4 ms·

Great, now there's 'responsible encryption'

45 points by sds111 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rqs 9y ago
Clearly they don't seems to know what is encryption. Because there are only two types of encryptions: Ones that work, ones that don't. It's a none or everyone deal: Once an encrypt algorithm got cracked, everyone can then access to the encrypted data. "responsible encryption", ha! why don't call it "illusional encryption"
gregmac 9y ago
How about the government agencies and administration leads in this area? They can use "responsible encryption" for all their stuff, with access granted to relevant oversight committees. If after several years nothing is compromised, and no agency ever encrypts anything "irresponsibly", then this discussion about implementing these laws can start.
willsr 9y ago
I've been seeing the 'responsible encryption' meme popping up quite a bit recently. Like this bloke, who thinks people that want working encryption are extremists. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_extreme_end_to_end_encryption_ee2ee/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_ext...
maxxxxx 9y ago
Do they have any real proposals? It would be interesting to see what they want to do. It sounds a little like "clean coal" which never materialized.
some999 9y ago
Time to embrace, extend, and extinguish this terminology: the only responsible encryption is an implementation which is built to be as secure as is known how to design. Backdoors are known to be insecure and are irresponsible. I wholeheartedly embrace responsible encryption: designs which are both secure and easy to use.
nickysielicki 9y ago
> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, > citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access > evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and > punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect > privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate > law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval. > > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible > encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a > mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more > impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities > to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of > technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going > dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy. > > Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere > concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about > preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to > protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to > speak the truth. > > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and > enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity. > > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right > to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let > businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court > orders, it should be a fully-informed decision. I never thought about it like that. /s
- Silhouette 9y ago
  "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger, 1783 (shortly before becoming Prime Minister of Great Britain)
- djeikyb 9y ago
  will you remove the initial spaces before the angle bracket? makes it hell to read on mobile
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
revmoo 9y ago
"President Barack Obama called on the tech community to build a safe encryption key to assist in law enforcement investigations, saying that if it failed, it could one day face a more draconian solution passed by a Congress that is less sympathetic to its worldview. "
awalton 9y ago
...no there isn't. It's just another boring retread of key escrow, and we already vehemently discarded that terribly bad idea in the 90s. But hey, as the world's about to destroy Net Neutrality and overturn Roe v Wade, why not. Tis the season for terrible ideas and throwing away decades of progress.

45 points by sds111 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rqs 9y ago

Clearly they don't seems to know what is encryption. Because there are only two types of encryptions: Ones that work, ones that don't. It's a none or everyone deal: Once an encrypt algorithm got cracked, everyone can then access to the encrypted data. "responsible encryption", ha! why don't call it "illusional encryption"

gregmac 9y ago

How about the government agencies and administration leads in this area? They can use "responsible encryption" for all their stuff, with access granted to relevant oversight committees. If after several years nothing is compromised, and no agency ever encrypts anything "irresponsibly", then this discussion about implementing these laws can start.

willsr 9y ago

I've been seeing the 'responsible encryption' meme popping up quite a bit recently. Like this bloke, who thinks people that want working encryption are extremists. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_extreme_end_to_end_encryption_ee2ee/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_ext...

maxxxxx 9y ago

Do they have any real proposals? It would be interesting to see what they want to do. It sounds a little like "clean coal" which never materialized.

some999 9y ago

Time to embrace, extend, and extinguish this terminology: the only responsible encryption is an implementation which is built to be as secure as is known how to design. Backdoors are known to be insecure and are irresponsible. I wholeheartedly embrace responsible encryption: designs which are both secure and easy to use.

nickysielicki 9y ago

> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, > citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access > evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and > punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect > privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate > law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval. > > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible > encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a > mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more > impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities > to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of > technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going > dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy. > > Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere > concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about > preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to > protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to > speak the truth. > > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and > enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity. > > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right > to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let > businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court > orders, it should be a fully-informed decision. I never thought about it like that. /s

Silhouette 9y ago
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger, 1783 (shortly before becoming Prime Minister of Great Britain)
djeikyb 9y ago
will you remove the initial spaces before the angle bracket? makes it hell to read on mobile
- colejohnson66 9y ago

revmoo 9y ago

"President Barack Obama called on the tech community to build a safe encryption key to assist in law enforcement investigations, saying that if it failed, it could one day face a more draconian solution passed by a Congress that is less sympathetic to its worldview. "

awalton 9y ago

...no there isn't. It's just another boring retread of key escrow, and we already vehemently discarded that terribly bad idea in the 90s. But hey, as the world's about to destroy Net Neutrality and overturn Roe v Wade, why not. Tis the season for terrible ideas and throwing away decades of progress.