Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration To Offer Full Position On Encryption By End of Year
blottsie writes with this story from The Daily Dot that the President met with encryption advocates on Thursday and is expected to make a statement on his official stance before the end of the year. From the story: "The Obama administration plans to clarify its stance on strong encryption before Washington shuts down for the holidays. Administration officials met Thursday with the civil-society groups behind a petition urging the White House to back strong, end-to-end encryption over the objections of some law-enforcement and intelligence professionals. Kevin Bankston, director of New America's Open Technology Institute and the coalition's organizer, told the Daily Dot that it was a 'very hopeful meeting.'"
Clipper chip! You think these things are all right when you are screwing interns!
That means the NSA can easily crack it
Does it matter what his position is? Its not like he can outlaw it and enforce it, its not like Congress is going to work with him after all the name calling he has directed at them over the years. Even if he does come up with something "reasonable" why would anyone else care at this point? His administration lies constantly and he has shown the NSA can't be trusted.
I can't think of a policy position on anything that will have less impact than this will.
Yeah.
Like I'm gonna trust those bastards.
"Our official position on encryption is either in your handshake protocol as an intentionally watered down cipher, or alongside a trusted and suepr friendly NIST ephemeral prime."
Good people go to bed earlier.
Where's the goatse URL when you need it? "Open wide, America!!"
This administration has been a sad, pitiful disappointment on civil liberties, constitutional rights, and even intelligible economic and foreign policy. They've been so busy getting "consensus" on everything they've only succeeded in not being as bad as Shrub.
I don't think I have anything to contribute to the discussion, but I'm waiting for our President, Barack Hussein Obama, to let us know what his stance is on this important argument so that I may follow. I understand those are very hard and complicated matters and that we citizens cannot possibily expect to have the scope and understanding to do anything but being led, and we are grateful for President Obama's leadership. I have never been, I am not and I will never be a malcontent and I have never and will never utter a word that could be perceived as seditious or treasonous against this Great Nation and its Great Leader.
First amendment, motherfucker. If the government doesn't want me to use strong encryption, they can go pound sand up their asses.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Assume the position!
Trust us to not misuse the data.
Trust us to act according to the Constitution, even though there is absolutely no oversight to make us.
Trust us to secure the data so it can't be hacked.
Trust us to never use any of it as evidence against you, since it was obtained without a warrant.
Trust us to never use it to blackmail you.
Trust us, we're your government.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If the FBI director would like to put a halt to the availability of strong encryption, then he should set an example. Let's give the man a phone with all the encryption protections disabled. Setup a proxy for his web browser that will give him unencrypted access to encrypted web sites. Remove the Wi-Fi passwords from his office and home Wi-Fi. Get his bank to do all of his transactions in the clear... and so on.
He'd learn two things quickly: ripping encryption out of existing infrastructure and technology is a BIG ask. Second, his bank accounts would empty, his credit cards would max out, and his porn habits would hit Fox News so fast it'd make his head spin.
Now taking bets for what will be our "answer" in January: A: The Obama administration gives a vague answer that answers nothing. B: The Obama administration kicks the can down the road 6 months, saying they have not reached a conclusion yet. C: The Obama administration will do nothing, pretending this promise was never made.
Agreed, the statement will be just like all other political statements: vague, ambiguous, and ultimately self-serving. But the real issue here isn't encryption in particular, but freedom of association. Obama isn't going to clarify his stance on encryption as much as his stance on freedom of association. His speech will refer specifically to encryption, but encryption is merely one component of the bigger picture, which is freedom of association.
Terrorist attacks not stopped by mass internet surveillance:
Boston Bombers. Downloaded a terrorist publication containing bomb plans from the Internet, tweeted about upcoming attacks in coded language.
Anders Breivik: Discussed violent extremist leanings online
November 2015 France attackers: Spoke freely about their plans in plaintext SMS
2015 San Bernadino Shooters: Met and discussed jihadist leanings through various social media.
Even if you put the horrendous privacy issues aside, this shit clearly doesn't work. Shut it down.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
When you talk about the president needing Congress to pass laws, you're thinking of the old system, the Constitutional process. The Constitution is now just "an old piece of paper".
This president has already unilaterally changed immigration law after Congress denied his request and the news today is that he plans to issue new gun laws within the next few days.
Even before he was elected president, he pointed out that a law was unconstitutional- just before he voted to pass it. Meaning he knowingly, intentionally voted to pass a law that he knew to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is meaningless under this administration.
encryptionbackdoor.github.io
I'm working on a web-app to solve "going dark" once and for all.
I'm familiar with most the current tech companies, but I'm not familiar with the White House company. What do they manufacture and why is their president so involved in encryption? The summary couldn't be more vague.
No, the real reason it doesn't matter is because we will have a new president 14 months from now who will most likely have a completely different position on encryption.
It's adorable that you really seem to believe that. Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Why would you want encryption? Terrorist much?
Stand united, freedom loving people love free access to all documents and converations
He has to take a few weeks to check with his handlers. He shouldn't have to check with his handlers. After all, we're told he's a Constitutional scholar. The answer is, "I will neither propose nor sign any legislation prohibiting or regulating encryption for the same reason I won't sign any regulating safes or locks. 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be infringed.' This is not just idealism, but the American way of life."
But there's no thing as American exceptionalism, right? If the French are OK with the government being able to search through their papers at any time, why do we think we should be any different?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Who cares what he thinks? If he says no, we must encrypt anyway to protect people. If he says yes with reservations, every single one is a risk we've learned will ultimately affect our bottom line due to corrupt and/or insecure government officials and systems. Ultimately, a business unfriendly stance will mean international risk mitigation is unavoidable.
welcome our new encryption overlords, in order to build a safe society. But wouldn't it be easier to just deny entry too and deport the terror cult?
The question isn't,"Are you paranoid?"
The question is,"Are you paranoid enough."
printf "U2FsdGVkX1//ccm8BS49awOPN+pijVF1sOLRYrWUE2A5m7wZDpS26n3QCxl181gQ\nIJLkgsJ9UaJEYz+/Xfoz7g==" | openssl aes-256-cbc -a -d
password is password
Why not have an encryption registration system. For example If you are using for business purposes then you are allowed to use it. Those who use it without registering for it can be charged with a crime.
Obama talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He is beholden to the powers that be and takes orders from them.
I simply can not understand how we have such cowards among us. The terror incidents simply do not justify radical precautions. At the point that we start to spend big money and change the basics of our nation terrorism has already won. And I have no doubt that the intercepts will be used for items other than antiterrorism. The temptation to sweep up more mundane criminals will be too strong for law enforcement to resist. And that points to a really serious problem. As a nation, we have out arrested ourselves. The entire legal system in the US could easily be collapsed. Right now if every person arrested simply refuses to post bail, the system can not deal with what will result. If every person arrested insists upon their right to a speedy trial the courts would totally collapse. Right now California can not go after people who rip up their traffic tickets. The problem is so huge that California dare not do much about it. In Miami, Fl. numerous people drive without a license or insurance. A few of them do a bit of jail time, but they seem willing to spend a few days in jail rather than buy insurance and pay for tickets. So now that we know we have a legal system that clearly can not handle the current load just what will happen if we start using intense spying, seeking not only for lawbreakers but also for people that we fear might do something in the future.
So the government wants to determine whether we are allowed to encrypt our communications?
How will we force the government to obey the Bill of Rights?
This is why the Second Amendment exists, people.
He's probably waiting until the end of the year because by then their shipment of D-Wave quantum computers will have arrived...
0x or or snor perron?!
Political correctness and shutting down programs already on the tails of bad guys because "it's profiling" IS THE PROBLEM. They had a whistle blower on the Kelly File last night who said his team knew about the San Bern Shooters 3 years ago and the FBI shut them down on orders from the administration to stop profiling muslims. Well people are dead now thanks to political correctness. I hope Obummer is proud of himself. America will be made great again thanks to 7 years of complete disaster that makes Bush Jr. look like a fairy godmother in comparison.
That means the NSA can easily crack it
The NSA wouldn't eat its own dog food if they didn't think it was safe:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard#NIST.2FCSEC_validation
As long as the Pentagon, CIA, and State can use it to protect their things, I'm happy to use it for my stuff. A certain level of concern is fine, but after a certain point it becomes tinfoil hat territory.
I find that my own positions on encryption mirror a lot of NRA positions on guns. A vast majority of encryption users are responsible and utilize technology for self defense from crime, as do a majority of gun users. On the other hand, guns can be used to commit crimes, as can encryption. Finally, both guns and encryption make it more difficult for an oppressive government to subjugate the population. Guns are more immediately dangerous, but on the other hand they protect people from getting murdered, not just from getting p0wned.
I sincerely believe that benefits of encryption to society outweigh the action of a few lunatics. Therefore I support citizens right to encryption, including military grade encryption with no limits on key size. I certainly do not want a federal database of encryption users.
Yet similar arguments ring hollow coming from NRA. I am not sure what to make of it. On one hand, I could be missing valid perspective of people living in rural or high crime areas, just like encryption opponents do not fully understand how widespread cyber crime and state espionage are.
On the other hand, perhaps I should support common sense legislation to keep strong crypto out of the hands of children and criminals. If you are a convicted pedophile, law can not keep you from encrypting your phone. But if we catch you with an encrypting phone, your parole can be revoked and whatever you are trying to hide stopped.
Or for children's devices, parents should have an escrow key to see if the kids are up to no good, are getting dangerously bullied on Facebook or are contacted by drug dealers/pedophiles. But leave a big banner describing that the device has been accessed, and which apps were used to discourage abuse BY parents.
Encryption = Bad
Gov't Backdoors = Good
So if they do back door encryption, doesn't that effectively mean "my" computer, etc are no longer mine? If they find encriminating evidence on my computer, because of the weakened security, somebody other than me could have put it there.
He's met with the privacy guys once or twice. He's met with the security guys probably two thousand times since he took office. This meeting was a political stunt to pretend that both sides were being listened to, and now he'll spin a lie about how it's possible to have encryption the government can look at with a warrant.
Here's the thing--even if you could make key escrow really secure, and as a practical matter you can't, it's still far too risky because of government abuse risk.
Our spies and federal law enforcement agencies have demonstrated again and again that they can't be trusted by Americans. They lie to Congress and they (understandably, as a matter of being human and having their jobs) don't care about consumer privacy. They're trying to prevent another 9/11, but we have to think about what the next guy could do with their job and lack of meaningful oversight. So long as they have demonstrated a total unwillingness to have real and meaningful oversight and accountability, they sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with this kind of power.
There was a previous "We the People" petition to the White House regarding encryption, and it got the required number of signatures to elicit a response. Rather than just putting out a useless blanket statement (as they do for a lot of the petitions), the White House is actually soliciting specific feedback before creating a position. You can send them comments regarding encryption through the White House website (links below). No idea if this will actually go anywhere (or get you put on some kind of watchlist!), but presumably it's better than just remaining quiet and letting them come to their own conclusions?
Links:
The petition and response
The form to send comments
Funnily enough, it's a secure website.. hmm..
It depends on what you mean by "Windows" (client? server?) and "by default". You can generate a mail CA certificate using Windows Server and then sneakernet that certificate to the machines of your communication partners. In an era of compromised X.509 certificate authorities and compromised participants in the PGP web of trust, nothing short of sneakernet is provably free of MITM. By "by default" do you mean that Outlook should default to showing a Big Scary Warning when sending or receiving messages to or from anyone with whom you have not already performed such an out-of-band key exchange?
I'm guessing that bans on gun ownership by convicted felons follow from a premise that felons have been less than honorably discharged from their otherwise implicit membership in a particular U.S. state's "well-regulated militia". Otherwise, what does "well-regulated" mean in the context of the Second Amendment?
Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss.
And hopefully it won't be Heil to the new boss.
Who gives a rip what his position is? Even if he says encryption is good, back doors are bad, we will have no idea if that is the same direction being given to the NSA behind closed doors.
can we have a credible source for the last one?
That sounds like the telecom immunity bill.
I don't remember Obama pointing out that it was unconstitutional, but it otherwise fits the description.
Telecoms had been spying on American citizens at the request of law enforcement with no warrant and no oversight, and telecoms were simply handing over the data. Several lawsuits against telecoms were ongoing at the time, this legislation torpedoed them. It gave telecoms immunity for all past offenses.
It would have passed without his support, and after the vote he got a huge campaign donation from the telecoms.
The only position to be considered is already encapsulated in the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the first portion...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
Your data, even though it is stored electronically, falls under the papers portion of the above line.
This space unintentionally left blank.
It seems each president sets a new precedent for how much they ignore the Constitution, so it keeps getting worse. As you said, when "your team" does it it's okay, because people forget that in a few years the other party will have that office. Whatever new power you allow Obama to take, Donald Trump may soon wield.
I sure -hope- Trump doesn't get elected - Rubio, Cruz and even Carson would all be better choices. Regardless, guaranteed someone I don't like will be elected to the Senate and/or presidency next November - and they'll start with all of the power that we let Obama and friends take.
Problem solved.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Also, without encryption criminal organizations and hackers can pretty much ruin the lives of millions, steal their identities and their money. If we get rid of it or cripple it we bring upon us all a cryptographic apocalypse.
Did you intend to reply to my post, or a different one? I'm not sure how your point relates to my post. I did mention that one area in which Obama is currently taking unilateral action, essentially making law in contravention of the Constitution , happens to be in regard to guns, but my point is that under the Constitution, the president wouldn't be making law at all. I suppose that fact that he does this in areas where the Congress most certainly would not make such a law, and such a law is repugnant to the second amendment, is somewhat relevant.
To respond directly to your point, the founders were -abundantly- clear that the purpose of the second amendment was to defend freedom against tyranny; "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" may not be infringed because that is the ultimate check against the domestic government becoming tyrannical.
The examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc demonstrate , however, that the local populace does NOT have to have tanks and missiles in order to resist military aggression. A million citizens with rifles and training as a very effective check against military rule.