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.

5 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dear Michael Rogers, by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

  2. Re:Dear Michael Rogers, by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Dear Michael Rogers, by grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  5. Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all by unrtst · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... 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.