Slashdot Mirror
FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption
blottsie writes: At a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, the FBI endured outright hostility as both technical experts and members of Congress from both parties roundly criticized the law enforcement agency's desire to place so-called back doors into encryption technology. "Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate. "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have," Lieu said.
At the risk of being down-modded: ... it is the people that allow them to get away with this stupid shit in the first place.
Sure would be nice if this were the new climate in D.C. instead of their current 1984 theme.
How stupid must your plan be if politicians actually call it stupid?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The term was Orwellian, which constitutes a few things..
"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" – a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practised by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly 1984.
While I don't think our founding fathers understood the concept of an "unperson" or manipulating the past, they did understand how Colonial rule worked which by all accounts came close to being Orwellian.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
No, the founding fathers had seen some pretty bad behavior from kings and tyrants, and were people who understood the big picture.
They certainly didn't anticipate everything, but they sure as hell tried to lay the groundwork for trying to formulate how to prevent this crap.
And then people got all scared and lost their shot and decided "oh, fuck all those constitutional protections, we're scared".
The problem with the FBI is they moronically believe that if they poke holes in crypto that it would still have any value. Because they're too fucking concerned about getting this information they can't stop to think that if there are holes for them, there's holes for anybody else to use.
What the FBI et al are basically saying amounts to "everybody should leave their house unlocked in case we need to go in, and we will go 'la la la' and pretend that nobody else will do this".
The FBI are either collectively too fucking stupid, or too fucking fascist to comprehend that crypto only really works if you don't punch holes in it.
But, hey, between law enforcement hiding how often they use that Stingray thing, and the "manaul of institutional perjury" which is parallel construction -- maybe it's time we stopped treating them as anything but a corrupt organization which needs a serious culling?
Fire 'em, arrest 'em, hang 'em -- it doesn't matter. These clowns have decided the law doesn't apply to them, so they don't deserve to be treated like the good guys.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Bad guys have to set the evil bit; the software checks whether or not it's set. Really people, we've thought this through.
from TFA, on "a back door just for the good guys": "Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have"
Yes, agreed. But besides that, having the back-doors only available "for the good guys" is problematic for a number of other reasons, including:
a) "the good guys" in this administration may be replaced by "less than good guys" in the next administration
b) It only takes one "not so good guy" in the organization to take advantage of a back door for nefarious purposes (perhaps with the best of intentions)
c) The existence of a back door "just for the good guys" assumes that there is no exploit that anyone could figure out with today's technology up to the technology available up to the retirement of the last piece of equipment that contained that particular back door (which might be decades). When you design a system, do you take into account the technology that will become available to break into it 20 or 30 years in the future?
d) That the "keys" for such a universal back door would be so valuable that they would inevitably be sold by someone with access to the highest bidder, or because of political or religious motivations.
The FBI might be better served by just being better at cyber break-ins than anyone else. This would allow them to do the monitoring they desire, and have the added benefits of making them work for access, rather than just go fetch passwords out of a safe, and develop some in-house expertise that could be used against real cyber criminals.
Now that I think of that last part, if we really want the FBI to understand about cyber security, it's important from an evolutionary point to never give them easy access to anything.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
That's like the "do not track" thing in my browser, right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, I think that they understood the concept very well. It's not exactly new; the Romans used it as did the Greeks in a few cases.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The best part about legislating what kinds of technology people can use is that only legal entities must abide by the law.
So, the "good companies" or "good individuals" who agree with you are now penalized by having back-doors while anyone "bad" is "free" to use solid and effective tools.
Bullet, meet foot.
This story reminds me that it's time to go throw the EFF another $20.
https://www.eff.org/
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did you not see the recent scandal about the FBI forensic lab techs who lied on the stand? One guy's hair was matched to a fucking dog.
Have you seen your state government recently? Specifically, have you seen the state governments that are purporting to do the "small government" routine? Kansas? New Jersey? Wisconsin? They're economies are tanking, credit ratings falling, deficits ballooning. What, New Jersey's credit rating has been downgraded nine times since Chris Christie took office with a promise to return to "fiscal sanity through smaller government". And their legislators? They're too busy trying to make sure high school students aren't exposed to fucking AP history class and making that the Bible is the "official state book" to address anything serious. Because god forbid a student should learn how the railroads were really built. Or what our government was up to in Central and South America in the '80s. Or what "Trail of Tears" means. Or who the "robber barons" were. Or that the earth wasn't made in six days.
States, Federal, it doesn't make a difference as long as it's government by, of and for the wealthy elite. And we've got SuperPACs spending tens of millions of dollars on local school board elections for chrissake. State legislators, the guys that used to be part-time politicians and full-time citizens, are almost as likely to become millionaires during their first two terms as your average federal congressman. Sure, you can make state boundaries mean something again, but remember, money doesn't recognize state borders. It doesn't matter if government is centralized. All that matters is that SuperPACs are centralized, because that's where the power lies.
This fight between big government/small government/state/federal is just something to keep us busy while the elite are carrying off everything in sight. Your "elections" are nothing more than the circuses in "bread and circuses".
You are welcome on my lawn.