Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
While most people start thinking, "oh what a breath of fresh air, the government getting it right for once," I worry, "have aliens infiltrated our government? Because it seems like they are listening experts and making logical conclusions." ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think we've all seen how good the FBI is at keeping secrets. Any encryption backdoor would be in the wild in a week. In the week before it got loose it would be mostly a political weapon.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Well....all the experts did say he'd never get nominated. Then they said he'd never get elected. Experts are often wrong.
While most people start thinking, "oh what a breath of fresh air, the government getting it right for once," I worry, "have aliens infiltrated our government? Because it seems like they are listening experts and making logical conclusions." ;)
You see this a lot.
A stock thing for Congress to do when there's a lot of public pressure over some crisis is to take the pressure off themselves by commissioning a study. By the time the study is finished the crisis is old news and the pressure is gone. The results of the study can then be safely ignored and the Congresscritters can continue to vote the same way as always.
The only thing the study results are usually used for is occasional speech sound bites for proponents of the side that agrees with the conclusions. Since the conclusions don't actually matter, the study groups don't have to be packed to come up with a desired result. So sometimes they come up with something accurate and useful. But it's still noise as far as actually changing anything politically sensitive. About the best thing it does is occasionally help a legislator understand an issue better and/or formulate a better way to present his position.
One example of this is the Second Amendment. Congress commissioned a study on whether the framers intended it to protect an individual right of members of the civilian population to arm themselves as they see fit. The study went deep and came to a resounding conclusion that this was exactly the point. This was reported in 1982.
Then Congress and the executive branch completely ignored the study and continued legislating and enforcing ever more gun restrictions - to this day, nearly 35 years later. Most of the federal level legal changes that favor those who want to buy guns and use them for self defence have come from the Supreme Court, which came to the same conclusion by their own procedures.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There are two fatal flaws in your reasoning:
1. You assume that "the police" and "the criminals" are disjoint sets.
2. You assume that innocent people have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear from the police.
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.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.