40's and 50's when the Republicans were desegregating while the Democrats were fighting it. If someone like Reagan were to run today he would be crucified for compromising with the other side and run out of the race in the Iowa caucuses.
Quite frankly, trying to pin all of the problems with domestic spying on one party or the other is just ignorant. The fact of the matter is that both sides are equally to blame.
Do you understand that current Executive branch thinking says that they can do all of this data collection on U.S. citizens without that warrant?
Do you understand that current Executive branch thinking believes that they can kill U.S. citizens with drone strikes without any kind of criminal activity being involved?
Do you understand that current Executive branch thinking allows the USAG to kill or induce suicide on victims of baseless laws?
Do you understand that current Executive branch thinking says that the Bill of Rights is null and void?
Again I say, go fuck yourself Dave
... I realize you think this isn't the case, and that all of your communications are being mined and monitored (illegally, no less), and since proving a negative is impossible, I won't be able to help in that regard.
While my thoughts on the general matter at hand fall somewhere between daveschroeder's and the AC, I feel it's a bit insincere to imply that all US communications are NOT being monitored at all unless a warrant is involved. As far as metadata goes, we *know* they are; Snowden leaks have shown it; it's been confirmed by multiple sources; it happening isn't really a question.
Are they logging the content of all communications, or monitoring it, or analyzing it, etc? I don't know. Maybe that's what you are referring to. AC will probably still argue with you, but being more accurate and honest about recent events would lend your argument a bit more credibility.