Slashdot Mirror
Two Years After FBI vs Apple, Encryption Debate Remains (axios.com)
It's been two years since the FBI and Apple got into a giant fight over encryption following the San Bernardino shooting, when the government had the shooter's iPhone, but not the password needed to unlock it, so it asked Apple to create a way inside. What's most surprising is how little has changed since then. From a report: The encryption debate remains unsettled, with tech companies largely opposed and some law enforcement agencies still making the case to have a backdoor. The case for strong encryption: Those partial to the tech companies' arguments will note that cyberattacks and hacking incidents have become even more common, with encryption serving as a valuable way to protect individuals' personal information. The case for backdoors: Criminals are doing bad stuff and when devices are strongly encrypted they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley, completely hidden from public view.
Fuck off. I donâ(TM)t want the government to keep me safe. I want the government to keep me free.
"I need to dip into your shit whenever I like. It's for your own... uhm, safety."
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
... for the technologically illiterate politicians who, at the same time, are too goddammed unable, for some reason, to LISTEN to the EXPERTS who tell them that "responsible encryption," encryption with backdoors, is vulnerable, and not really secure at all. Christ allmighty, what is with the stream of idiots in U.S, U.K, and Australian politics who speak on the matter, and don't try to understand it?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
That's a lame argument. It implies a very narrow reading of "keeping people safe", a term that is wide open to interpretation. An opposing argument may equally cite keeping people safe as a reason for strong encryption.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The problem is that there is no middle ground here. Putting any sort of back door into encryption effectively renders it useless. The cops can say whatever they want but that is an indisputable fact and isn't negotiable even if we wanted to. You can have good encryption or for all practical purposes no encryption. There is literally no middle ground.
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
If you implement backdoors in your software, you can as well close shop. Nobody, at least no company with at least a hint of self preservation, will buy your product. If I cannot trust my company trade secrets to be secret from espionage because your product is insecure (and yes, a backdoor makes a product insecure BY DEFINITION), I will not use your product.
No "government only" backdoor is "government only" for long. First of all, the mere existence of such a backdoor gets known at some point in time, as the past history of deliberate leaks or accidental blunders have shown. And no later than this, the company that actively and deliberately puts backdoors in its security software is done for, for the reasons aforementioned. Yes, even if they "fix" this immediately. Why should I trust you that you have no backdoors now? Fool me once and all that.
Second, a general key into the secrets of every company worldwide is prized. Not by hackers. By governments. And governments have WAY other options at their disposal as any basement dweller or even organized crime. You have seen what North Korea does with people that li'l Kim simply does not like? Now imagine what they do with people that could give them the key to the holy grail. You know the key? Well, you may be in for a decision who you love more, your country or your kids. Almost every person has a weak spot. There are very, very few people who cannot be at least blackmailed if they cannot be bribed. Your life, your freedom, your credit, your family... everyone breaks at some point.
And state actors, especially when acting for repressive regimes, don't mind cutting your unborn son out of your wife if that's what makes you hand over what you want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Basically the argument is it is illegal to keep secrets from the government.
Enjoy your fascism!
So much for the 4th and 5th amendments. You no longer have any rights to such things.
The problem is that this is not the correct tool. You gain no safety because the criminals will simply move on while you eradicate the safety of your citizens by exposing them to hackers (both organized crime and foreign government sponsored) that get a hold of that backdoor.
"Government only backdoors" do not exist. If you create an entry point for a benign actor, you create an attack vector for a nefarious one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There’s some irony in an AC arguing that there’s no right to privacy.
I wonder, would you feel as comfortable stating your unpopular opinion if your account’s reputation was on the line?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And after two years, has anything in the debate changed on Slashdot? Perhaps a hardening of positions, but I doubt that anyone's mind here has been changed. Can anyone chime in: has your position on this been modified? What persuaded you?
The argument for backdoors is:
1. We can stop bad guys better.
2. It doesn't "really" hurt the US public for us to spy on everybody's shit if they don't know.
The counter argument is:
1. Are you sure you can stop bad guys?
2. It DOES HURT untold millions of innocent US citizens.
The problem is, the cat is out of the bag. Everybody knows spying is the norm, and that screws with people, good people, in a bad way.
Is it as lethal as getting shot by a criminal? No. Is it as bad as having a mean boss looking over your shoulder questioning everything you do to the point that you are afraid to sneeze? Yes, for some people the resounding answer is yes.
because bone headed politicians are still arguing about it. By 'bone headed' I do not mean so stupid that they do not understand that you cannot have secret back-doors (although there are undoubtably some that are that stupid), but 'bone headed' in the sense that they continue to want to get their way irrespective of the practical impossibility and regardless of the damage that it will cause.
I suspect that some of them are playing a more subtle game, they secretly accept that it cannot be done but keep on pushing because they hope that the Tech companies will give way on something else that is more valuable to the politicians as a 'compromise' deal. Whatever this something else turns out to be I can guarantee that it will not be to your or my benefit.
Posturing like this also makes them sound good to Joe Sixpack who does not understand, but like politicians who talk hard against terrorists, etc - ie good for votes.