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...
Glad to
http://www.macworld.com/articl...
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/...
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*. That way they can still maintain their operational integrity (i.e the warranted party does not know they are being monitored) and the rest of the populations free speech rights. This could easily be supported by All writs or Telecommunication intercept acts of many commonwealth countries.
The issue is here, that they just want to have access to peoples communications without a warrant, which is a violation of privacy no better than any other garden variety black hat access.
If the police and other agencies can't respect the very laws that they are upholding, then they are breaching the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. From the perspective of someone accessing data that makes them no different from the criminals they are chasing because they are violating constitutional rights. Unalienable rights and that laws can't be unconstitutional.
Democracy isn't driving around in a tank. Democracy is a fragile girl, vulnerable walking down the street in a bad neighbourhood, Burr and Feinstein are the creepy ones offering her a ride.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I am really looking forward to reading the legislative drivel that comes out of these Senators' staffs' iPads just one month after this single news story broke.
I'm sure that these smart Congressional interns will easily be able to understand and improve upon the original All Writs Act that the Founding Fathers came up with, after years-worth of thought and debate among the intellectual giants of that age.
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).
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.
There are plenty of people talking about the stupidity or absurdity of government interference in encryption. I think we're all on the same page on that, so lets talk about the bigger game.
I see two, or maybe three levels to this game:
What if done correctly? (-ish)
I'm tired of hearing that a backdoor can't be done securely. Of course people have been doing dual access secure control for a long time. Essentially, you have one key used to encrypt the phone, which is normal for single access, but you have two key decryption methods, which is what makes it dual access. It means you have to secure the second method, which can be done by breaking it into multiple parts and putting that control under different agencies. For example you might have the manufacturer in control of one part and the FBI in control of a second part and if you're especially paranoid, a third part is in the control of a court local to the manufacturer.
In short it is possible to do dual access securely, but the other question is what the result of such control means. Is it better for the public, better for the country, better for you?
Why do they want you to think this is what is going on?
I don't believe encryption has been broken. The math is too strong. The technology required to brute force a crack of the encryption is decades away optimistically, perhaps impossible. However, the ability to compromise the apps and updates installed on active suspects' phones isn't nearly as unattainable. If the FBI, NSA or DHS wants to monitor your activity they don't need to crack the encryption, just get the phone manufacturer to sign a compromising piece of software you already probably automatically trust. The simple fact is that if you're a suspect and you've allowed any app or update then you're probably already compromised. They'd rather you didn't know that. I'm not sure I want you (the potential criminal or terrorist) to know it, but I believe truth is vital even if if it isn't comfortable.
What if it is worse?
Lets assume it is worse than we guess. Perhaps secret letters and secret courts have already done such a thing. The recent farce with the FBI vs Apple could be just that, a farce. It could be a deliberate public show (the FBI insisted it be public instead of secret as requested by the Apple) designed to keep people from considering how comprehensively the privacy of the average citizen has already been compromised. Consider the possibility that everything you or your family does with a mobile phone is already available to law enforcement at will.
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!"
FYI if the president doesn't sign or veto it for ten days it becomes law without his signature.
Because what you are describing is key escrow, not end-to-end encryption. What WhatsApp implemented recently (I believe, correct me if wrong) is proper e2e, where only the sender and recipient have access, and even WhatsApp can't see the contents. It's exactly this kind of encryption that is being attacked and various agencies want to put backdoors in it. Also, if I encrypt data offline, and then send it (encryption completely apart from the sending medium or app), I want strong encryption without anyone but designated recipient to be able to access it. Any form of outside access would be a back door. Even explicit key escrow could be considered such, as it would require me to send the key somewhere for "safekeeping", deeply undermining the security in real sense (both sending and storage of the key would be vulnerable).
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion of the contents may have occurred during shipment.
O'bama? He's not Irish.