Lawmakers Criticize FBI's Request For Encryption Back Doors

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Criticize? What good does that do? You'd think a "lawmaker" would actually be able to do something about this like, I don't know, make a law or something. I guess not. :rolleyes:

But most lawmakers questioned the need for encryption workarounds. Building in back doors for encryption on smartphones would be "technologically stupid," said U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, who has a background in computer science. Apple and Google have responded to public demand for encryption because of an "out-of-control surveillance state," he added.
Click to expand...
 
This is politics in it's purest form, see he gets to make people think he opposes it, without actually doing anything to stop it.
 
Apparently Apple/Google et al are not donating enough to this Ted Lieu fellow.
 
Isn't this like the English Bobbies who don't carry guns ... STOP, or I'll yell STOP again :)
 
This is where he's right:
With all kinds of unencrypted digital information and tracking technologies available to law enforcement agencies, police are living in a "golden age of surveillance," added Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman. "We're certainly not going to go dark, and in some ways, we've never been brighter."

Congress needs to find the right balance between privacy and national security, but building back doors in encryption would be similar to "drilling a hole in a windshield," Chaffetz said. If Apple can figure out how to circumvent smartphone users' encryption, "so can the nefarious folks in a van down by the river," he said.
Click to expand...

But big brother wants EVERYTHING, you know China-style.
So when do we stop making fun of other countries and their surveillance?
I know I know its all US propaganda.
 
Truthfully this article again misrepresents things and is biased to one side.

The FBI didn't actually ask for backdoors. The FBI asked for
"Law enforcement representatives called on lawmakers to find a way to allow access to encrypted data as a way to prevent serious crime. "
Click to expand...
All that has to happen is that the encryption keys are stored by the provider and can be made available to Law Enforcement upon proper Court Order.

By continually playing word games and insisting the other side wants "back doors" you warp the discussion and make something that may be reasonable sound unreasonable.
 
Oh, and this says LE is asking lawmakers, (Congress), to pass laws that will allow something that it would seem the law doesn't currently allow. So Steve, Congress doesn't have to do something to stop something that is already, it seems, illegal.
 
Who disagrees with this statement from that article?

The FBI doesn't need to hold the keys to encrypted information on smartphones, but policymakers and the technology industry need to figure out a way to allow law enforcement access to criminals' devices when a judge issues a warrant, said Amy Hess, executive assistant director at the FBI's Science and Technology Branch.
Click to expand...
 
lcpiper said:
Truthfully this article again misrepresents things and is biased to one side.

The FBI didn't actually ask for backdoors. The FBI asked for All that has to happen is that the encryption keys are stored by the provider and can be made available to Law Enforcement upon proper Court Order.

By continually playing word games and insisting the other side wants "back doors" you warp the discussion and make something that may be reasonable sound unreasonable.
Click to expand...

But considering how "secure" sensitive data is these days do we really want companies building backdoors into systems?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
But considering how "secure" sensitive data is these days do we really want companies building backdoors into systems?
Click to expand...

Something has to give because the other side of this coin is that if there is no effective way to break the encryption and the person refuses to comply with a court order to unencrypt the information, you could end up with person's receiving perpetual imprisonment for contempt of court ... although maybe that is the best solution too, release the encryption and take your chances on going to jail in the trial system, or refuse and go to jail until you agree (life imprisonment)
 
Congress needs to find the right balance between privacy and national security
Click to expand...

I just like how we always seem to skip over how this is not their goddamn property and they have no fucking say in the matter.
 
kbrickley said:
Something has to give because the other side of this coin is that if there is no effective way to break the encryption and the person refuses to comply with a court order to unencrypt the information, you could end up with person's receiving perpetual imprisonment for contempt of court ... although maybe that is the best solution too, release the encryption and take your chances on going to jail in the trial system, or refuse and go to jail until you agree (life imprisonment)
Click to expand...

So we're supposed to intentionally create security risks in everyones devices to avoid some random person ending up in jail for contempt of court?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
So we're supposed to intentionally create security risks in everyones devices to avoid some random person ending up in jail for contempt of court?
Click to expand...

As I said, maybe that is the happy medium solution ... don't have back doors but remove the right of a person to resist the court order (they can resist of course, but they will do it from within prison) ... that seems like the best solution overall, the user releases the encryption themselves or they die in prison (no back doors needed)
 
kbrickley said:
As I said, maybe that is the happy medium solution ... don't have back doors but remove the right of a person to resist the court order (they can resist of course, but they will do it from within prison) ... that seems like the best solution overall, the user releases the encryption themselves or they die in prison (no back doors needed)
Click to expand...

While that unconstitutional as well, I mean basically that means you would be forced to either give up your 5th Amendment rights of be lock you in prison for the rest of your life?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
But considering how "secure" sensitive data is these days do we really want companies building backdoors into systems?
Click to expand...

Like I said, they are not actually asking for a "backdoor" An encryption system that works off encryption keys means anyone with a key can access the data. It's only an issue of who can have the keys and under what conditions.
 
kbrickley said:
Something has to give because the other side of this coin is that if there is no effective way to break the encryption and the person refuses to comply with a court order to unencrypt the information, you could end up with person's receiving perpetual imprisonment for contempt of court ... although maybe that is the best solution too, release the encryption and take your chances on going to jail in the trial system, or refuse and go to jail until you agree (life imprisonment)
Click to expand...

I don't see this as a proper option. I know this sorta leaves everything in the hands of the accused but other people's lives could be affected by the outcome. So many people only view this issue from the "my privacy while on my phone" point of view. There are also the kiddie porn, money laundering, IP theft, and all the other issues where encrypted data is the only real evidence of a crime. If you have a real bad guy and proof is there in the data, is it really an acceptable option to let these people go free for lack of proof just because we are so afraid someone will abuse things and gain some power over us?

Are we really so obtuse and selfish that we will not countenance any perceived encroachment on our own security and privacy, even to the point that we will allow criminals, bad criminals who hurt people, to go free and avoid prosecution?

Of all the crimes that Jimmy Hoffa was believed responsible for, he went to prison for Tax Evasion. Bastard should'a encrypted his shit right? :D
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
While that unconstitutional as well, I mean basically that means you would be forced to either give up your 5th Amendment rights of be lock you in prison for the rest of your life?
Click to expand...

The 5th Amendment only protects you from testifying against yourself ... it has never protected you from court orders to search your possessions ... they can't legally ask you to show them where you hid the incriminating evidence (violates the 5th), but they can ask you to unlock something for them to search it (does not violate the 5th as long as they have a valid court order or search warrant) ... with sufficient encryption only you have the key to the door and they can't break it (that doesn't give you the constitutional right to withhold the key) ;)
 
lcpiper said:
Like I said, they are not actually asking for a "backdoor" An encryption system that works off encryption keys means anyone with a key can access the data. It's only an issue of who can have the keys and under what conditions.
Click to expand...

Whether it's a direct backdoor or a copy of the keys by a non-owner it can work the same way. Either someone can directly access the backdoor of a device or someone can break into/social engineer/etc the manufacturer for the key. Either way people who should not have access now have access.
 
US Citizens should be outraged, or would be outraged if this country wasn't turning into the setting from Idiocracy.
 
timta2 said:
US Citizens should be outraged, or would be outraged if this country wasn't turning into the setting from Idiocracy.
Click to expand...

Outraged that Lawmakers criticized the request for a back door? I think folks have lost perspective just a little bit.
 
timta2 said:
US Citizens should be outraged, or would be outraged if this country wasn't turning into the setting from Idiocracy.
Click to expand...

Why should we be enraged ... all they have done is make a request (their request has not been granted) ... if they have a warrant to search something then an effective way to break the encryption is not unreasonable ... if they want to break encryption without a warrant (which doesn't appear to be the case) then you are right, we should be outraged at that point ...

I think the scale of this problem has been blown out of proportion also ... Since 9-11 I have made many many flights to different countries and border crossings to Mexico ... in the days after 9-11 I had to occasionally turn on an electronic device at the outgoing security check (I haven't had to do that in years) and I have never been asked to let them look at a device (phone, tablet, computer) at the customs portion of the check ... I suspect that if someone triggers a security check on their computer it probably has some sort of reasonable trigger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top