Slashdot Mirror
FBI Director: Without Compromise on Encryption, Legislation May Be the 'Remedy' (cyberscoop.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday that unless the U.S. government and private industry are able to come to a compromise on the issue of default encryption on consumer devices, legislation may be how the debate is ultimately decided. "I think there should be [room for compromise]," Wray said Wednesday night at a national security conference in Aspen, Colorado. "I don't want to characterize private conversations we're having with people in the industry. We're not there yet for sure. And if we can't get there, there may be other remedies, like legislation, that would have to come to bear." Wray described the issue of "Going Dark" because of encryption as a "significant" and "growing" problem for federal, state and local law enforcement as well as foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He claims strong encryption on mobile phones keeps law enforcement from gaining access to key evidence as it relates to active criminal investigations. "People are less safe as a result of it," he said.
More like the government institutions are less safe from the people.
Either private companies give up our privacy by allowing the government access to our communications...... or laws will be passed FORCING them to give up our privacy.
And we wonder why the United States Government won't pass a law protecting our personal data.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will
-----BEGIN GPG MESSAGE-----
Charset: utf-8
qANQR1DDDQQJAwKQIuGxR9ku8L/SQgH6kXzdtVHv9IwDWcZVsGX5G2UZje9L8VoC
Y6faoCNMAg+Zq8S92arz+DV/yEsZo3jBoCFZBsOPqXOO8ATiMmoSQA==
=7Ce4
-----END GPG MESSAGE-----
Math doesn't have it. If there's a shared key to all our communications, it will sooner or later leak and it will render all encrypted data wide open. Also, I presume that for some reasons Christopher Wray doesn't keep a copy of the keys to his house at some government agency, no?
Governments and often unrelated companies are less privy to our private lives as a result of it. FTFY.
before smartphones came along? Why do they not get that the people don't want them to be able to utilize new technology to make solving crimes any easier than before?
Everyone is guilty of something. The only way the system works is if the balance between cost of prosecution and magnitude of the crime worth prosecuting remains stable (or given that we already incarcerate far more than most, shifts a bit in favor of crime). If prosecution becomes cheaper and easier, we can quickly become a police state without changing any laws.
When encryption has backdoors, then NO ONE will have encryption at all
You CANNOT have 'backdoors' in an encyption algorithm and still have effective encryption, goddamnit!
Clearly the FBI and Congress doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not anyone has secure systems or not, so long as they can stick their little brown noses into everyones business. Who cares if every computer in the country is easily hacked by even script kiddies, everyones identity is stolen, and everyones bank accounts drained and credit cards charged up? The Feds will have 'unbreakable' encryption, as will all elected officials and of course The Rich, they'll all be exempt from it, while the rest of us are wide open to whoever wants to victimize us.
Them, them, FUCK THEM.
"People are less safe as a result of it." People are less safe by leaving their room every day. Some things are just expected to be "less safe" but we do them because we want to be more than prisoners.
They keep talking about "compromise" as if Tim Cook and Larry Page have everyone's encryption keys in a file on their laptops that they refuse to hand over for convicted mobsters. That sort of mindset just does not reflect the nature of the situation.
Here is what it ultimately boils down to:
1. The user - and only the user - has the encryption key.
2. Companies are compelled to sell devices that cannot be secured at all, because a 'master key' lives somewhere.
That's it. Those are the two options. There is no way for the phone to verify if there is a warrant, or if the person inputting the master key is truly a law enforcement agent or not, or any other way to ensure the individual using the master key is justified in doing so, or any means of discriminating between a hack and a court order.
If Wray would like to come up with a third option that doesn't ultimately fall into the category of one of the other two, he's welcome to try. Smarter people have failed.
It is not the job of the security services to prevent crime/terrorism/kiddie porn/copyright infringement/whatever. It is their job to investigate after the fact in order to convict those responsible. That's how our justice system works. The only justification for the ability to decrypt all encryption is for (attempted - in reality it will never work) prevention.
After a crime has been committed, in order to obtain evidence, the authorities can always obtain a warrant to compel a device owner to decrypt/unlock a device. If the owner refuses, that's what contempt of court is for. If the device owner is dead, who gives a fuck what's on the phone? If the owner (presumed criminal) is willing to sit in jail indefinitely for refusing to unlock/decrypt, that is an acceptable outcome.
Please, I don't give a rat's ass about what evidence you can or can't gather from devices. It isn't pertinent to the discussion. People should be able to have private conversations that you don't get access to under ANY circumstances for whatever damn reason they please. Go F yourself. You anti-american, anti-democratic, nazi, communist, dick-weed. YOU are the enemy of the people. The "criminals" and "terrorists" are the least of our problems. You are and your ilk are to be feared and removed from office. You are the danger. You are not the solution. You are the problem.
Anytime any political type of any stripe says they just want compromise, what they mean is they want capitulation.
He might just be admitting that if they can't convince the companies to do what they want, Congress will have to pass a law ordering them to stop trying, which will totally solve the problem.
He's not in Congress, he's in the Executive Branch, so there is no reason to think that he thinks he'd be choosing which type of legislation is needed to fix the problem. And anyways, according to the Constitution there might be only one direction that Congress can even move to settle it! They're certainly not going to pass a law telling us what content can be produced on a press.
Spies and soldiers (especially on the spy side) need as good or better security than I need to talk to my bank. The CIA, military and (Canadian) CSE know it's a trade-off. The FBI and RCMP pitch it as a trivial question with an obvious answer.
For every hard problem there is always one clear, obvious and simple answer.. and it's wrong .
davecb@spamcop.net
Good comments:
"... there is still open source, free and openly available encryption."
"... there are phones moving across political boundaries."
Many people in government and in management of private companies have NO knowledge of technical issues. That doesn't prevent them from having what they consider to be a strong and sensible opinion. They don't recognize they are ignorant.
ALSO: Back doors are not an answer. They will ALWAYS eventually be compromised.
Correction - they want the ability to illegally invade our privacy *back* - they've been invading it at will for many decades, and for the last couple decades have been doing it at a scale and invasiveness to dwarf anything ever before seen in all but the most dystopian fantasies. The rise of encryption has been a direct response to that unbridled power grab, and now they're trying to cast off those unwelcome limits on their unsupervised power. I mean hell, when they flat out lie to Congress about their activities, repeatedly, you've got to realize that they are no longer in any way a legitimate government agency.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There is no way to let the government read your secure files without making it easier for other parties to do the same. The government you have today may not be the government you have tomorrow. That's two reasons why it is too bad. One should suffice...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Back before the days of cell phones, judges could give prosecutors the ability to (1) break into someone's house, (2) install a device like these and then collect data.
You could also take someone's smart phone, root it, and install a surveillance software (with the same due process above). Even with encryption, if I have access to your phone (and it's unlocked -- figuring out a 6 key pass-code by spying isn't exactly James Bond's hardest mission) I would have access to your private key to decrypt said messages.
What law enforcement wants here are not the old rights they've always had -- but new ones. As the late Antonin Scalia wrote for the unanimous court regarding the unconstitutionality of planting a GPS device without a warrant:
“What we apply is an 18th century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted,”
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is untrue. Scholars in the middle ages were mistaken about many aspects of cosmology, to be sure, but the whole flat Earth business is a myth in more ways than one. First, it's important to understand that there were no official dogmas on these matters. But setting that fact aside (which requires a discussion of how dogma, canons, and councils work), there's a more directly relevant fact. The major Christian teachers during the middle ages treated the world as spherical. Hell, even the guys who objected to Galileo in later years thought of the world as spherical.
The reasons for this have to with the Aristotelian physics to which the objectors to Galileo were regrettably too committed. To oversimplify their position: earth (dirt, minerals, etc.) and water goes down; air and fire go up. If the former go down from all directions and the latter go up, you cannot but have a spherical planet with airy, firey (and quintessential!) things above it. Indeed, the objection to Galileo is based partly on this Aristotelian understanding of the elements (How can the Earth be moving in a circular fashion if the natural motion of its primary constituent--earth--is simply down?). To be sure, we have a better understanding of physics today than did the scholastic disciples of Aristotle, but I hope you can see that even in their view a flat Earth is incoherent.
TL;DR: Neither the Church nor educated medieval folk in general bought into any flat Earth nonsense. This is merely a popular myth. Modern flat Earthers are even behind Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) on this one. Now, whether the spherical Earth was thought of as moving or fixed in the center of the universe is another story altogether...
P.s. I only offer this lengthy correction because sometimes I fear we give modern flat Earthers the appearance of having even more credit than they deserve. Conspiratorial minds can dismiss claims of what we can discover with government funded rockets and satellites. "No one believed this round earth stuff until the government forced it on us all and fabricated the evidence!" My response is something along the lines of, "Come on. Medieval people knew the Earth was round. Eratosthenes had a pretty good estimation of its size, given the limited tools he was working with. Come join the third century B.C., will you? Grab a pocket calculator and look down a well."