Slashdot Mirror
Top Security Experts Say Anti-Encryption Bill Authors Are 'Woefully Ignorant' (dailydot.com)
blottsie writes from a report on the Daily Dot: In a Wall Street Journal editorial titled "Encryption Without Tears," Sens. Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein pushed back on widespread condemnation of their Compliance with Court Orders Act, which would require tech companies to provide authorities with user data in an "intelligible" format if served with a warrant. But security experts Bruce Schneir, Matthew Green, and others say the lawmakers entirely misunderstand the issue. "On a weekly basis we see gigabytes of that information dumped to the Internet," Green told the Daily Dot. "This is the whole problem that encryption is intended to solve." He added: "You can't hold out the current flaws in the Internet as a justification for why the Internet shouldn't be made secure." "These criticisms of Burr and Feinstein's analogy emphasize an important point about digital security: The differences between the levels of encryption protecting certain types of data -- purchase records on Amazon's servers versus photos on an iPhone, for example -- lead to different levels of risk," writes Eric Geller of the Daily Dot.
Truly shocking!
to those who are entrenched. the good news is that ignorance is fixable even if it is unwilling.
How exactly would the US force terrorists and criminals to use this state sanctioned pre-owned encryption? It's almost like they want to spy on everyone that passively reaps the benefits of encryption.
Calling lawmakers "woefully ignorant" of technology is a tired ad hominem argument, always thrown out by the techno-elites. It may have been true back in the 90s and early oughts, bu these senators entirely understand the implications of what they're doing. Calling a senator, especially Feinstein, "woefully ignorant" sounds naive ... as if they aren't even listening to what the senators are saying.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Ironically, all legislature is encrypted in obfuscated legalize and other deceitful special interest pork pretending to be honest language.
After this much time, and considering the actual experts that they have access to, I can't help but feel that the esteemed Congresscritters Feinstein and Burr are not at ALL "ignorant" of the particulars of this issue.
Why not explain to them that they have pulled the technological equivalent of redefining PI as "3"?
Politicians don't understand tech they are creating legislation about?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
In other news, water is wet and the sun is hot. Film at 11.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Just as millions and millions roll in for these Presidential contests, House Speakers and the Ways and Means chair are embarrassingly well funded. The ones who last on the Hill are clever enough to see where the World is headed.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
she is a zombie, so... eventually she will rot enough to not be a senator but that's probably several hundred years from now.
Well, the thing they fundamentally misunderstand about the issue is that companies now are disclaiming ownership of the data. At least the stuff that exists purely on people's phones for example.
Senators Burr and Feinstein, failing to grasp this issue, actually have a beef with the people who now seek to use freely available encryption (which can be broken by no one practically) to protect themselves against intrusive government behavior -- which government has itself fueled by its own responsibility. Not the phone manufacturers -- which is why Apple, for example, have been racing forward to take the issue out of their own hands.
If they want access to records about who uses public networks, transmits public information, etc, etc, then fine. Tap those networks, and make those companies who transmit information comply. But hands off my data, on my device, thank you.
When a politician says that tech companies have to do something, and the heads of every major high-tech company all say that it is impossible to do so in a way that doesn't fundamentally compromise the security of every man, woman, and child—including those working for our own government—and the politician basically says, "I don't believe you", then either the politician is woefully ignorant about technology or he/she is deliberately trying to destroy all modern technology. There's really no middle ground possible here.
I choose to believe the best in people, so I assume that she is simply borderline computer-illiterate like most of the rest of Congress, and that she's too clueless to recognize that when the heads of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tell you that you're full of it, that's a good time to hire better tech experts to advise you. Because the only plausible alternative is that she is corrupt, and that somebody who will benefit from the destruction of all modern technology is pulling her strings like a puppet.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
They are merely taking hanlon's razor to an extreme. In this case, I think it's really a matter of blaming ignorance rather than facing the reality that it's malice.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Techno-elites"? By that you mean "experts in their given field", like people who have written papers, books, actual security algorithms, etc? Those "techno-elites"? You'll forgive me, but are we seriously expected to dismiss their evaluation of a given piece of legislation, when this is what they do? That's a nice little ad hominem yourself, in case you weren't aware.
Feinstein et al have proposed a new federal law. So you'll forgive me when I don't really care about listening to them try to spin it or talk about their intentions, because what matters is what is actually written in the bill.
Being "ignorant" regarding a particularly complex topic like encryption and security isn't a personal insult. It means you're not fully versed on that particular topic, and it can be easily fixed by *learning*. You're reacting as though someone someone called Feinstein (whom it sounds like you admire and/or support and seem to be instinctively defending) "stupid", which is not the same thing. Now, if a lawmaker find herself ignorant regarding a certain topic, and tries to create and pass a law without seeking and applying the best advice from experts in that field, then... well...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Is it better to have a very competent government or incompetent one?
just about any bill is woefully ignorant to those who are entrenched. the good news is that ignorance is fixable even if it is unwilling.
Its got little to do with being entrenched. Most people do not understand how little their representatives are involved in the drafting of legislation, and on the other side the reading and analysis of legislation in preparation for a vote. Representatives are heavily dependent on staffers for such things. There are few things the representatives have to do themselves, show up for votes, show up for committee meetings, and most importantly spend 3-4 hours a day on the phone asking for money. Other things like drafting and analysis are largely delegated. This is true for the entrenched and the new optimistic enthusiastic determined-to-change/fix-things as-yet-uncorrupted representative.
When legislation is intelligently written it is usually written by lobbyists rather than staff. I'm tempted to say something about bias, but what makes one think staffers are unbiased, or their representative.
And this is why Google, Apple, etc *must* send lobbyists to Washington to get involved. Its regrettable, but its true.
If I felt like being very generous...
Perhaps what speedplane is saying is simply that Burr and Feinstein know exactly what they are asking for; they know the staggering implications for dismantling information security (personal and corporate), they know the near-impossibility of the request, they know that even if all US companies could somehow manage to comply, it would do absolutely nothing to stop terrorism, criminal behavior, or do anything to allow authorities to better investigate after the fact; and they know that if such backdoors were put in place, that it would only be a matter of (very short) time before those "golden keys" were in the hands of evil-doers to the considerable detriment of American citizens (because no one else would really be affected).
Perhaps he is saying the senators know and fully understand all of this. They're just doing it anyway.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
"Top Security Experts Say Anti-Encryption Bill Authors Are 'Woefully Ignorant'"
Everyone with an IQ above room temperature: "No shit, Sherlock."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Awww, who's a good little party drone. You are. Yes you are. Would you like a belly rub? Feinstein is knowledgeable about exactly one thing. Keeping her job.
Well-written, logically thought out, and even reasonably polite! It's a Slashdot miracle.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I think most of the people in DC passed Woefully ignorant sometime in the mid 70's.
They leapt over "Maliciously ignorant" in 2001-2002.
Now they're exploring the uncharted territory of the Ignorance Singularity.
Most of these people are at the "magic smoke" level of technological comprehension, and any attempt to reconcile them to reality is met with nothing but empty-headed hostility.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Y'all need to "push back"...at the next election.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A person accused is not required to say one word in writing or with speech to cops or judges or to testify in any way in their own defense. So just how is it that any court dare to demand a password which may well further a conviction whether just or not? For example, a person might greatly fear that someone put child pornography on their hard drive or in their email. Compelling access to those items may send an innocent man up the creek. The needs of society do not hold any weight when weighed against the constitution. It is as if a court can decide that you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment due to the importance of an issue.
simplest answer:
they are all owned by the spymasters.
think about it. the spymasters are the ONLY ones to truly benefit from our lack of privacy and encryption.
the TLA's have all the dirt on everyone, and that includes our 'leaders'.
the government you think you have? its all for show.
good nite.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I can't read the op-ed because it's paywalled. Does anyone have access and can post it?
I choose to believe the best in people, so I assume that she is simply borderline computer-illiterate like most of the rest of Congress, and that she's too clueless to recognize that when the heads of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tell you that you're full of it, that's a good time to hire better tech experts to advise you. Because the only plausible alternative is that she is corrupt,
You are familiar with her work, right? She is evil down to her black little heart. Those who forget the lessons of history, and assume that Feinstein doesn't know precisely what she is doing, are going to be stared at in disbelief by those of us who grew up in California.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Covered entities are responsible only for the information or data that they (or another party on their behalf) have made unintelligible.
The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order.
Which means, that if you take a centralized, proprietary, approach to user security, that you are able to circumvent by design, you have to comply with court orders to do the same thing you have the power to do. This would be a huge problem if companies were required to centralize and weaken security, but the bill then explicitly states that government can't tell you how to design or secure your products.
So centralize your security with your master signing key, like Apple, and expect to share that power with the government. Decentralizing your security with open standards, like Android and Linux, remains legal, and there's nothing anyone can, or could ever do, anyways. This is completely reasonable and responsible. If companies are going to build backdoors into their encryption, either purposefully or by poor design, then society needs to have a check on that power. So, why all the hyperbole about the government requiring permanent backdoors? That's clearly not what this is.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Why is this a surprise, coming out of the anus of Feinstein? Why won't she just resign and go away to die somewhere instead of repeatedly fucking the good citizens of this country?
Because her husband is making too much money.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Government is a tool for social control and stability. Like any tool it can be misused or misapplied. So it's not a matter of more or less government. It is a matter of properly or improperly applied government. Good government is possible.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I choose to believe the best in people,
Well, there's your first mistake...
Ever since the San Bernadino shooter's government issued iPhone data was encrypted, I've had this rattling around in my head:
Doesn't this encryption lack the proper owner and user model? In the case of a phone not owned by the user, there should be an owner key that can be used to access the data on the device at any time, and that can be used to revoke the user key at any time. In the case of private user owned phones, I say screw em, math isn't illegal.
Just my two cents.
My Babylon
Unless when it is actually accurate. As it is here, as these people really have no clue what they are actually asking for. Even a senator cannot be a real expert on most things they decide about and if they chose to ignore what the actual experts say, then they are "woefully ignorant". I like to call them "Stupid Type II": Not even aware that they have no clue about the matter.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Probably. But calling her "evil" is not something that will accomplish much. Hence "woefully ignorant".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.