4 ms·
There's no need to feel bad for the DoJ. They rarely encounter encryption and when they do they get around it. For instance in 2009, there were more than 2,300
by rsingel 16y ago
There's no need to feel bad for the DoJ. They rarely encounter encryption and when they do they get around it. For instance in 2009, there were more than 2,300 criminal wiretaps that caught the communications of more than 230,000 people. The cops encountered encryption once, and still got the plaintext. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/wiretapping/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/wiretapping/
Moreover, we've been down this road before with the Clinton/Gore push for encryption backdoors -- the so-called Clipper chip. Congress asked the National Research Council to look into it and what did they come up with?
"It is true that the spread of encryption technologies will add to the burden of those in government who are charged with carrying out certain law enforcement and intelligence activities. But the many benefits to society of widespread commercial and private use of cryptography outweigh the disadvantages."
http://epic.org/crypto/reports/nrc_release.html http://epic.org/crypto/reports/nrc_release.html
Simply put, this is an egregious power grab that's unnecessary. It's a technical mandate that limits secure communications and outlaws technology like PGP and OTR and possibly TOR.
Online encrypted e-mail services are already push-overs. Hushmail will rat it out its clients with a court order. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/encrypted-e-mai/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/encrypted-e-mai/
And if that doesn't work the FBI can always deploy its zero-day browser bug that installs spyware -- CIPAV. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/
Don't feel for the feds, fight them.
- neilc 16y agoThe FBI have a legitimate cause for concern: if strong cryptography ever becomes foolproof and widespread, it will make intercepting communications much, much harder -- and there are legitimate reasons for why the FBI would want to intercept communications. Obviously, the proposed legislation is pretty crazy, but I have at least a little sympathy for the FBI here.
- piguy314 16y agoGod forbid the police have to do real police work instead of just using their security letters and patriot act powers to coerce people into cooperation.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoThis didn't deserve a downvote, because it's obviously exemplary of the very sentiment that's driving the thing. However, that sentiment is assinine. The business of this nation isn't to make the interception of communications easier, it's to facilitate our affairs. The article says But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers. As if the powers of law enforcement are the overriding concern, rather than the freedom of the people.
- neilc 16y agoI don't think my sentiments are "assinine", thank you :) The FBI has legitimate reasons to want to intercept communications, e.g., to try to prevent organized crime and domestic terrorism. While most people would probably support the FBI's interest in doing that, they would also agree that infringing on privacy is bad. So we have a complicated tradeoff, and a system of checks and balances -- and that system might potentially be greatly effected by widespread crypto. The idea that only privacy rights have any value is just naive IMHO, and it is unsurprising that most people don't believe that.
- DennisP 16y agoI might be (very) slightly more sympathetic to that argument if the FBI were not currently raiding the homes of antiwar activists: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/24/fbi-launching-mass-raids-of-antiwar-activists-homes/ http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/24/fbi-launching-mass-raids-...
- CWuestefeld 16y agoOur security is important, but nothing is more important than our freedom. Thus, the powers of law enforcement must exist in the spaces between our freedoms, and not encroach, forcing us to alter our behavior for their convenience. Surely it would be more convenient to law enforcement if they had DNA samples and fingerprints from the entire population, but that's not going to happen. In some ways, demanding the "right" to eavesdrop is even more pernicious, because it's interfering with our freedom to speak and associate with those we choose -- one of our most cherished freedoms. And like at least one other commenter mentioned, the government has a clear track record of abusing such powers. I'll add another to that list, their abuse of the Echelon system. One of Echelon's primary roles has been to gather industrial espionage from European companies for US ones, say some intelligence experts. The French were said to have lost a $6bn contract for Airbus with the Saudi government to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, thanks to Echelon intercepts of faxes and telephone calls. ...The [British Parliament] report warned businesses and ordinary individuals that they are being spied on and that users should encrypt their e-mails. It said: "That a global system for intercepting communications exists ... is no longer in doubt. They do tap into private, civilian and corporate communications." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/secrecy-spy-satellites-and-a-conspiracy-of-silence-the-disturbing-truth-about-echelon-686389.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/secrecy-spy-s...
- xpaulbettsx 16y agoRemember folks, the downvote mechanism is not for when you disagree with people - it's for people who aren't contributing to the conversation. This is a legitimate, reasonable comment and doesn't deserve the downmodding.
- 16s 16y agoGreat post... would also outlaw OpenSSH and OpenSSL (self-signed certs).