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.'"

Comments

If he says its OK

[ickleberry]

That means the NSA can easily crack it

Re:If he says its OK

[Joce640k]

Will it make a difference? The horse has already bolted. Encryption exists.

Not that it's needed, I can say "The fish is in the wolf" on national TV and the FBI won't know when the attack will happen.

Nope. This is just about not letting encryption happen by default on all our messaging. It's espionage, it's political control, it's subversion of democracy.

(ie. the people in power know what's trending after last night's presidential speech, the opposition doesn't).

Re:If he says its OK

[Joce640k]

If the NSA controls the chain of cryptographic certificates (eg. Verisign) then they don't need to crack anything. Nothing can be authenticated. They can simply impersonate people and perform man-in-the-middle attacks. Most of the world's encryption is wide open to them.

Do they control that certification chain? You can be pretty sure they do. It's such an obvious target.

Re:If he says its OK

[Ravaldy]

I honestly think there's some level of paranoia, because as techies we know what they can actually do. Whether they do it or not is where I start justifying the use of the word paranoia. As simpletons there's not much the authorities want to know about us and wasting resources to find out that we eat 3 meals a day and that are bowels are consistent or not does is just a waste of resources. After all, getting to all this information and deciphering it isn't a piece a cake and requires man hours and technical know how to accomplish.

My 2 cents.

Re:If he says its OK

[wyHunter]

People tend to forget that...years back, perhaps even in the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton said "Oh all encryption should be breakable. The government can hold that key."

Re:If he says its OK

[Joce640k]

According to the Snowdon leaks, they're tapped into just about everything. They've also probably gotten into Intel chips to weaken the RNG, etc. (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/surreptitiously.html)

They've got the budget to waste time/resources. You only have to crack a communications system once, after that you can read ALL the messages with no manpower needed.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there's just too much evidence to think they aren't doing anything they can possibly do to set up a spying network. What do they use it for? I dunno, but it's definitely there.

Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does it matter?

[Joce640k]

Call me when Microsoft adds provably secure messaging to Windows by default (ie. no man-in-the-middle attack possible).

When that happens I'll believe the USA has relaxed its position on encryption.

Until then? It's all just hot air and political posturing.

Full position?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Full position?

[robinsonne]

I never thought I could say that goatse was relevant to a discussion here, but I think that sums up the government's stance on encryption fairly well.

I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: I can't wait

[wyHunter]

But that's because, for some very odd reason, Americans seem to want to be slaves. It crosses political boundaries, though it feels to me (unscientific, gut feel) that about 55% of right wingers want this, and 85% of left wingers do. I don't understand it.

Who cares what the fuck he says?

[jcr]

First amendment, motherfucker. If the government doesn't want me to use strong encryption, they can go pound sand up their asses.

-jcr

Re:Who cares what the fuck he says?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The encrypted speech is, independently, also speech, and thus protected.

Re:Who cares what the fuck he says?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 20 years ago, the government declared encryption to be a munition.

So not only does encryption get First and Fourth Amendment protection, it gets Second Amendment protection as well.

Re:Who cares what the fuck he says?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Nonsense. Whoever is president 14 months from now will have exactly the same position on encryption. And the same position on the Middle East and the same position on Afghanistan and Iraq and "free trade" and...

Re:Who cares what the fuck he says?

[Merk42]

Only from the government preventing you from saying it, not from the government doing what it can to 'hear' it.

Re:Who cares what the fuck he says?

[jcr]

The first amendment argument is that I have the right to communicate in a language of my choosing, which may include a sequence of numbers that the government can't understand.

-jcr

The government needs full access...trust us

[NotDrWho]

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.

Re:The government needs full access...trust us

[erapert]

Trust us to act according to the Constitution, even though there is absolutely no oversight to make us.

This is why we have the Second Amendment.

YOU are the oversight.

YOU are expected to vote in the polls, pay taxes, fight in the wars, and enforce constitutional limits on your government. That's the price of freedom. And damned grateful that you have the opportunity to pay it instead of being a tyrant's slave.

Oh goodie, a politician has made a promise!

[Vermonter]

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.

Re:Oh goodie, a politician has made a promise!

[jandersen]

Whatever - if Obama was to declare that Christmas falls in December, there would be a storm of protests from so-called freedom advocates. He could probably push through a complete ban on encryption by declaring that it is a human right to encrypt things.

Re:Oh goodie, a politician has made a promise!

[Vermonter]

See, when you act like a third grader and use childish terms like that, no one takes you seriously, and you look like a drooling moron who believes whatever (insert news network here) tells you to believe.

Mass Internet Surveillance is Useless

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:Mass Internet Surveillance is Useless

[wyHunter]

The purpose of government, any longer, is to perpetuate its own power at any cost.

Re: expect a meaningful response.

[chaboud]

Ephemeral primes are prime numbers (typically in pairs), used to establish persistent keys (e.g. DH, J-Pake).

So, even though you went AC to mock this commenter, you should really check your self before exposing ignorance.

That said, the Dual_EC_DRBG trick used by the NSA involved specially crafted primes that, effectively, gave the NSA a back door by which pseudorandom sequences could be inferred with comparatively little effort. It's a brutally clever bit of math, though I'm not sure it would qualify as an ephemeral prime. They seem more like static primes to me.

You're thinking of Constitutional process.

[raymorris]

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.

Re:The FBI director should go first.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Encryption for me but not for thee, one of the legs of the panopticon. Others are Eye in the Sky (go listen to Radiolab podcast on it), and omnipresent cameras with facial recognition, license plate recognition, and so on, dumping into a database where you can look up where anyone is at any given moment. Oh and tracking who calls who, when, and the ability to listen in with no technological barriers if you don't get a warrant.

Obama being Obama

[operagost]

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?

It Won't Work

[JimSadler]

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.

Guns and algorithms

[iamacat]

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.

May the Fourth Be With You

[Scarletdown]

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.