Slashdot Mirror
White House Declines To Support Bill That Would Let Judges Order Tech Companies To Break Encryption (reuters.com)
kheldan quotes a report from Consumerist: Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein are expected to introduce a bill regarding phone encryption as soon as this week, according to Reuters. The draft text will give judges authority to order tech companies to help law enforcement when asked to -- basically, it would be a newer piece of law to fall back on than the All Writs Act of 1789, which is the one that usually sees use for this sort of thing. However, sources tell Reuters that the bill "does not spell out what companies might have to do or the circumstances under which they could be ordered to help," and therefore really doesn't necessarily change the underlying discussions at play, both in the tech world and in government. Nor does the bill specify penalties for failing to comply. The FBI recently briefed Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein on the methods used to unlock the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone 5c. According to Reuters, the White House is declining to offer public support for draft legislation Burr and Feinstein are currently working on because the administration is "deeply divided on the issue." The White House has reviewed the text and offered feedback, but it is expected to provide minimal public input, if any, sources familiar with the discussions said.
"The White House has reviewed the text and offered feedback, but it is expected to provide minimal public input."
Keyword - "public"
Obama fully supports it but because it's a political season doesn't want the public backlash of not supporting civil rights.
If he didn't support it he'd be telling the FBI to back off.. He *IS* their boss after all...
is bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans really only come together when it is time to give themselves a raise or shit like this. Can we go back to gridlock?
Tell me again about how Obama is all in-support of the FBI and weaker consumer encryption?
The FBI is under the President's control. The Attorney General answers to the President. The FBI answers to the Attorney General (AG).
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then stops doing that.
The President can not tell the FBI what laws to enforce or not enforce but he can sure as hell can tell them what policies to pursue or not pursue. He has his pen and can write an executive order to the FBI.
Administration is Deeply Divided on the issue.
That's code for "Yeah, everybody told us the FBI is off in left-field on this one."
Sounds like cooler heads are starting to prevail, Thank Cthulu.
Its important to remember, with regards to the this administration which has been orchestrating and allowing this all along. That not outright supporting the bill (which would immediately loose a bunch GOP support - because hey, O'bama) versus saying he wouldn't sign it are 2 very different things. O'bama is no friend of public security / privacy.
This was before the CA shooting: https://theintercept.com/2015/...
Wrong answer sparky! The right way is for the manufacturers to build in the strongest, hardest to break encryption and other safeguards against hacking into personal devices that they sell, and for the government, FBI, CIA, NSA, and law enforcement to realize that they can't have the backdoors and weakened encryption that they want, and that personal devices cannot be hacked even with a warrant or judges orders!
Private citizens deserve to have privacy of the info on their devices, and privacy from having their devices tracked by ANYONE! The government and above named agencies do NOT NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING ON EVERYONE'S DEVICES. We have already gone way to far down the road to George Orwell's 1984, its time to stop the illegal tracking and invading people's privacy!!!
I literally have a letter on my desk explaining that the government allowed my personal information which was entrusted to them to leak.
Before that, I received a mailed copy of tax filings with the cover letter indicating that I had requested them. I hadn't, and when I called the IRS office that sent it, they neither had any evidence of who had made the request, nor even any record that a copy had been sent out.
And you expect me to trust them with maintaining confidentiality of encryption keys? What kind of idiot do you think I am? (We already know what kind of idiot you are)
No, it's not indecision. It's that he's smart enough to know this bill is potentially toxic to freedom, will be hard to write so that it is't unconstitutional, and is a non-starter with the non-brain-dead populace. So he wants no part of it, and he especially wants to avoid being caught up in the frenzy following the output from another go-around of the old standard political syllogism, to wit:
We must do SOMETHING. (political furor du jour, for example, "won't someone PLEASE think of the children")
This is something we CAN do. (bill du jour, that is, difficult to get right and potentially toxic encryption legislation)
Therefore, me MUST do THIS. (pass this bogus bill).
"The right way is to have an office of the judicature maintain a set of third party keys that law enforcement can request *with a warrant*."
No. That's the Clipper Chip all over again. It was a doomed idea in the 1990s. It's just as doomed in the 2010's.
Why is it that everything I hear from Feinstein is anti-liberty, anti-individual, and pro-goverment-power? She is the modern poster child for exactly the kind of person that the founders fought the revolution in order to rid themselves of. Be gone, you power-mad, anti-liberty, disaster of a legislator.
Whatever his motives there's one thing certain: Dianne Feinstein is consistent enemy of freedom and of the American people. She's an insult to the Senate and to the Constitution, the path to uphold and protect she breaks with every new freedom destroying bill she introduces.
She needs to be removed from the Senate an preferably tried for treason as the only thing she does is give aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom.
He acts like the government is doing some kind of favour to the citizens by providing protection and that somehow the citizens are obligated to give up their liberties as payment.
It's the government's FUCKING JOB to protect its citizens. They don't get to have any kind of special credit for it and they certainly don't get to have any kind of special payment (ie. private data) for it.
This reminds me of a bit that Chris Rock did a long time ago about niggers trying to take credit for shit that they are supposed to do.
Ghetto parent: "Oh, I take care of my kids!"
Chris Rock: "You're SUPPOSED to you dumb motherfucker!"
Burr and Feinstein that is.
The right way is to have an office of the judicature maintain a set of third party keys that law enforcement can request *with a warrant*.
Problem those keys will leak and become public. It happened with physical keys, it will happen more easily with binary keys that can be just copied.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I am sorry, but you are severely lacking in the technical knowledge of how these things work. AND you got modded a +5-Interesting on Slashdot of all places? Clearly there are a lot of folks that think in a similar vein... else I guess this would have been a open&shut case. I will try to dumb it down for you in non-IT. Sorry if I am coming off mean, but that is my emotion right now on your "technical solution" to a human problem.
Imagine home builders started making very secure homes. They aren't impossible to break into, just very very difficult. Whether you have a warrant, "reasonable suspicion", or just a criminal is irrelevant and a separate topic. The house is really really hard to break into. So the city council says that all builders that build in their district must provide a master key to be kept in a safe in city hall. So they have a set of master keys to every house in the city. Assume the perfect legal framework as your described.
You see NO issue in the above concept? None at all? You don't think a criminal will be able to eventually duplicate a master key? You don't think people's property values will go down and folks won't live there because of this?
How about a better technical solution to what you describe. Every key generator registers new keys/passwords/personal Q&As in the legal lockbox of yours to be used by legal/moral means only. Drop the complexity of encrypting & storing data with 2 keys. If you are going to be looking up a master key for one device, you might as well have the database just find the device's main key. Remove the risk of a crook figuring out a master key and robbing everyone.
Do you really think this is ok? This is wrong! We shouldn't be forced to have to keep our doors open for all our neighbors. The occasional inability to get into our neighbor's house for an emergency is the small price we pay for that freedom.
People are members of society, not peasants of the collective. We are all voluntary stakeholders in our overall betterment, and should not be treated like chained slaves or prisoners staring at the shoulders of one before. Democracy is a consensus, a collective bargain. Yes, it is fragile, but that is what makes it so great. We all agree to work together for our individual and collective betterment. Not one or the other. And where those goals do not meet, the misguided agreements fall apart and no one is sacrificed.
I think the concept that the "People" have the right to get into your personal stuff, is just wrong. They can have a right to try, but they don't have a right to be successful nor have it made easy. That is not a cornerstone or proper foundation of a good society. And this is before the absolute power corrupts, politicians will abuse this, criminals will hack it, mistakes happen, and bureaucracy buries in "human problems" come along.
Your mistake is expecting the government to have third-party keys, and not abuse them.
Various levels of government have already shown they abhor the minor inconvenience of requesting a warrant. They don't like having their activities be public, lest the people question them. W had a virtual rubber-stamp FISA court, but he still went around it because he didn't want his anti-terrorism activities exposed. And they really hate when they're told no.
A 21st century Clipper chip is not happening.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.