French Conservatives Push Law To Ban Strong Encryption (dailydot.com)

Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Elfich47 · 2016-01-12 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

It doesn't matter if the wall you build is thirty feet high and six men can walk abreast if you can kick in a door. The weakest part of a wall is always the gates and these kinds of bills are trying to require extra doors with standardized locks are used. No way this can be abused.

--
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.

Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Racemaniac · 2016-01-12 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was thinking: sounds like a fair law, if then the state/police is fully responsible if their backdoor becomes public, and can be abused by others :). But then i think they'd not risk it, because they know the won't be able to keep their backdoor secret, and don't want to face the consequences :).
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Elfich47 · 2016-01-12 02:15 · Score: 1

Sounds about right. Painting the door the same color as the wall works as camouflage right up until someone gets up and touches it.

--
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-01-12 02:26 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-01-12 03:19 · Score: 1

Up until 1999 encryption was illegal in France. Looks like they are stepping backwards

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Eunuchswear · 2016-01-12 03:30 · Score: 1

No it doesn't. The Republicans are a minority in parliament, this idiocy will never pass.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 04:42 · Score: 1

This exactly line of authoritarian thinking is why plausible deniability in encryption exists.
The device will have two passwords. The decoy password decrypts the decoy portion (which of course appears to take up the entire storage size). The real password decrypts the hidden portion. The suspect merely gives up the decoy password, the police investigate the totally legal contents of the decoy portion and can't make any charges stick.
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Golddess · 2016-01-12 07:30 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if the wall you build is thirty feet high and six men can walk abreast if you can kick in a door.
Or, y'know, just walk around it.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by TheGratefulNet · 2016-01-12 07:41 · Score: 1

I thought of this immediately. france was one of the few modern countries to make encryption illegal for users, for a LONG time.
they dropped that rule.
now they want to go back to the bad old days.
look, france, do we REALLY have to start the old and tired 'france surrenders!' jokes all over again? we're all tired of that old joke, but maybe you citizens need to tell your government that you don't want to go backwards and hide in fear any more.
good luck with that, though; our own people (US) won't do this either and we'll probably follow you down this rathole ;(
sad that terrorists can scare us into giving away all our rights and freedoms. this is exactly what they wanted all along! and our own governments are happily playing right into their hands!!!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by Mr.+Shotgun · 2016-01-12 10:48 · Score: 1

Painting the door the same color as the wall works as camouflage right up until someone gets up and touches it.
On the other hand panting the wall the same as a door has fooled many wily coyotes.

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Re:Security is only as strong as its weakest door by penguinoid · 2016-01-12 13:56 · Score: 1

Painting the door the same color as the wall works as camouflage right up until someone gets up and touches it.
On the other hand panting the wall the same as a door has fooled many wily coyotes.
It's never fooled a roadrunner though.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Will likely not pass by Kilobug · 2016-01-12 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Please note that the conservatives don't have a majority in the Assemblée Nationale, so this law will likely not pass, at least under its current form. But it's also true that PS hasn't been the strongest defender of privacy and personal freedom, they did a few nasty things in the wake of the terror attacks of last year, so who knows exactly what will happen...

Re:Will likely not pass by DaMattster · 2016-01-12 02:14 · Score: 1

Even if it did pass it would be likely difficult to enforce and its detractors would simply turn to open source solutions that exist outside of the borders of France. A citizen could start using an OS like OpenBSD, and because it is a freely available product, there would be no way for French authorities to force the project to weaken the encryption. Imagine the French government asking Theo de Raadt to weaken OpenBSD's encryption. First Theo would laugh and then cuss up a storm. The bottom line is that any tool can be used for doing good and bad in the world. A wrench is only a wrench when used to loosen or tighten a nut. The moment it is thrown at someone for the intent of harm, it's a weapon. We obviously do not ban the use of wrenches over the possibility that they can be weaponized. Encryption prevents rogue government agents from interfering with freedom but, in the wrong hands it also facilitates those that would seek to do harm.
Re:Will likely not pass by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then the French government outlaws the use of OpenBSD and the like. If during an investigation they find the offending software on your machines, you get an automated 10 years sentence. You can avoid this by revealing the encryption keys, with cumulative 5 years sentences for every key and every time you refuse. Is Theo de Raadt living anywhere in the EU? Then he can be arrested and brought to France to stand trial for aiding and abetting terrorists. You cannot solve a political issue through technology because the overwhelming power of the State wins every time.
Re:Will likely not pass by NatasRevol · 2016-01-12 03:11 · Score: 1

How fucking delusional are you?
How many gov't backdoors already exist in products that you use, either directly or indirectly?
OS/modems/telecom/internet/BIOS/etc,etc,etc

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Will likely not pass by interval1066 · 2016-01-12 03:18 · Score: 1

Agreed, judging by past actions I wouldn't look to America to be the "last bastion" of digital freedom either. The thing I find interesting is every time these clowns call for back doors into digital encryption the call isn't really based on an solid evidence the terrorists used encryption to communicate. As if "If only we could read your personal data the terrorists would be stopped."

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Will likely not pass by hey! · 2016-01-12 03:59 · Score: 1

Laws like this aren't proposed to make people safer; they're proposed to make people feel like someone is doing something to make them safer. So the consequences of this proposal depend on the degree to which the French people feel vulnerable at this point in time. At a minimum it's bound reinforce the Conservatives' standing with their xenophobic base. It might gain them supporters. Depending on how future events play out, something like it may even pass, even though it demonstrably won't make anyone safer and arguably makes them more vulnerable.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Will likely not pass by fustakrakich · 2016-01-12 04:50 · Score: 1

the overwhelming power of the State wins every time.
It is nothing compared to the power of the vote. Let's all remember that these politicians were elected. Kinda makes all the complaints sound a little silly, don't you think?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Will likely not pass by sudon't · 2016-01-12 05:42 · Score: 1

Well, unless they start censoring the internet within their borders, these laws are as useless as, say, anti-pirating laws. If people want strong encryption, they'll get it. This only affects the non-technical/lazy.

--
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Re:Will likely not pass by Opportunist · 2016-01-12 06:14 · Score: 2

You are aware that the Frenchies actually used the US as the blueprint here, yes?
I mean, did you really expect them to come up with such a masterplan all by themselves?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Will likely not pass by spire3661 · 2016-01-12 08:59 · Score: 1

It doesnt matter who is using encryption for what, its a complete red herring. The burning question is "Do The People have the right to hold a secret from the government?". The inherent right to have private ideas in fixed form is what is at stake. If I encrypt my diary, does the government have the absolute right to read it? This position of the government agasint encryption is already producing a massive chilling effect.

--
Good-bye

Funny, phoney war on encryption by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know who else don't like strong encryption? The terrorists.

You have to admit that the terrorists have already won. They've pwn your asses so completely that you're stabbing your own liberty like crazy.

Re:Funny, phoney war on encryption by interval1066 · 2016-01-12 03:21 · Score: 1

I agree. Every reaction to terrorism by all governments is to simply shrink the freedom of their own citizens. Ineffective, but at least they con come back to their people and say "We did this for you."

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Funny, phoney war on encryption by Dread_ed · 2016-01-12 12:51 · Score: 1

1) Stir up trouble with terrorism
2) Watch governments implement increasingly harsh restrictions on their own citizens because governments do that and people are too stupid to say no.
3) Move to said country as a refugee with 100,000 of your closest relatives.
4) Breed the indigenous people out of office and institute Sharia.
5) Prophet.

--
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.

How can this be enforced? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:04 · Score: 1

Anybody can encrypt anything. There are hundreds of open source encryption libraries out there.

Preventing hardware manufacturers from building strong encryption into their products accomplishes nothing. Anyone can still encrypt whatever they want.

What this does is expose normal users to security risks, while *doing nothing to prevent any determined user to encrypt whatever the hell they want*

Re:How can this be enforced? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:08 · Score: 1

Anybody can buy a gun anywhere. There are millions of unregistered firearms out there.
Preventing law-abiding citizens from easily purchasing arms and ammunition accomplishes nothing. Anyone can still shoot whatever they want.
What this does is expose normal citizens to security risks, while *doing nothing to prevent any determined criminal to murder/rape/rob whatever the hell they want*
Re:How can this be enforced? by bobbied · 2016-01-12 03:22 · Score: 1

So just 3D print your next firearm.... Don't think the ammo is coming off the printer, but the bullets sure could...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:How can this be enforced? by interval1066 · 2016-01-12 03:23 · Score: 1

Anybody can buy a gun anywhere.
So the reaction here in the states is to restrict guns in various ways. Watch for this and other countries to start restricting encryption.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:How can this be enforced? by vux984 · 2016-01-12 04:02 · Score: 2

Preventing hardware manufacturers from building strong encryption into their products accomplishes nothing.
False. It makes strong encryption off by default. So that instead just working out of the box, people have to decide to encrypt something, and go out of there way to locate and use tools to encrypt something; and deal with the hoops and hassles because its not baked in.
That accomplishes *something* pretty significant.

What this does is expose normal users to security risks, while *doing nothing to prevent any determined user to encrypt whatever the hell they want*
Swing and a miss. You are absolutely right to say that normal users are vulnerable and that determined savvy users will encrypt whatever they want.
Your unspoken assumption that terrorists and criminals are in the "determined users" category, however, is false.
Criminals and terrorists ARE mostly so-called "normal users". The vast majority of them aren't tech savvy super villains. Many of them (most of them!) aren't going to take the extra step of encrypting their communications. The recent attacks in france are a case in point -- they used good old fashioned un-encrypted SMS messages to coordinate.
Re:How can this be enforced? by vux984 · 2016-01-12 05:46 · Score: 1

Swing and a critical miss. How much of a tech-savvy super villain do you think you need to be to flip an option in device settings, choose a password and wait a while until it reboots?
What you gibbering about? That doesn't help you if that built in encryption is backdoored, which is precisely the scenario in question here.
If the built in encryption is backdoored, Then you have to add your own encryption layers. And that isn't something the average crook is going to try do, or get right even if he tries.
Re:How can this be enforced? by JesseMcDonald · 2016-01-12 08:55 · Score: 1

If the built in encryption is backdoored, Then you have to add your own encryption layers. And that isn't something the average crook is going to try do, or get right even if he tries.
No, the crook just installs an alternative OS (like CyanogenMod) developed in another country which doesn't have the backdoor, then enable full-device encryption as usual. It's not as if you have to be an expert in programming and cryptography just to install and use secure software which someone else wrote.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:How can this be enforced? by vux984 · 2016-01-12 11:27 · Score: 1

No, the crook just installs an alternative OS (like CyanogenMod) developed in another country which doesn't have the backdoor, then enable full-device encryption as usual.

LMAO.
*I* have yet to install an alternative OS on my phone. And I'm *IN* the demographic that does that sort of thing. And in the demographic that likes to do that sort of thing.

It's not as if you have to be an expert in programming and cryptography just to install and use secure software which someone else wrote.
Gotcha, so lets say we believed Windows was beholden to government masters and spooks... (wait we DO already beleive that don't we? If not as a certainty, than as a likelihood).
So criminals obviously being risk-averse must all be using something like Tails linux right? Nope... they still use windows.
'Normal' don't install alternative OSes on anything. Criminals and Terrorists... are mostly drawn from normal people. They drive cars with OnStar enabled, they use Androids and iphones and computers and tablets all with stock OSes, they sign up for xbox live with their real names. They take the same route to work every day. They pay with credit and debit cards. They don't throw away the shoes and clothes they wore when committing a crime. They don't vacuum every stray bit of hair, lint, and dead skin out of a rental car before returning it. Etc.
There are lots of things they could do to further avoid detection and capture that they don't do, because they are mostly normal.
Re:How can this be enforced? by Altrag · 2016-01-12 12:21 · Score: 1

*I* have yet to install an alternative OS on my phone.
But do you have any reason to? Are you sounding out terrorist plots or other illegal activities? Hopefully not.

Criminals and Terrorists... are mostly drawn from normal people.
One of the above posters mentioned this as well.. and that's true for your rank and file foot soldier. The higher ups will be more akin to the higher ups in a normal organization -- probably don't understand the shit either (and will fuck it up occasionally no matter what) but will also employ people to handle it for them.
Of course, also as others have already pointed out, the French attackers weren't bothering to encrypt things anyway, so the whole argument is chasing a red herring and failing to even address the national security issues its supposed to be "solving."

Because by JasterBobaMereel · 2016-01-12 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative

The Paris terrorists used un-encrypted communications repeatedly prior and during the attacks ... so ... ?

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis

Re:Because by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-12 03:05 · Score: 2

The Paris terrorists used un-encrypted communications repeatedly prior and during the attacks ... so ... ?
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a fear keyword the politicians will use to get what they want in place.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Because by stealth_finger · 2016-01-12 03:08 · Score: 1

The Paris terrorists used un-encrypted communications repeatedly prior and during the attacks ... so ... ?
That's true but do you not remember the kneejerk claims of communication via encrypted ps4 chat. That's the line they're running with and be damned if a little thing like the truth stands in the way.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:Because by Cro+Magnon · 2016-01-12 06:35 · Score: 1

So, why don't they ban ps4s?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Because by nytes · 2016-01-12 14:35 · Score: 1

Obviously, the solution is to ban communication.

--
-- I have monkeys in my pants.

They know not what they do by stinerman · 2016-01-12 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The new French bill briefly praises encryption’s role in protecting user data but immediately pivots to criticizing the effects of strong encryption on state security forces.

While water is great at quenching thirst, it also can kill a person if drawn into their lungs. Therefore, we demand that bottled water manufacturers make their water such that it can no longer drown someone.

Re:They know not what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:15 · Score: 1

They know exactly what they do. Nobody can claim ignorance after the first crypto wars. This is willful and wanton sabotage of digital communication.
Re:They know not what they do by GabeGhearing · 2016-01-12 02:24 · Score: 1

You should read about the horrors of Dihydrogen Monoxide http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Re:They know not what they do by fustakrakich · 2016-01-12 04:57 · Score: 1

Put it in a referendum, and considering the kind of people that win elections already, it just might pass.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:They know not what they do by kheldan · 2016-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right! And while we're at it, everybody knows that large bodies of water can drown a person in a few seconds, so we'll need a ban on those, too! No more lakes or rivers allowed, they all have to be dried up and blocked off. Put up a 30 foot high wall separating France from the Atlantic, too, since the ocean is nothing but death waiting to happen! Everyone will have to have special permits and safety training/certification for the taps in their homes, showers are frowned upon, and posession of a bathtub marks you as a terrorist since it's nothing but a murder weapon! Meanwhile let's get our scientists working on a way to prevent death-from-above, otherwise known as rain..

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

What about one-time pads? by ickleberry · 2016-01-12 02:14 · Score: 3, Funny

WIll those be banned?

Re:What about one-time pads? by Jason+Levine · 2016-01-12 02:51 · Score: 1

Also, strong passwords have been shown to hinder law enforcement from entering someone's account - which they promise they'd only do when approved by a judge and no they aren't crossing their fingers behind their back. Therefore, all passwords must now be "12345". As a bonus, nobody will ever be locked out of their luggage ever again!

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:What about one-time pads? by Sparowl · 2016-01-12 05:34 · Score: 1

Hey, how did you know the password to my luggage?
Re:What about one-time pads? by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 12:55 · Score: 1

France can detect the use of a one time pad message on any of its digital networks as it has had expert GCHQ telco upgrade help since the 1970's.
No anonymity but the message still kept its privacy. In a five eye nation that communications network would be tasked for special collection and digital files created on everyone with 3 connection hops of that code use.
France can do the digital tracking too but has something the Signals intelligence fixated 5 eye nations do not.
A vast network of real human informants exist in every French community going back generations. They will get tasked on the origin of that one time pad message.
The French officials will get all the digital data and have a small human team on the ground to report on that location.
Unlike teams of contractors or special forces trying to blend in as often attempted in other nations, the informants will be part of the local community and not be spotted.
Informants are very easy to create when the legal system historically starts with a presumption of guilt and then offers a very good deal.
Rows of one time pad use can stand out in a collect it all database that expects and sorts everyday readable language use.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:laws are for Cows by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-01-12 02:23 · Score: 2

We used to have these very informative posts about HOSTS files, sometimes more than once per thread.

Re:Yeah by vikingpower · 2016-01-12 02:24 · Score: 1

No, populism. Currently, conservatives ( and also neo-liberals ) thrive on it, here in Europe. Poland even has a conservative-populist government. So does Denmark.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Banning strong encryption is like by bennebw · 2016-01-12 02:24 · Score: 1

Banning strong encryption is like banning strong seat belts.

This only deals with hardware-based encryption by vikingpower · 2016-01-12 02:24 · Score: 2

With software encryption, you'll still be able to do what you want.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:28 · Score: 1

Backdoored hardware invalidates the functioning of software.
Re: This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Z00L00K · 2016-01-12 02:37 · Score: 2

And with a pre-arranged language like the Navaho Codetalkers it doesn't matter if someone listens in, it's futile to decode for someone not knowing the language and context.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Opportunist · 2016-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1

It is kinda tedious to do AES in your head...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Opportunist · 2016-01-12 06:32 · Score: 1

Knowing in 3 days that your main bridge is going to be bombed in an hour isn't really going to help you a lot, ya know...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 11:42 · Score: 1

Software sits on hardware so the weak junk hardware will just allow France to get any "software" layer plain text, voice, data before OS application level encryption.
The hardware will always report your ip, and log, collect or allow a trap door, back door. Any software allowed on top is just bait to make a user think they have something creative and useful.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Altrag · 2016-01-12 12:38 · Score: 1

Uhhh what? Unless they're requiring a keylogger or similar to be installed, software encryption works just as well as hardware encryption (or possibly better, if you write it yourself and know 100% that you can trust it.)
The part you should have put in quotes is "plain text." If the hardware is only seeing encrypted garble itself, its not going to be able to pass plaintext to the government.

always report your ip
Well yeah, that's pretty much a requirement for IP-based networking.

and log, collect or allow a trap door, back door
Uhhh no. Generally speaking those don't exist unless the manufacturer is either forced to implement it or they're trying to do something underhanded (wasn't there a story about Chinese routers a couple years ago?)
Implementing logging and back doors and whatnot is both more work for the manufacturer and less secure for the user -- its a lose-lose situation and nobody would do that without some external influence. (Well maybe a certain amount of logging in the context of telemetry type things where the external influence is "potential advertising income," which generally falls into the underhanded category even if its pretty much universal these days.)
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 12:48 · Score: 1

re "Well yeah, that's pretty much a requirement for IP-based networking."
Thats the idea that the security services can build on, the phone network by default knows a lot about the users cell phone for billing or just to make the connections.
The only extra is to get to the plain text keyboard press or touch screen use before it is encoded by the high level user application layer.
The ability to remote turn on the mic and listen in :)
A user can encrypt all the want just before the message or voice is sent but the device as sold is not secure at a hardware or OS level.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Altrag · 2016-01-12 13:49 · Score: 1

the device as sold is not secure at a hardware or OS level.
Well they are currently -- that's what France and other governments around the world are attempting to change: Apple and Google and other mobile OS developers have been enabling un-backdoored encryption out of the box for the past year or two (and its been included but disabled by default for years before that.)
If you mean by "not secure" that "Apple can push an iOS update that breaks security" well yes, that's true: While your data is secure, the device itself and the software on it is still controlled by Apple.
However that would also intrinsically destroy all of your data so you'd find out right away that something's amiss. I suppose they could try to do some trickery in the background where it decrypts existing secure data and re-encrypts it with the new broken scheme using your same password (that you give it because this is still while the device is in your possession..)
But something like that should be fairly obvious for people with large amounts of data such as you'd see at say watchdog firms who are looking out for exactly that kind of BS.. so we'd know about it pretty quickly in that case as well (though perhaps for only a smaller definition of "we" since most average people don't follow tech blogs and wouldn't see those kind of notices.)
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 14:14 · Score: 1

The brand has its own update root or firmware so no easy user land software would be aware of a request to update.
Police, contractors, ex staff, former staff and mil have used that option for many years over generations of cell products to push down keystroke logging, to get results pushed out or soft power on, mic turn on requests.
Brands have have to allow that since the early 1980's product lines or they do not get gov permission to sell their products in that nation.
No un-backdoored encryption has ever been sold, is been sold or will be allowed to be sold on any nations network that will not allow access to images, text, voice, mic on, power on, beacon like gps tracking.
Designed in, as sold. The brands own messaging service might be "secure" as sent but only until its national or global databases.
Again its own root access is a given as it is an in house product. Advertising has to look for keywords :) For that any brand needs back to plain text within its own networks.
Secure networking sounds like a fancy term for selling privacy but its all on internal networks designed in house by the brand. Secure from the press, media, random user street level interception but fully reversible in real time by the network owners who created the network been offered to users.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re: This only deals with hardware-based encryption by vikingpower · 2016-01-12 23:02 · Score: 1

Hieroglyphs are not a language, they are a notation system. Egyptian evolved into what is now known as Coptic, and nowadays written in a variant of the Greek alphabet. Language != notation.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Re:This only deals with hardware-based encryption by Altrag · 2016-01-14 23:21 · Score: 1

The hell are you talking about? Of course if you send a plain text email then its going to get sent in plain text. That's kind of obvious.
The "encrypted by default" that governments are currently pissy about isn't the communications -- its the storage (internal, SD card, whatever.)
Nothing of course will stop a keylogger (unless you can type encrypted bytes by hand!) but its pretty obvious to anyone who knows how to snoop network traffic if your device is sending unexpected things to places it shouldn't be, including keylogged data. That is: someone will find it, in very short order, and it'll be all over the (techie) news within days.
Aside from a keylogger.. if you're paranoid about any encryption being backdoored then _write it yourself_. It definitely requires some knowledge of computation and cryptographic methods obviously, but its not particularly _difficult_ if you have the appropriate skills and some reference material (which is easy to find -- grab the coursebook from any university-level cryptography class.)
Sure you probably won't make a 100% secure encryption scheme right off the bat, but as long as its non-standard, you've got a layer of obscurity on top of whatever real security you did manage to put together.
Unless you somehow think that the government has secret fast algorithms for prime factoring and elliptic curve analysis and whatever other commonly used one-way functions that are only assumed (but not proven) intractable (or even more unlikely, you think they've somehow managed to inject a back door into the very concept of factoring prime numbers.. In which case you should probably find yourself a nice padded room cause you're way off the top of the conspiracy meter.)

Re:Innocent until proven Guilty by EzInKy · 2016-01-12 02:26 · Score: 2

No, you are exactly wrong. Hindering prosecution is already against the law. By inhibiting the State's ability to examine encrypted evidence you are preventing them from proving your innocence.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Dear France: by seven+of+five · 2016-01-12 02:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, please be the guinea pig and backdoor your encryption. Then when your banking system collapses because some idiot leaked the keys, maybe it'll light a lightbulb in governments elsewhere.

Re:Dear France: by GlennC · 2016-01-12 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, please be the guinea pig and backdoor your encryption. Then when your banking system collapses because some idiot leaked the keys, maybe it'll light a lightbulb in governments elsewhere.
I'm afraid that you're giving other governments too much credit.
They'd look at France's failure as one of implementation, not of concept.

--
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Re:Dear France: by fustakrakich · 2016-01-12 05:01 · Score: 1

Guess you haven't heard. The customers will directly "bail out" the banks now. It's all covered.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Dear France: by Opportunist · 2016-01-12 06:33 · Score: 1

They'll arrest those that expose the idiocy in the implementation and the harebrained concept and consider the whole deal safe again.
Why should It be different this time?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Dear France: by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2016-01-12 06:46 · Score: 1

Who would be responsible if someone suffers financial harm due to their phone being compromised by criminals using the government-mandated "backdoor"? Could the French government itself be sued for damages in that case?
Re:Dear France: by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 13:21 · Score: 1

The backdoors will also be shared to a number of selected marketing professionals who will contact you shortly.

Clever. by rickb928 · 2016-01-12 02:28 · Score: 1

- Convince one large-ish nation to ban effective cryptography.

- Monitor incoming and outgoing communications

- Compare the weakly encrypted (decrypted therefore) with the strongly encrypted data.

- Improve your systems to be able to break the strongly encrypted data.

- Government!

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:Clever. by johanw · 2016-01-12 02:54 · Score: 1

This is called a known-plaintext attack and does not work against decent crypto algorithms.

ROT13... by hawleyg · 2016-01-12 02:30 · Score: 1

...anyone?

Just how easy to crack do these monkeys want it to be so that it won't hamper their investigations?

But it might help the marketplace find room for more open-source devices that can be more easily (less technically) loaded with secure open-source OSs than we have today.

--
Cheers, Glen

Re:ROT13... by NatasRevol · 2016-01-12 03:20 · Score: 1

ROT-14.
It's one better!

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

All your French secret are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:33 · Score: 1

So the French version of the product will be back-doored, and all French commercial, industrial and political secrets will be available worldwide.

You have to admire the insane stupidity of crippling your own security, and then imagining that only France would be able to make use of this crippling of security!
And your enemies and allies somehow don't use it, not because its *secure*, but because of wishful thinking??

I wonder what happens when terrorists gets French backdoor keys, how they will explain that away?! "Home goal" doesn't quite cover it.

UK is to pass a bill so it can demand access to ANY data (its unlimited and unbounded and can include foreign data held by British subsidiaries). So they'll get all these backdoor keys. Finally! France will be UK's bitch! Bend over and suck it France!

Oh and so will every other country that demands the same access, or can spy to get the same access.

Dumb neocons.

Re:All your French secret are belong to us by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 13:26 · Score: 1

yay for this post. Wel written.

Yeah, defeating terrorists by Blaskowicz · 2016-01-12 02:38 · Score: 2

You know what, if you want to defeat terrorists, try to not provide them with weapons and political support for a start.
We got these blow back attacks because France has supported terrorism as a geopolitical weapon against Syria, among other state sponsors of terrorism such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the US.
So don't support terrorism and let Syria defend itself if you don't want terrorism.

Re:Yeah, defeating terrorists by johanw · 2016-01-12 02:57 · Score: 1

Most terrorists in the west are 3rd generation muslim immigrants. Lets not create a new generation of 3rd generation muslims and kick out all new ones who want to enter.
Re:Yeah, defeating terrorists by unixisc · 2016-01-12 07:45 · Score: 1

Very true!!! Too bad we can't send them all to Raqqa or Gaza, so that they can teach SJW to ISIL and Hamas

Re:I'd rather have weak encryption.. by evilRhino · 2016-01-12 02:42 · Score: 1

Conservatives are for weak borders also, but they call it "free trade". The global economy requires money and services to cross borders in order to function, it is only fair that people can freely move to where the jobs land.

Re:laws are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:45 · Score: 1

What's this amateurish Cows/Moo stuff?

Sometimes, it's the only thing that's entertaining. Lighten up.

if all men were Anonymous, would you let your sist by Thud457 · 2016-01-12 02:49 · Score: 1

French Conservatives Push Law to Promote Society-Wide Identity Theft

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

No trust whatsoever by stongef · 2016-01-12 02:51 · Score: 1

This is the same state that sunk the Rainbow Warrior in the port of Auckland in 1985 because they didn't like Greenpeace opposing their nuclear tests. And they want a backdoor on all devices for strong encryption? Lemme think ... no, I'll pass, merci.

Re:No trust whatsoever by stongef · 2016-01-12 08:02 · Score: 1

Meaning?

Possibilities:

1- Jean, tu es un terroriste : John, you are a terrorist
2- Jean, tu hais les terroristes : John, you hate terrorists

French is a very precise language. Screw up too many things, and you run the risk of saying the exact opposite of what you meant.

So, which is it?
Re:No trust whatsoever by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 13:32 · Score: 1

That risc is far lower than in Finnish

Re:Yeah by Jason+Levine · 2016-01-12 03:02 · Score: 1

The purpose is running scared of the terrorists they imagine lurking within every shadow. They see things in the world only under the context of "Could a terrorist use this against us in any way, shape, or form no matter how unlikely?" If the answer is yes, then the thing must be banned or, at least, highly secured.

For example, the shoe bomber tried unsuccessfully to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his shoe. They are scared that another one might succeed so now we need to remove all shoes when going through airport security. All because one guy tried something and now the guys in charge think someone else might try it too. (Thank goodness they didn't follow the Underwear Bomber with a "get naked in the TSA line" requirement.)

So encryption might be used by businesses and individuals to secure their private transactions in a completely law-abiding fashion, but the people making these laws think one or two people might use encryption for terrorism purposes so the only way to protect us to to ban encryption and weaken us.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by Corwyn_123 · 2016-01-12 03:11 · Score: 2

Might as well bring back Nazi Germany too.

The Future by koan · 2016-01-12 03:13 · Score: 1

If you only study the single grain of sand you never see the beach.

All of the things occurring in the MSM you see day to day are not separate isolated incidents that arose organically.
They are parts of the terrifying whole.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

When you make strong encrytion criminal.. by kheldan · 2016-01-12 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

..then only criminals will have strong encryption. Why can't idiot politicians see this!? Legislation like this will do ABSOULUTELY NOTHING to prevent terrorism, it will only curb freedom of speech and the real security of honest, law-abiding, non-terrorist citizens!

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:When you make strong encrytion criminal.. by kheldan · 2016-01-12 05:44 · Score: 1

it will give terrorists a backdoor to everybody's device
That goes without saying -- as will the fact that every cyber-criminal in the world will have access within a few weeks. At that point you may as well just post your driver's license, social security number, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers on Facebook, Twitter, and anywhere else the general public can get them -- because they won't be safe anymore. It'll ruin the Internet completely because there will be NO security for anyone.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:When you make strong encrytion criminal.. by gsslay · 2016-01-12 06:14 · Score: 1

You are working under a mistaken belief of the purpose of the legislation. Terrorism prevention is just the flag of convenience it's currently sailing under.
Re:When you make strong encrytion criminal.. by kheldan · 2016-01-12 10:15 · Score: 1

That also goes without saying.. but the average citizen won't listen to that, all they'll hear if you try is 'conspiracy theory nutjob', so we have to point out how stupid it all is and wake their sheep brains up so they'll complain and maybe we can stop asshole politicians from destroying everything.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:laws are for Cows by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-01-12 03:28 · Score: 1

The moo cow posts are usually right on topic, sometimes using knowledge that's inferred from the topic.

My guess is that someone wrote a script to warn him when new threads are making it to the front page. If that person has a desk job it's easy to always post in every thread.

Re: That is Le Pew by Eunuchswear · 2016-01-12 03:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The point is moot because the French president obtained special powers after the attack in Paris until February to enact pretty much any anti-terrorism legislation.

No he didn't.

The state of emergency allows a certain number of police actions to be done on order of a "prefet" (an administrator) rather than a judge:

1. Banning of public gatherings.
2. Search warrants.
3. House arrest.

It lasts 3 months (so its nearly over).

Thats it. Nothing more, no power to pass legislation.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by Z00L00K · 2016-01-12 03:29 · Score: 1

From some perspectives it's worse now.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

They (and other countries) should pass these laws by shdowhawk · 2016-01-12 03:30 · Score: 1

I'm serious. The countries should pass the laws

We live in a society that is ruled by money first. These countries should pass the laws, and the major players in the system (Apple, Google, Samsung, Sony, etc), should simply pull the products out of the country. They would take a hit to the wallet for a VERY short while, but would give those major players a HUGE advertising campaign to run on - "We won't give up your privacy".

Top tier products disappearing alone would piss off the populations in most countries, let alone a giant push to show that the top tier companies are "better" than those countries governments.

The amount of times that SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA, and OTHER type scenarios keep showing up is silly. If all the major brands left, and we (citizens of any country where the top tier companies would end up leaving) were left with the cheapy, crappy, prone-to-fail other products, the consumers would very quickly notice and take action. Can you imagine if xboxes and ps4's were taken away from stores, if iProducts and samsung products were taken away? Hell, DISABLE the apple, android, xbox, and playstation stores (only in those countries) while your add it - put up a message saying "We won't give up your privacy like your government is requiring us to do. If you want this turned back on, contact your government officials".

The top tier companies are having to pay/waste time/give up advertising space (let alone do their own advertising) against these idiotic laws anyways. Might as well band together under a common good, solidify their positions in the populations minds, and come out as heros in the end.

Software by John+Allsup · 2016-01-12 03:32 · Score: 1

How can you you make hardware that will automatically backdoor an arbitrary software crypto implementation that has no backdoors. Sure this would make it harder to use conversations in games on PS4 and XBOX1 as a means of talking in secret, but that is about it.

--
John_Chalisque

Re:Software by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 12:00 · Score: 1

Back in the old days, say the 1950's?
Look back at telco crypto system sold in the 1850-90's in the West. The NSA and GCHQ ensured the design was weak ad developed and they always got plain text.
A nation would select a system to test and find the connection over a long distance was secure against any reversal, the maths was correct as sold.
The hardware would be installed at say an embassy and vast amounts of data sent back to the home nation with a complex telco and new device upgrade.
Every message could then be decrypted at the end point. The US and UK got all of Frances embassy hardware communication in the 1950's by ensuring France was happy with its junk level of hardware encryption and felt safe using it for years and with vast amounts of communications.
Only in the early 1960's did France finally understand what it gad done and try to fix the hardware issues.
Some more info is at:
"How embassy eavesdropping works" http://www.duncancampbell.org/...
Special Collection Service
http://www.duncancampbell.org/...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

OOPS by JimSadler · 2016-01-12 03:33 · Score: 1

So companies would face two paths. One path is that their products must meet French laws or maybe it would be better simply to not offer the products for sale in France. It is obvious that individual nations, usually, must not be in a position of regulating foreign- made devices. Obviously some nations are off the wall, mad dog, crazy. Would you like Somalia determining how your cell phone is built?

NSA on line 1; China on Line 2... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-01-12 03:40 · Score: 1

They're happy to build in backdoors to all equipment supplied to France.

Seriously, hardware manufacturers could simply put backdoors into equipment destined from France, and depending on the laws where the device is made be obliged to provide access to other governments when required by law. Meanwhile, anyone buying a device elsewhere would still have no backdoor and bring it into France if they want secure communications. Software services would be harder to localize given the ability to use VPNs and the need to use a breakable form of encryption of messages originating outside of France being sent to France. I guess you could decrypt it in France and re-encrypt it with French law complaint cryptology, as well as store a French copy while sending a strong encryption version outside of France; otherwise you need to build into the software a way to recognize messages that originate in France and use the proper tool to decrypt it. That assumes a company wants to maintain strong encryption outside of France.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Genesis by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-01-12 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are people still alive in France who remember European governments that would have used this to spy on political opponents, and track and kill them. One still exists, reborn from a brief democratic interlude.

One should look in the long term and deny government certain powers out of principle. We have lots of evidence of historical democracies disappearing because they needed to have emergency powers (Rome, Greece, 1930s Germany) and zero evidence for long-term survival of them.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Genesis by tnk1 · 2016-01-12 04:50 · Score: 1

Actually *France* has a long history of losing their government to emergency powers and the like. They don't appear to have learned their lesson, or they don't actually care. Starting to think its #2.

Terrorists Won't Care by BoRegardless · 2016-01-12 03:48 · Score: 1

Then only terrorists will have secure communication capabilities.

It is easy to hide messages in large photo images and not be able to tell whether there is actually any hidden data in the photo.

Governments think organized criminals & terrorists are stupid.

Re:Terrorists Won't Care by Guybrush_T · 2016-01-12 04:37 · Score: 1

Agreed. A long time ago (15 years ?), encryption in France was limited to a certain number of bits. This was a real annoyance for any government / educational / company because they had to use specially-weak software (remember ssj instead of ssh ?) while everyone else did not care.
That was the stupidest thing to do.

France must take the initiative by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2016-01-12 03:51 · Score: 1

to help identity thieves gain access to everyone's phones. Because there aren't any criminal organizations that will EVER find these back doors as well, and everyone on the planet is far too moral to exploit mandatory security holes.

Yet more prooff... by Jawnn · 2016-01-12 03:53 · Score: 1

...that the set "conservatives" has a relatively small intersection with the set "smart people". How else does one explain the fact that anyone who knows anything at all about encryption and information security (almost exclusively "smart people") knows that back doors such as those being proposed are a colossally bad idea?

Re: That is Le Pew by N1AK · 2016-01-12 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Grandparent falsely claims the French President has been given powers due to a terrorist attack and is modded +4 informative.

Parent explains how that is not the case, with sufficient information for anyone to check it and is left at +1.

User moderation at its finest :( it's only informative if it's what you want to hear...

Jumped the Shark by bravecanadian · 2016-01-12 03:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why is it that "conservatives" in so many countries have completely lost their minds?

Re:Jumped the Shark by H0p313ss · 2016-01-12 04:19 · Score: 1

It's the human condition, 90% of us are barking mad.
Woof

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:Jumped the Shark by tnk1 · 2016-01-12 04:53 · Score: 2

They haven't lost their minds. Playing to fear is a standard political tactic. It gets votes. Why wouldn't they use it? They'd be stupid not to.
Oh, you mean that it is counterproductive and causes more problems than it solves? Well I'm sure that they believe that once they are in power, it will be temporary.
Re:Jumped the Shark by mjwx · 2016-01-12 13:03 · Score: 1

Why is it that "conservatives" in so many countries have completely lost their minds?
That's part and parcel of being a conservative.

These are people who live in a bubble based around rose tinted memories of their childhood, pretending that the problems of 40-60 years ago didn't exist. This means that when reality breaks their bubble, they go mad trying to rebuild a society that never really existed.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by N1AK · 2016-01-12 04:00 · Score: 1

You can, and I would, argue against doing this, but it's still 100x better than what government's are actually asking for and likely going to get.

The government wants to be able to decrypt anything immediately and is willing to force weakpoints into encryption to do it. This makes messages less secure if anyone wants to decrypt them and gives the government the ability to decrypt everything. Requiring disclosure of passwords in court provides a number of benefits (vs that terrible system): The courts may not do everything the government wants, you can always refuse (lets say if people you care about could be harmed if disclosed), and the encryption remains strong meaning your messages are more secure against other attackers.

Vraiment? by X10 · 2016-01-12 04:00 · Score: 1

Ils sont fous, ces Français....

--
no, I don't have a sig

We've seen this before... by chaboud · 2016-01-12 04:01 · Score: 1

The British and French are reported to have pushed for weak encryption in cellular phones (A5/1 and A5/3) to make snooping easier for law enforcement. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Sources-We-were-pressured-to-weaken-the-mobile-security-in-the-80s-7413285.html.

Apparently, these governments didn't want to bother with having to serve warrants to telephone companies... Which would require, you know, legal warrants. So we ended up with 54-bit encryption (A5/1) when the engineers involved were pushing for 128.

So what happened?

What virtually everyone here will already have guessed: The back doors left for convenient government snooping made it easy for *anyone* to snoop, effectively rendering the encryption worthless. (http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/3g-encryption-cracked-in-less-than-two-hours/.

Modular arithmetic is not a crime. If you make it one, French law will suddenly sit in conflict with privacy laws around the world *and in France*. And will it be illegal to transmit random bits? What about SSL?

Idiots.

French? Uk? US? China? by JcMorin · 2016-01-12 04:15 · Score: 1

Lets assume the French get the phone manufacturer to put a backdoor, the UK will surely want that. So is the US. I assume control-freak China will want that too. After that all countries will have their own backdoor with their thousands of operator who have access to that.

Gravity, etc. by H0p313ss · 2016-01-12 04:17 · Score: 1

Encryption is just math, attempting to legislate math is like tying to legislate gravity or the speed of light.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction

Re:Gravity, etc. by tnk1 · 2016-01-12 04:57 · Score: 1

Yes, but it is very easy to discover. Right now, if something is encrypted, you can't read it, so you can't prosecute for the content of the encrypted text.
Under this law, you get prosecuted if it is encrypted and they can't read it. It doesn't matter if it is your shopping list or not.
A law to control encryption means that as long as they can identify a file as encrypted, you could go to jail just for having an encrypted file they can't break.
Re:Gravity, etc. by david_thornley · 2016-01-12 11:12 · Score: 1

The speed of light will be a certain number of meters per second no matter what (that's the definition of the meter), but the legislature can still set speed limits that are far under lightspeed.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:That is Le Pew by Curunir_wolf · 2016-01-12 04:17 · Score: 1

Appropriate quote from Politico on the US presidential campaign candidate:

"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,” ... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re: That is Le Pew by Eunuchswear · 2016-01-12 04:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

And some buthurt moderator mods N1AK offtopic for pointing that out.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:laws are for Cows by FatdogHaiku · 2016-01-12 04:20 · Score: 1

When today's dumbfuck generation tries trolling and all you can do is facepalm...

Someone cue the face palming cows please...
or would that be face hoofing cows?
Because that would have to really hurt...
I have to stop now, I've run out of ellipses,,,

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office

Re: That is Le Pew by Grishnakh · 2016-01-12 04:22 · Score: 1

The only problem with your analysis is that currently, the false grandparent is at +1 Informative, and the correcting parent is at +4 Informative.

Slashdot definitely has big problems with its moderation system, but this doesn't look like one of them. Of course, we could also argue that your post pointing out this stupidity is what shined light on this particular instance and it got corrected quickly as a result.

But I'll say it again, as I've complained countless times before: the "feature" where you can't post in any discussion where you moderate is utterly stupid, and as a result, I simply never moderate at all.

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by myowntrueself · 2016-01-12 04:37 · Score: 1

Might as well bring back Nazi Germany too.

Or Nazi UK. Where, if they ask you for the password and you refuse you can go to jail until you agree.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Re:They (and other countries) should pass these la by tnk1 · 2016-01-12 04:49 · Score: 1

The major problem is that most of the markets don't actually care about privacy in these contexts. Your standard iPhone user wouldn't know privacy from their privates.

Yes, everyone agrees that losing privacy is bad, but rarely does anyone know what that entails except for a relatively small informed group.

Re: That is Le Pew by cyberchondriac · 2016-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

Patience is a virtue.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.

When encryption is outlawed... by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2016-01-12 05:29 · Score: 1

Only outlaws will have encryption. And you won't be able to recognize it as such, it'll come in the form of steganography, or code talking that looks like mundane communications. The whole anti-encryption thing is a boondoggle, and only helps to catch the low-hanging fruit, that which is too stupid to even try to cover their tracks. And that's even if they have the time and energy to scan every piece of data for that low hanging fruit, to find the needles in the haystacks. The recent attackers in France weren't even using encryption, and they weren't able to prevent the attacks. Banning encryption isn't going to change that.

Re:When encryption is outlawed... by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 13:41 · Score: 1

Dies is nighthawk to loonly chicken. Ze soupe is ready! I repeat Ze soupe is ready.

Give France a break by PPH · 2016-01-12 05:33 · Score: 1

This is just a few conservatives sponsoring a bill. How many times have we been laughed at for Pi = 3 or teaching the Fred Flintstone theory of evolution.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by matbury · 2016-01-12 05:56 · Score: 1

And Godwin's law is yet again validated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by dryeo · 2016-01-12 06:23 · Score: 1

How so? As long as it is actually on topic and appropriate, such as now talking about totalitarian ideologies, it is not Godwins law. To quote your link,

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,[citation needed] if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy, or inferring that an argument containing a fallacy must necessarily come to incorrect conclusions. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re: That is Le Pew by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-01-12 06:26 · Score: 1

And now grandparent doesn't exist, and parent is +5 informative in response to a nonexistent comment. This is bullshit.

Oh boy, this is going to be great! by Opportunist · 2016-01-12 06:35 · Score: 1

Please do! Don't hesitate, can we somehow support you?

France bugs out of the data center business and pretty much nixes its cloud storage industry. If only some other European countries could follow, we could become the data center of Europe!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

The real problems. by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-01-12 06:36 · Score: 1

Which terrorists will this stop? The cats out of the bag on strong encryption. You can force every hardware manufacturer to sell machines pre-installed with weak encryption, and nothing stops terrorists (or anybody) from replacing this software with strong encryption. You can't stop the spread of strong encryption because it's math.

The best you can hope for is to mandate that every citizen allow you to read their personal data, and hope that the ones that refuse are the terrorists.

And even if that somehow magically works, you can be congratulated for turning a first world country into a shithole just like where terrorists come from, and you can start breeding homegrown terrorists angry at the totalitarian regimes they are oppressed by.

Another problem is that we can;t read minds yet. Terrorists could be holding all sorts of secrets that they haven't stored in digital files or on paper. Maybe we should pass a law mandating that brains come with weak encryption and band whispering.

Re:The real problems. by AHuxley · 2016-01-12 12:15 · Score: 1

Re " You can force every hardware manufacturer to sell machines pre-installed with weak encryption,"
That was done at the emergence of cell phones in the UK back in the early 1980's. No cell phone system sold in the UK or Ireland was going to be too difficult to listen in and locate on in real time. The press and home computer enthusiast could be kept out of recording voice conversations but the security services would get every word or message and location on any network.
The US did talk in public about such national systems later with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re: That is Le Pew by ewibble · 2016-01-12 07:15 · Score: 1

I agree moderating a reply to you or yourself should not be allowed, or possibly someone you replied to. But just because made post in a story shouldn't stop you moderating I generally read post in articles that I am interested in so it severely limits the moderation I can do. Also I think you should be able to change a moderation, I you read a post and think it is valid and then good counter argument is presented you should be able to change your mind.

Re:I'd rather have weak encryption.. by unixisc · 2016-01-12 07:43 · Score: 1

You think? Given all the negative mods every post in this particular thread has gotten?

Ummm...no by MitchDev · 2016-01-12 07:58 · Score: 1

"France must take the initiative and force device manufacturers to take into consideration the imperative of access for law enforcement officers"

No, fuck law enforcement officers in this regard.

They exist to serve and protect the citizens, but all government agencies everywhere have forgotten this...

Good luck with that by StikyPad · 2016-01-12 08:05 · Score: 1

France must take the initiative and force device manufacturers to take into consideration the imperative of access for law enforcement officers, under the control of a judge and only in the case of an investigation, to those devices.

The only problem is that there is no such thing. Asking for government-only access to decryption is like asking for government-only access to perpetual motion, you know, in case we run out of power from other sources.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

This just in...... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-01-12 10:47 · Score: 1

This just in......French Conservatives Push Law To Make Pi Equal to 3.0

Next up, French Conservatives Push Law To Make Kids Turn That Darn Music Down

French Conservatives Push Law To Stop People From Thinking Bad Thoughts

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

I'll tell you exactly what I think by presidenteloco · 2016-01-12 12:02 · Score: 1

about this proposed French law.

d9gtj3ld9g73jgljtgud;4gh0y0jjokdgs.dd954kqfakva

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re:I'll tell you exactly what I think by nytes · 2016-01-12 14:24 · Score: 1

Report to the Bastille, citizen.

--
-- I have monkeys in my pants.

Re: That is Le Pew by Grishnakh · 2016-01-12 12:24 · Score: 1

The problem is that it's not fine-grained enough. You shouldn't be able to down-mod a reply to your post, but you should be able to moderate posts in completely different threads for the same article. SoylentNews allows this (and uses Slashcode, so it's not like it can't be done here).

Re:Yeah by Altrag · 2016-01-12 12:27 · Score: 1

or, at least, highly secured.

Or in this case, made so insecure as to be useless!

With the bonus of completely ignoring the fundamental fact that anybody with a bit of skill can write their own encryption software. Its not that hard if you have a good book on the subject and some programming knowledge -- at least not to make a simple chat app or whatever. Integrating your personal encryption scheme with popular websites/apps/devices is another question of course, but if all you're looking for is purely the ability to pass secure commands to your subordinates.. its pretty easy.

Re:I'd rather have weak encryption.. by unixisc · 2016-01-12 16:47 · Score: 1

A Muzzie w/ mod points! That explains it all

Re:That is Le Pew by FreedomFirstThenPeac · 2016-01-13 10:12 · Score: 1

Generalization. This American Republican thinks that strong encryption is a right, and that backdoors for anyone's use violate basic principles. There is a reasonably large faction within the MN GOP that certainly agrees with me, but Slashdot might not hear from them.

--
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.

Once the payment systems make their case by lsatenstein · 2016-01-13 10:24 · Score: 1

Once the payment systems make their case, the bill will die. And it will die when people get into encrypted databases because someone in the government allowed the key and knowledge to backdoors to become common knowledge.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Re:Pointless Law by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 13:31 · Score: 1

But then you can just built automatic analyzers and flag anyone using the strong stuff.

Re:BAN CLOTHING by zwarte+piet · 2016-01-13 23:49 · Score: 1

Explosives can also be carried in rectum or vagina. But otherwise as a nudist, I'm all for it.

Re:Innocent until proven Guilty by netwiz · 2016-01-14 08:17 · Score: 1

It's "well-regulated militia", and SCOTUS has already ruled that it's the second part that's more important, and of particular interest in firearms ownership and carry. Consider this: would that there were actual armed citizens present, with appropriate training, would 9/11 have been able to happen?

Mods: kill both this and parent, we're off-topic.

Re:What's really happening by netwiz · 2016-01-14 09:08 · Score: 1

I think you hit the nail on the head with your "planting it" comment. There's no available computer power to search all the data in realtime, only to sift through it after the fact. Thus, it becomes all about catching someone after the fact rather than catching them before something happens. With such a system ripe for abuse, it becomes trivial to invent a crime where none may have existed so as to dispose of "undesirables." It's already been mentioned somewhere that surveillance is reaching for ever-more encroaching levels, but to what extent? What does the government hope to achieve?

I think they've seen the writing on the wall, that sooner or later our shaky systems of finance and employment are on the verge of a massive correction in the form of a significant crash, and they're hoping that by enslaving us all they can ensure their survival in the face of a massive public uprising, but that's just between you, me, and the microphone-laden wall. It won't work, never has, and likely never will. All that this will ultimately succeed in doing is guaranteeing a much harder swing-back of the pendulum when things finally do let go.

This is not spam by neminem · 2016-01-15 10:47 · Score: 1

Dear Business person ; We know you are interested in
receiving amazing news . We will comply with all removal
requests . This mail is being sent in compliance with
Senate bill 1623 , Title 3 , Section 305 ! Do NOT confuse
us with Internet scam artists . Why work for somebody
else when you can become rich within 26 months . Have
you ever noticed how long the line-ups are at bank
machines and the baby boomers are more demanding than
their parents . Well, now is your chance to capitalize
on this ! WE will help YOU turn your business into
an E-BUSINESS plus deliver goods right to the customer's
doorstep . You are guaranteed to succeed because we
take all the risk . But don't believe us ! Prof Ames
who resides in Alaska tried us and says "Now I'm rich,
Rich, RICH" ! We assure you that we operate within
all applicable laws . We implore you - act now ! Sign
up a friend and your friend will be rich too . Thanks
. Dear Cybercitizen ; This letter was specially selected
to be sent to you ! We will comply with all removal
requests . This mail is being sent in compliance with
Senate bill 2416 , Title 9 ; Section 305 . This is
a ligitimate business proposal . Why work for somebody
else when you can become rich as few as 30 weeks .
Have you ever noticed nobody is getting any younger
and more people than ever are surfing the web ! Well,
now is your chance to capitalize on this ! WE will
help YOU turn your business into an E-BUSINESS and
increase customer response by 130% ! The best thing
about our system is that it is absolutely risk free
for you ! But don't believe us . Ms Ames of South Dakota
tried us and says "I was skeptical but it worked for
me" ! We are licensed to operate in all states ! You
have no reason not to act now . Sign up a friend and
you get half off . Thanks . Dear Cybercitizen , Thank-you
for your interest in our publication . If you no longer
wish to receive our publications simply reply with
a Subject: of "REMOVE" and you will immediately be
removed from our mailing list . This mail is being
sent in compliance with Senate bill 2616 ; Title 8
, Section 301 ! Do NOT confuse us with Internet scam
artists ! Why work for somebody else when you can become
rich inside 62 months . Have you ever noticed how long
the line-ups are at bank machines and nobody is getting
any younger ! Well, now is your chance to capitalize
on this . WE will help YOU deliver goods right to the
customer's doorstep and sell more . You can begin at
absolutely no cost to you ! But don't believe us !
Mrs Jones who resides in Washington tried us and says
"I was skeptical but it worked for me" ! This offer
is 100% legal . For the sake of your family order now
! Sign up a friend and you get half off ! Thank-you
for your serious consideration of our offer ! Dear
Friend ; Especially for you - this red-hot intelligence
! We will comply with all removal requests . This mail
is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1624 ,
Title 4 , Section 307 ! This is NOT unsolicited bulk
mail . Why work for somebody else when you can become
rich as few as 72 WEEKS ! Have you ever noticed nobody
is getting any younger plus nobody is getting any younger
. Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this .
We will help you deliver goods right to the customer's
doorstep & use credit cards on your website ! You can
begin at absolutely no cost to you ! But don't believe
us . Prof Jones of Alaska tried us and says "My only
problem now is where to park all my cars" . We are
licensed to operate in all states ! Don't delay - order
today . Sign up a friend and you get half off ! Thank-you
for your serious consideration of our offer ! Dear
Decision maker ; Especially for you - this amazing
news ! If you no longer wish to receive our publications
simply reply with a Subject: of "REMOVE" and you will
immediately be removed from our mailing list . This
mail is being

Re: Security is only as strong as its weakest doo by matbury · 2016-01-23 12:09 · Score: 1

Comparing a modern, (relatively) liberal democracy like the USA to the genocidal Nazi fascist regime isn't Godwin's law?

Slashdot Mirror

French Conservatives Push Law To Ban Strong Encryption (dailydot.com)

151 of 246 comments (clear)