Slashdot Mirror


US Tech Giants Ask Obama Not To Compromise Encryption

An anonymous reader writes: Two industry bodies which represent Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, IBM, and others, have written to President Obama urging that the U.S. government not seek to legislate "official back doors" into encryption techniques. The Software and Information Industry Association and the Information Technology Industry Council sent the "strongly worded" letter on Monday, saying, "Consumer trust in digital products and services is an essential component enabling continued economic growth of the online marketplace. Accordingly, we urge you not to pursue any policy or proposal that would require or encourage companies to weaken these technologies, including the weakening of encryption or creating encryption 'work-arounds.'" The letter is the latest salvo in a public battle for secure communications, one that has reached the public eye in a way that few security stories do.

24 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. TPP by koan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do we need encryption rules in the TPP?

    A key priority for the U.S. semiconductor industry regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement currently under negotiation has been to introduce rules to prevent restrictions on the import and use of commercial encryption technologies.

    You can bet VPN and other technologies are on the plate too.
    If you Google "encryption and TPP" you will find a link to the PDF without having to fill anything out.
    http://go.semiconductors.org/w...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:TPP by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Large corporations writing a secret treaty that won't be revealed until it has already been voted into law. Mass spying programs overseen by a secret court responsible to nothing and no one.

      Shenanigans like this wouldn't be happening if a Democrat were in office.

    2. Re:TPP by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shenanigans like this wouldn't be happening if a Democrat were in office.

      You're joking right?
      R or D, new boss same as the old boss, no one gets into any position of power without being vetted and beholden to the status quo.
      There's literally no point in voting.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  2. Last step: TV ads by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think if they can't manage to convince politicians how dangerous their plans are, there will be some TV adverts that tell the lay person in an easy to understand way what is going on and what the risks are.

    If the same message is brought to people in adverts by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and they all tell you that the politicians want to mess up your life, that would get people's attention. Not just on Slashdot.

  3. Re:Easier for US gov to call them ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After the last renewal of the Patriot act, wouldn't it just be easiest for the US government to name each of these companies an "ISP" so they'd be compelled to collect information on their (unencrypted) servers?

    And when they ("they" being industry, in a continued response to this attack on privacy) discover the government has done this maneuver and start encrypting said servers/services end-to-end, what will be deemed an acceptable configuration for ISPs then?

    The entire point of industry here is there should be no middle ground when it comes to weakening privacy. Justify your access through proper (read: Constitutional) channels, or piss off. You haven't proven that the abuse of this power is effective at doing anything but crushing consumer confidence.

  4. Back doors = Security Weaknesses by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No matter how well intentioned the government may be in requesting a crypto back door, all it does is open up a hole for potential criminals and state actors to steal information from individuals and corporations alike. Unless the government was somehow able to indemnify and protect all parties involved, there should be no back doors. End of story.

    1. Re:Back doors = Security Weaknesses by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless of if the government was somehow able to indemnify and protect all parties involved, there should be no back doors. End of story.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Back doors = Security Weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well intentioned? Even if it worked perfectly so only the government had access, WHO THE FUCK TRUSTS these 'good guys'!

      NSA/CIA spies on Senate and nobody is prosecuted, FBI does bulk tracking wiretapping, and nobody prosecuted. Obama asks court to ignore legal rulings, we're heading into Presidential elections where every candidate has a big NSA file on him, and an out of control General capable of leaking it if they voice opposition to the spy machine.

      No good guys there.

      Even if it was for law enforcement only ...
      In the last few days alone, we've had policeman shoot a man in the back at close range with a kill shot, simply because he had headphones on and didn't hear an order to take his hands out of his pockets. We've had another attack kids at a pool party, luckily they stopped him before he killed one of them. Another in a long long long list of people shot, choked, or killed in dubious or illegal circumstance, with police officers acting as executioners.

      Who the fuck trusts the good guys because the police have killed far more innocent people than terrorists, and the spy machine has undermined democracy far more than China or Russia.

      Even a perfect backdoor is a bad backdoor if it lets the police (statistically more likely to kill you than a terrorist), access to your private data.

    3. Re: Back doors = Security Weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Especially when government can't keep its own data safe. Someone will break in and steal the private keys in days... rendering encryption useless worldwide.

  5. The Folly of Government by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, these idiots actually think that they will be the only ones with access to these back doors? They'd be hacked in minutes, and every secret that every American company had would be in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, and independent hackers.

    These idiot authoritarians need to be taught that their idiocy KILLS American business. But then, I guess they don't care. They think they can just print their way to prosperity.

    1. Re:The Folly of Government by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Exactly this. Even if we were to make the huge assumption that US law enforcement would only use their double-secret encryption backdoors for good, it would only be a matter of time before $RANDOM_HACKER figured out how to get into that backdoor. If you add "law enforcement only back doors" into encryption, you might as well just unlock the front door and put down a welcome mat.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. Not much the US can do. by bytesex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the recently proposed crypto algorithms aren't American. The cat is out of the bag - crypto is an academic subject now, and everyone's participating.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  7. Oh, they're so *cute* thinking they matter. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A government that does this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    is simply no longer interested in the rule of law other than to further their handler's interests.

    So, request away! Ask for a pony while you're at it.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  8. Re:Amusing... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    There is no pro Microsoft bias on slashdot. /sarcasm

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. Weak encryption = No encryption. No exceptions. by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Weak encryption is effectively the same as no encryption. Encryption has no value unless it cannot be broken. You cannot make encryption only weak for the "good" guys. It simply doesn't work that way and wishing will not make it otherwise. Any government official that argues in favor of weak encryption is either ignorant of how encryption works or is corrupt/self-serving and just wants their job to be easier without regard to the consequences.

    Yes I am fully aware that "bad" guys having access to strong encryption presents certain challenges. However weakening your own encryption to the government can spy on the populace will not EVER solve that problem.

  10. Re:Brace yourselves Canada by hey! · · Score: 2

    Would Canada under Harper and the Conservatives be that much better? His government brought forth the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act which did not mention children or predators anywhere but in the title, and would have expanded government surveillance powers had the bill not been stopped by public outcry.

    Scotland would have been a good choice had the independence referendum passed. So I guess now you're going to have to learn Swedish.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Ask Obama? by xdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is this, the Third Reich?

  12. Re:Brace yourselves Canada by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about Iceland? Lots of privacy, and plenty of cooling for data centers... Either way, when exports become hard, companies can just leave.

    Why not Iceland?

    Too many damned diacritical marks for one thing.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  13. Back doors are weak for everyone by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you saying that backdoor'ed encryption is a mathematical impossibility, or that it won't work in practice because the backdoor key will eventually leak due to hacking, rogue employees, etc?

    It is almost certainly a practical impossibility and I'm confident it is a mathematical impossibility too. A key is either possible to crack in a reasonable amount of time or it isn't. There is no middle ground. You can hand a key to whomever you like but if you create the backdoor by weakening the encryption then it is weak for everyone who would be interested in cracking said encryption. If the NSA can figure it out, so can others. Furthermore, each additional party you had a key to creates another vector for attack which is the practical problem. Even if the encryption were somehow secure we know from experience that keeping the systems that store the keys secure presents some security challenges that we are in no danger of solving.

    1. Re:Back doors are weak for everyone by Steve+B · · Score: 2

      The point here is that the backdoor could be a second key instead of a way to break your key. Assuming that second key is also resistant to breaking then you haven't introduced any vulnerabilities to an outsider--assuming that the second key is kept secure. And that, it must be admitted, is a pretty damn big if.

      That makes it an exercise in futility, easily defeated by hacking the system to substitute some other second key (which could be random gibberish, since it's not actually used, just put in to defeat the backdoor).

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  14. I remember storys like this about USSR ... by rbgnr111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    when I was a kid, this is the sort of thing I would expect to hear of the USSR... now it's here...
    it seems to me that if they force backdoors or weak security, wouldn't that hurt most us based IT security vendors?... wouldn't that force any that wanted to sell internationally to relocate outside the US?
    what is the point of any encryption at all if there is a backdoor built in, or it's weak to begin with....

    1. Re:I remember storys like this about USSR ... by rbgnr111 · · Score: 2

      the terrorism angle on this is a bunch of BS... unless your in the middle east, the odds of being killed or hurt by a terrorist attack are up there with getting hit by lightning... your actually more likely to drown in your own bathtub than have a terrorist kill you.
      all this really equates to the boogyman might jump out from under your bed... so don't use encryption

  15. "Misuse" of Encryption by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else catch the nonsensical bomb-threat at the White House yesterday?

    I was passing a TV set to CNN and that was the focus. I've not seen much about it otherwise.

    But they evacuated the Press Room once or twice.

    Eventually somebody stood at a podium to opine about how we all need to address this issue of Encryption because it hinders their ability to catch the bad guys when the bad guys "misuse" encryption.

    I was incredibly offended at the very idea. It's so stupid - you either use it or you don't. Using encryption to keep the feds from looking over your shoulder and reading your communications is not "misuse". It's the entire purpose and absolutely correctly used as such. And in the context of the US, it would seem we have the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments to consider.

    Not only was I disgusted at this moment of sheer propaganda, I found myself very inclined to believe the entire thing was completley staged.

  16. There are no secrets by clovis · · Score: 2

    Have they forgotten that we had multiple people over the years trying to sell/give away nuclear weapons secrets from the very beginning of the program?
    And I bet for every person that would sell nuclear weapons secrets, you could find a thousand that would sell backdoor encryption keys.
    How can they possibly imagine that no one could be found to divulge the backdoor for a few million dollars?

    For one thing, certain Wall Street firms would have the backdoor keys within days, if not hours.
    And if money didn't work, those firms aren't at all afraid to use their ex-FIS/GRU employees to do whatever it takes.