Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Going Dark Crypto Debate Going Nowhere (threatpost.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the around-in-circles dept.

msm1267 writes: FBI general counsel James Baker reiterated a theme his boss James Comey started months ago, that Silicon Valley needs to find a solution to the "Going Dark" encryption problem. Two crypto and security experts, however, pointed out during a security event in Boston that encryption remains the best defense against the government's surveillance overreach and espionage hacking targeting intellectual property. “If we were able to engineer a mechanism where we’re splitting a key and having a third party escrow it where the government could ask for it, the very next thing that would happen is that China et al will ask for the same solution. And we’re unlikely to give them the same solution,” Eric Wenger, director of cybersecurity and privacy, said. “Complexity kills, and the more complex you make a system, the more difficult it is to secure it. I don’t see how developing a key-bases solution secures things the way you want it to without creating a great deal of complexity and having other governments demand the same thing.”

3 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the very next thing that would happen is that China et al will ask for the same solution...

    No, that would be second. The first thing would be US agencies demanding keys without warrants and with gag orders.

  2. What do we want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    âoeWeâ(TM)re looking for help. We want all the smart people in this country to help us figure out this complicated problem weâ(TM)ve been struggling with for a long time,â Baker said. âoeAt the most fundamental level, it is about the relationship between the people and the government when it relates to surveillance by the government of the people and under what set of circumstances do people want that to happen. What do you want us to do? What risks are you wiling to take and what can we do to mitigate risks out there that exist on all sides of the equation?â

    Yes, Mr. Baker, it is about the relationship between the people and the government. What we wanted you to do was to treat the Fourth Amendment as a law, not as an obstacle to be circumvented. You have demonstrated yourselves incapable of obeying the laws you profess to uphold. So, what we want now is for you to go away. If that means a terrorist kills a few of us every now and then, so be it. Right now the terrorists are killing a lot fewer civilians than our policemen, so frankly, if I've gotta take the risk, I'd rather take my chances with the bad guys than the good guys.

    Until then, remember this is professional, not personal. You Feebs actually pretty good at police work when you get off your asses and go do it. Maybe if we make it hard enough for you to spy on us illegally, you'll be forced to resort to good old-fashioned HUMINT-style police work for the rest of your cases. Try serving and protecting the public for a change. You might even start to enjoy it. And we might, after a few decades, start to trust you again.

  3. end-to-end encrypt it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's no reason for normal email, IMs, video chats, web surfing, etc to be available at all to anybody who isn't among the intended recipients.

    These protocols are in the clear for historical reasons: people didn't imagine that the government would be a bad actor. Since they now are, it's time to add strong encryption to all of those things.

    The whole internet needs to "go dark" from the perspective of the Stasi fucks.