Slashdot Mirror
Spy Chief Complains That Edward Snowden Sped Up Spread of Encryption By 7 Years (theintercept.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on The Intercept: The director of national intelligence on Monday blamed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for advancing the development of user-friendly, widely available strong encryption. "As a result of the Snowden revelations, the onset of commercial encryption has accelerated by seven years," James Clapper said. The shortened timeline has had "a profound effect on our ability to collect, particularly against terrorists," he said. When pressed by The Intercept to explain his figure, Clapper said it came from the National Security Agency. "The projected growth maturation and installation of commercially available encryption -- what they had forecasted for seven years ahead, three years ago, was accelerated to now, because of the revelation of the leaks." Asked if that was a good thing, leading to better protection for American consumers from the arms race of hackers constantly trying to penetrate software worldwide, Clapper answered no. "From our standpoint, it's not ⦠it's not a good thing," he said."Of all the things I've been accused of," Snowden said, "this is the one of which I am most proud."
Fantastic. Well done.
Even more important than just the spread of Encryption itself, but the fact that more and more of the non-tech community is becoming acquainted with it and why it's important. It's exciting to see people who clearly prescribe to the "I just want my technology to work" thought process to be actually caring about the underlying processes.
Snowden is not responsible for this.
Clapper and his friends in the intelligence agencies have been abusing their spy powers for years with overreaching dragnet surveillance operations.
If they were not such abusive, power hungry megalomaniacs, most people would not consider encryption a necessity.
Clapper needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and not blame people who actually do something to protect and defend the constitution that he uses as toilet paper/
Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
Trade your Freedom for Illusion of Security all you want. I prefer Freedom myself.
In the end, you'll have neither, and you're just too stupid to realize it before it is too late.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It was at great peril and disregard to himself and his personal safety that Edward Snowden went into hiding due to proving yet again the danger of a government left unchecked, unquestioned and ungoverned. It is my hope that he is allowed to safety one day return to the US and take his place among the countless heroes there.
Considering that I'm way more likely to be killed by my government than by a 'terrorist', I don't think we're really paying any price at all here.
The fact is, the US hasn't been hit by a major attack since 9/11. That doesn't prove the security measures are effective or necessary, but it certainly doesn't discredit them. It's necessary for law enforcement to combat terrorism. There is no reason that facing terror attacks should be the price for freedom. Slashdot commenters are happy to criticize law enforcement but fail to offer better solutions to stop terrorism. If you don't like what law enforcement is doing now, what's your solution to keep terror attacks at least as infrequent as they are now?
You know prison sexual assault has increased since 9/11. I theorize that the threat of prison rape is part of what deters terrorist attacks. For them it's a zero sum game now. Die or get violated. Since dying is so hard they don't bother anymore unless they can guarantee death. So you know what I now oppose people who try to work to end prison rape. Who cares about all the innocently assaulted prisoners. It's what keeps our country safe.
Just another second banana
-3 + 7 = 4
What a bunch of entitled whiners, probably makes their grandparents sick.
"oh investigating crimes is too hard" "why won't you let me read your email" "if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Funny how there is enough broad historic and current data in order to analyze this trend, but they can't (will not) provide a rough estimate of how many people have their comms/metadata sucked up into their data centers... funny that.
I didn't minimize their accomplishments.
And yet he posted as AC - the irony here is palatable.
The reasons why encryption is necessary for the internet to actually function are legion. The reasons why making things hard for government surveillance are likewise manifold.
I am not obligated to provide you the education to realize that private communication being private goes to the core of western democracies. I ask you this: I could use physical mail to send communication back and forth. Without a warrant, this communication cannot be read. I could also write this communication in a code, before I mail it. These facts are set. The legal protection of these papers is set. Any yet, some people believe that electronic communication should not be private. There are wonderful existing reasons why physical mail is protected. Why have we allowed governments to decide that simply because the format of communication has changed, its protection is no longer needed?
a professional spy working for a spy agency is complaining that the easy methods to gather communication are becoming obsolete, because folks are protecting their communication. Meanwhile, credit card agencies are bringing in tighter security to ensure credit cards are protected. Security is good for business. Security is good for the internet. Security is good for communication. Security is good for law enforcement. If the easy, cheap ways are beaten by simple encryption, then proper investigation is necessary. Getting permission to spend that money usually requires a warrant to justify its expenditure. Any government action/investigation that needs a warrant for justifications for invading an individual's rights will be done properly, using better tools.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
The thing to realize (and the way to view) these technology-based impacts to social/public policy is that power flows back and forth between the protagonists and antagonists over decades. And the newfound power that ordinary people now have (or just began to realize) is a gradual shift from government unsupervised/unchallenged intelligence, to protection in the hands of ordinary people.
It's a refreshing public realization of what we've been giving up, unawares, because we didn't know any better. And note that it may not even last. People may forget why we need privacy, and vigilance against an all-pervasive state. They may choose to give it up in the name (not even reality) of security. Maybe there'll be another event that changes public opinion in favor of more surveillance. Or, people might gradually see the extent that stupidity/invasiveness has reached, and continue to make decisions with their wallets and votes.
But as long as this issue has been around, the balance of power has, and will continue to, ebb and flow between the struggling parties on either side. (And note, the good guys / bad guys are not always definitively on the public/individual vs. government sides -- that can swap too.)
It's necessary for law enforcement to combat terrorism.
Law enforcement is the cops, not the NSA/CIA/etc. So, you're wrong.
If you don't like what law enforcement is doing now, what's your solution to keep terror attacks at least as infrequent as they are now?
Get the fuck out of the countries where terrorism comes from. They're trying to do the same thing we did to the British, but nowadays they have further reach.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Well, that's just it: how do you define security? The problem that the United States has is that computer system security and DHS anti-terrorism efforts have conflicting priorities, in no small part because we've become lazy about HUMINT.
Finding God in a Dog
Clapper lied, under oath, to congress.
He was given the questions he would be asked, in writing, before hand.
He lied when asked those questions.
When asked afterwards, in writing, if he wanted to amend any of his answers, he declined.
He only admitted the truth after it came out in the Snowden revelations.
Why would anyone now believe anything he says?
Let's suppose that, tomorrow, the government declares "All encryption needs to have Government Only Backdoors." Let's also assume that everyone - through some weird quirk of fate - goes along with it instead of sparking the years-long lawsuits/protests that would actually happen. So now the government can listen in on anyone at any time. Terrorists beaten, right?
Wrong. Strong encryption is already available and can be used by anyone (yes, including terrorists) now. So they'll just use that. Or they'll use no encryption - which is how they operated in some previous attacks.
Furthermore, "Government Only Backdoors" means that the encryption has a weakness. Even if we could trust the US government not to abuse it (a HUGE assumption but let's allow it for now), how long until foreign governments got access to it (either via some official channel or by hacking their way in)? How long until various hacker groups got control of it?
Finally, there's the question of risk. Being injured/killed in a terrorist attack is an extremely low-risk event. Sure, it makes for great news and is used near-daily by politicians to scare us into supporting whatever they want, but it's not an actual thing that your average person in the US needs to worry about. On the other hand, something like Identity Theft or credit card fraud *are* something that normal people need to worry about.
Tell you what, I'll explain to the families of the next victims of the terror attacks (probably a dozen or less) why we supported encryption if you explain to the victims (likely millions) of identity theft/credit card fraud why you wanted to ban strong encryption and thus let any hacker in the world listen in on their transactions.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No one here seriously has a problem with law enforcement monitoring legitimate suspects for potential risk. We *DO* have a serious problem with wholesale monitoring of personal communications, absent probable cause, in the hope of catching someone, somewhere, doing something they don't like. The notion of 'general warrants' by the British authorities was the reason for their explicit ban in the Fourth Amendment. And the whole 'Founders didn't have to deal with terrorists' argument is put to bed by a quote from Madison to Jefferson: "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." The majority of the disrupted terror plots since 9/11 have been accomplished by old-school boots-on-ground detective work, not by signals intelligence. There is no indication that plotters like the Boston Marathon bombers, etc, that *were* sadly successful had used any crypto in their communications. The 'lone wolf' nutcase is by nature hard to track. Most of the additional screening put in place since the attacks has been window dressing ("security theater") meant to make us feel safer, not particularly contributing to actual security. The solution to terrorism is NOT TO BE TERRORIZED, to deal with the nutjobs as just that, and refuse to turn ourselves into the sort of regulated police state they'd prefer to see.
Except that scenario doesn't exist. It isn't like the Boston bombers, Paris attackers, Brussels attackers used encrypted communication. In the case of the Boston bombers it was the government's own incompetence that screwed those people, it isn't like Russia warned the US about those 2 ass clowns, well shit. Also it isn't like the leader of the Pairs attack was featured in ISIS's magazine, well fuck me. Since is has come out that the Paris attackers and Brussels attackers were in contact and seemingly related it sure seem like the authorities suck balls at doing their jobs and may be should be gathering less information on everyone and instead look into people who are interviewed by pig fuckers monthly or are told by some other country to keep an eye on. I also remember a while ago seeing that the FBI or CIA stating that encryption hasn't prevented them from getting the brake they needed in any of their cases. I would cite the article but with their recent about face and encryption being in the news a tone that appears to have been buried and I can't find it.
Time to offend someone
Haven't you noticed? They keep telling us they need X, then another terrorist attack happens anyway and they tell us if they had just had X+1 they could have stopped it. Lather,. rinse, repeat. Soon there won't be any more to give them and the terrorist attacks will continue.
Because I want my family to live, I want the NSA's domestic spying budget to be cut and re-allocated to healthcare, traffic safety, and any number of more likely causes of death.
So far, they haven't provided any information leading to prevention of terrorism. They have provided plenty of red herrings.
All they have managed to do is bust a few drug trafficers, and that at the cost of undermining justice in the U.S. It's really not worth the cost.