US Congressional Committee Concludes Encryption Backdoors Won't Work (betanews.com)

"Any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest," reports a bipartisan committee in the U.S. Congress. Mark Wilson quotes Beta News: The Congressional Encryption Working Group (EWG) was set up in the wake of the Apple vs FBI case in which the FBI wanted to gain access to the encrypted contents of a shooter's iPhone. The group has just published its end-of-year report summarizing months of meetings, analysis and debate. The report makes four key observations, starting off with: "Any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest".

This is certainly not a new argument against encryption backdoors for the likes of the FBI, but it is an important one... The group says: "Congress should not weaken this vital technology... Cryptography experts and information security professionals believe that it is exceedingly difficult and impractical, if not impossible, to devise and implement a system that gives law enforcement exceptional access to encrypted data without also compromising security against hackers, industrial spies, and other malicious actors...
The report recommends that instead, Congress "should foster cooperation between the law enforcement community and technology companies," adding "there is already substantial cooperation between the private sector and law enforcement." [PDF] It also suggests that analyzing the metadata from "our digital 'footprints'...could play a role in filling in the gap. The technology community leverages this information every day to improve services and target advertisements. There appears to be an opportunity for law enforcement to better leverage this information in criminal investigations."

Comments

Arms and Armies

[Tenebrousedge]

Fascinating. What did the study say about the utter uselessness of the militia (as demonstrated by the burning of the Capitol in 1814), the intentions of the Founders not to have a military in peacetime, and the current lack of any organized militia, that being necessary to the security of a free state? Do you imagine that any part of warfare has changed since 1789? Do you feel that muskets and automatic machine guns should be treated identically by legislation? How are we doing on the citizen-farmer thing that the Founders were also in favor of? Is it possible that the conditions under which the 2nd Amendment were drafted have little or nothing to do with the society that has resulted?

I believe that it is only consistent, that if one wishes to argue the Founders' perspective on the second amendment, that if they argue in favor of an individual right to bear arms, they must also argue against the United States maintaining a standing army in peacetime. Furthermore, the Founders would probably not have considered our police forces as anything other than a standing army targeted against the People; certainly no such thing existed during their lifetimes. I am sure your mental gyrations will be fascinating to watch.