Why Governments Lie About Encryption Backdoors (vortex.com) 247
Lauren Weinstein says there are smart people in government, "who fully understand the technical realities of modern strong encryption systems and how backdoors would catastrophically weaken them," but asks So why do they continue to argue for these backdoor mechanisms, now more loudly than ever? The answer appears to be that they're lying to us. Or if lying seems like too strong a word, we could alternatively say they're being 'incredibly disingenuous' in their arguments. You don't need to be a computer scientist to follow the logic of how we reach this unfortunate and frankly disheartening determination regarding governments' invocation of terrorism as an excuse for demanding crypto backdoors for authorities' use.
Lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why people believe a single word from the (US) government. Every time, on nearly every topic but especially security / military, what they say turns out to be not true.
Re:Lie? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand why people believe a single word from the (US) government
It's part of their religion.
Every time, on nearly every topic but especially security / military, what they say turns out to be not true.
Talking snakes poll even better - objective truth has little relevance.
But also consider the mental load of admitting that they're being economically and culturally ruined by these people. That would imply a moral imperative to action, which would require them to get off the couch. Technology has created the best living conditions in human history which brings comfort. They don't realize that fascistic regulations prevent that technology & comfort from being many times better [reason.com]. That's where the flying cars are.
Re:Lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
The SOLE reason governments (aka: not you, but the puppet masters you sheeple put into office) want backdoors and crypto bans is NOT because terrists (aka: murderers, killers, criminals, thugs), IN FACT all of them have NO real impact, look upi death rates by cause.... but because governments around the world are SCARED SHITLESS that in this new CONNECTED world where people are aware of each other and TALKING with each other and sharing ideas and solutions and futures..... that the PEOPLES OF THE WORLD are now WAKING UP and realizing that governments, especially the crony thieves of old, are UNNECESSARY.
To put it quite frankly, the US GOVT, and every other one, is AFRAID of losing their power and being REPLACED by actual effective legitimate non-corrupt totally open entities that serve ONLY the people, NOT THEMSELVES.
Do you have any FUCKING idea what kind of FALL FROM POWER and change that represents to these dynasties of elites?
So they are now trying to INVADE *your* PRIVATE communications so that they can see WHAT YOU'RE THINKING in that regard, and then MANIPULATE all of what you see, hear, read, and disintermediate your actions, steer markets, and all their old tricks.... SO THAT THE STAY IN POWER, AND TAKE MORE POWER AND RIGHTS FROM YOU.
Make NO mistake, this has nothing to do with anything but THEM and them alone.
WAKE UP WORLD... think about it... you'll realize there are more Springs needed than just the Arab Spring, fall of Berlin Wall, etc... the ones for and by you right at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what you say can't happen fast enough to affect the "current" generation of politicians, so I don't see why they would care.
However, backdoors can allow "intelligence" operators to access a lot of people. And by operators, I mean individuals going for personal gain (like a politician paying an operator to dig stuff about an oponent).
While this would not be so dangerous, as the "little" people would seldom feel the wrath (this is mostly for money and power), the problem does arise of the "private" c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every dictatorship has started by gathering information on every citizen. The US seems to want a dictatorship without the dictator, though. For instance, all of our recent presidents were or are heavily authoritarian and the ruling class is essentially an oligarchy.The one party system (sorry, but Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different in the whole scheme of things) gives the illusion of choice, but they tightly collude to eliminate any dissent. Look no further than the Commission on Presid [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Though Corporations are just as evil, they don't currently have the ability to TAX you for things you don't need or want, nor JAIL you for whatever "laws" they choose to write and (selectively) enforce.
Also note that corporations are a form of VOLUNTARY association, you don't have to take part if you don't want.
Though they can get big enough to influence you in bad ways, there are generally alternatives in the marketplace.
Re:Lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
So you never heard of the "Microsoft Tax"? And they don't need to jail you, not physically at least. Just cut off your internet access and uninstall unwanted programs remotely in your computer if you happen to run the latest Win 10.
Notice that the corporations can afford to pay lawyers and lobbyists to bend the regulations their way. And add your name to a "no fly" list is simple.
We are already there in a world where we are monitored, controlled and manipulated. But we are held unaware. Also look at all the trackers that are accessed when you access a web page. Who do really benefit from them? In the early year of the web you had a page counter counting the number of visits to the page. Today that's done a hundred times over combined with data that's used to uniquely identify you as a person so that targeted ads can be served and they can probably identify you good enough to be able to see what kind of offers they shall provide through snail mail to your home address.
So corporations definitely know you - and probably every politician that has an important enough position to become manipulated. It's enough information collected today to get hooks into every political party that exists and then push for some support for some obscure legislation writing to get it through in a way that benefits the corporation.
Just realize that this is why many corporations hates ad-blockers because it hurts them when they try to collect data about you. The sharing of WiFi passwords in Win 10 isn't for your convenience either, it's there for them to be able to make the linking even stronger, since now you know which friends that you have - and how many outside marriage sexual relations you have.
We currently live in a world where we have a combination of Huxley's Brave New World, Orwells 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. OK, we don't burn books directly, but we have electronic information that's forbidden to possess.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that the corporations can afford to pay lawyers and lobbyists to bend the regulations their way. And add your name to a "no fly" list is simple.
Note that none of that would be possible if you had a transparent government on your side instead of being on their side.
I'm not sure that transparency really helps. We know who gets corporate money, and from whom our politicians receive it. It doesn't seem to make much difference in who people vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, that is often not true. Consider internet service. Where people have any choice at all, it's between a shit sandwich with crap sauce or a crap sandwich with shit sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Kinda long for the "old days" of dialup only. Sure, speeds sucked but generally you had many ISPs to choose from, from national outfits to local mom-n-pop operations. Heck, I switched ISPs and paid $3 more per month to connect via a provider that also ran game servers in their data center. Even with a ping of 150 quake was great to play when there were only a couple of hops between me on my dialup and the server itself. Almost as good as dialing directly into the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the speed was terrible (though it was state of the art at the time), but there was enough competition to keep them honest and they were small enough that you could talk to someone who actually had the ability to make a decision and fix things.
Re: (Score:2)
In my city (not state, it varies statewide) both the cable company and the phone company have regulated monopolies to prevent overlapping infrastructure (power and gas have the same sort of deals). They both are charged a "monopoly fee" by the city that is passed on to citizens that use them (in the bill for landline phones or cable is literally a line item marked "monopoly fee"). Basically, my city is at fault for not allowing overlapping infrastructure for our shitty internet options. If you want anything
Re: (Score:2)
Corrupt corporations paying corrupt legislators to support their monopolies.
Re:Lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? The only reason why they didn't claim that power yet is that it's simply more cost effective to offload that shit onto governments.
It's like having colonies. We realized that it's more cost effective and less of a hassle to simply put puppets in control and prop them up while at the same time keeping them fully dependent on our money. That way you can have your cake and eat it too, you can still have full control over your colonies, their raw materials and what they produce for you, while at the same time having no expenses for keeping it under control.
Same with corporations and countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
best wishes on finding your one true market
where buyers have complete information, act rationally, and have a near-infinity of choices to
weigh
where every single transaction not only meets the perfect optimum for both parties, but further
informs the market through the magic of price-setting
Re: (Score:2)
where buyers have complete information, act rationally, and have a near-infinity of choices to weigh
There is no need for near-infinite choice, two choices is plenty, we just need to work on the information and rationality aspects. An informed and rational people will pick the best of two options, forcing the worse option out of the market and making room for someone else to offer another, better option. This is progressive enhancement and it's how the world worked leading up to the dark ages, and how it's worked again since then until recently when we've started legislating ourselves back into the dark ag
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I can deny that we're taking steps backward every single day. You are empirically wrong. What exact period do you mean by the Dark Ages (500-1000 CE works for me) and what parts of it do you think we're going towards?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is a problem with respect to locking up knowledge, but we've always had trade secrets that can go away. DRM is a way of using trade secrets in public that allows businessdroids to pretend they aren't in public and even pass laws about it. Copyright doesn't lock up knowledge, since (at least in the US) it can't be copyrighted.
What we have now is the knowledge flowing freely, without the copyrighted stuff around it. When I was young, if you wanted to look up a law, you went to a library where they k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they're many types of knowledge than laws and culture, and much of that is on Wikipedia. The sentence you referred to basically left providing evidence for your claim as an exercise for the reader, which means you aren't going to provide any evidence or support for what you claim. Guess what: I have no reason to try to prove your particular claim. I have lots of beliefs that may be false, after all, and working on yours doesn't look like a good use of my time and energy when there's others I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A free market relies on an informed and rational populace. We have an uninformed populace who, as a result of that lack of accurate and actionable information, are incapable of acting rationally. That is to say, what we have here is not a free market, so the transactions taking place are far from perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more impressed by that argument if the U.S. Government actually behaved in accordance with the Constitution. It hasn't done that in a VERY long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we are talking, and we are heading full throttle 20 minutes into the future of the world of Max Headroom [wikipedia.org].
Re: Lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
have you seen merkins touching their hearts during the anthem, saluting the flag, reciting the pledge of allegiance (to the effing flag?), treating their flag like a freshly born baby (WTF flag code???!!), displaying flags on their houses, flagpoles in frontyards, etc...? that IS a religion, if i ever saw one.
and they start this brainwashing earlier than most people start with 'normal' religion. WTF merkins?
Re: (Score:2)
Good points. So there's this deep-seated human behavior that leads to religion and/or nationalism. From, perhaps, mammal/primate/human notions of; family, tribe, clan, locality, region, nation, race, world. Mammals are territorial.
(You can ignore this, I'm just jotting down notes while multi-tasking at work.)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin
+1 informative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is not the only government that lies. They all do.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't lie, it's just Newspeak [wikipedia.org].
The other side of the coin is that if they are caught then it may be because they want to be caught and therefore actually want the idea to get killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because sometimes, they tell the truth.
Think about it in logic terms : always lying is the same as always telling the truth once you reverse the statements. You can only deceive effectively if you mix truths and lies.
In fact I really believe that what the government says is almost always true, almost. It's difficult to lie well as you have to create a consistent story around it and find ways to effectifely prevent leaks. In other words, lies are costly, so before yelling "lie!", it may be a good idea to thi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why people believe a single word from the (US) government. Every time, on nearly every topic but especially security / military, what they say turns out to be not true.
Mind you, there is plenty of reason to distrust the U.S. government, but your hyperbole is not contributing to the reasoned discussion that we should be having.
Re: (Score:2)
...Every time, on nearly every topic...
No, that's a lie.
They got used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They got used to it (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I think it's just as much the general public not being used to early, brutal death anymore. I just checked the mortality statistics here in Norway:
0-1 years old: <0.25%
0-45 years old: <2%
0-66 years old: <10%
That is rather amazing when you consider there's still fatal accidents, diseases, murder and suicide. But we're chipping away at it bit by bit, adding safety measures, advancing medicine, reducing crime, improving mental care. Then a guy with a Kalashnikov fucks it up good, killing lots of people who with 98-99% probability should have lived decades, minimum. I'm not sure how they really coped with that during WWI and WWII when young men (and quite a few others) were dying left, right and center but I know today it's such an abomination we don't deal with it at all. We want it solved and eradicated, not just make the reasonable precautions and live with the residual risk.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what makes the people swallow the lie, but it doesn't explain governments pushing for measures that cannot touch the bad guys with the AKs but can and will affect decent people.
Re: (Score:2)
We want it solved and eradicated, not just make the reasonable precautions and live with the residual risk.
Agreed - however, it's important to not give up our freedoms for the sake of increased perceived security - which is what the governments are trying to accomplish using fear as a justification.
I'm willing to live with the threat of terrorism, such as it is, more than I'm willing to give up my human rights.
- these thoughts coming to you from Paris, France
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand the word Liberty at all? There is NO LIBERTY without risk. What you ask for is impossible without enslaving the entire human race.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at NYC statistics it seems murder has dropped a good bit but forcible rape has skyrocketed.
Re:They got used to it (Score:5, Interesting)
Has forcible rape skyrocketed or has the number of women actually filing charges skyrocketed? It has been getting easier for a woman to charge a rapist without being put on trial herself.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. It just seems that a one third increase is pretty shocking.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here (BC and the rest of Canada) much has been coming out about how crappy the cops would treat victims that were minorities (mostly native) and prostitutes and such, to the point that reporting a rape to the cops would be an invitation for the cops to rape them. It is easy to believe that a 3rd more women are actually successfully reporting forcible rape and it makes more sense then most types of crime dropping except forcible rape going up by a 3rd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just don't understand what "down under" means, do you? Hint: It can't be found on a web site that only has US statistics...
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you didn't know that "down under" is a colloquialism [wikipedia.org] referring to the country of Australia.
Compare the mass murders in Australia [wikipedia.org] before the Port Arthur Massacre, with afterwards (when the gun laws were tightened drastically). 0% is quite close to the truth, depending on how you define a mass shooting.
smart people in government (Score:1)
smart people aren't in government. smart people don't need to beg the public for votes to get a paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
They're smart enough to get themselves into positions of power.
The Goberments... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said...even if you elected someone else - the power of knowledge is too tempting for ANYONE to resist. Therefore the way is OPEN SOURCE all the way. The safest way is actually no secrets in any source or any software, keep everything open - and then no one will be able to put in back doors or abuse bugs that are unknown as everyone will be able to peek inside and help fixing it.
What we need to do is to stop this endless paranoid game of "who do you trust?" and start producing results and solutions. We can do this together...the "gorberment" can't do anything about it, if anything - they should keep to what they do best (whatever that is) and leave the technology to enthusiasts like us, WE - the people - will pretty much make sure your privacy is safe because we'll all end up using open source software.
The only thing "goberment" is achieving with this crazy "who do you trust?" game is making sure would-be terrorist keep digging a deeper hole to hide in and grow a HUGE database of every persons private lives - kept - for their interpretation, with the kind of knowledge and power NO man should hold.
What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is. If you don't have the freedom to think freely, voice your opinions at will - then you don't have any freedoms at all.
Now, if they ever outlaw open source, then we'll be in trouble (or rather - they will).
Re: (Score:2)
HA
Not more than 50 or 60 people bother looking through some of some Linux drivers, and half of them work for the government. "open source" doesn't mean "nothing is secret" unless people put in the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that you are basically correct, though I doubt the accuracy of your numbers. The key quote is "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow."...but that's a conditional truth. You need the eyes in the first place, and for many areas there aren't enough experts who are interested. Certainly it's been multiple decades since I did much C, and I haven't used it to speak of since before I switched to Linux. (Actually, the last time I really worked with C, the main OS was CP/M.)
Re: (Score:2)
" We can do this together...the "gorberment" can't do anything about it..."
Other than legislate that we have to have back doors in our open source code/firmware/etc., with stiff penalties for those who do not.
"What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is. If you don't have the freedom to think freely, voice your opinions at will - then you don't have any freedoms at all."
You are conflating three different things.
1) "What you do with your computer or
How does it work (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably they want to have a "master key" that would unencrypt any iPhone drive, but each user has to have their own unique key, as well. What kind of encryption algorithm lets either of two keys unencrypt something?
Re:How does it work (Score:4, Informative)
Because encryption is usually a bit more complex then just that. A common system is to encrypt the data with a a strong symmetric cipher, using a single-use key key generated on the fly, then encrypt a copy of that key with the method of the user's choice, such as a password or asymmetric cipher. This way, you lessen the impact of using a slower or weaker method, as it is encrypting what is hopefully a relatively small and utterly random packet of data. Diffie-Hellman key exchange, NTFS file encryption, and others use this principle.
The 'master key' exploit should be fairly obvious, at this point: Every time the system creates a key package, it creates another copy of the single-use key, encrypted with a hidden 'master key' supplied by whoever ordered the backdoor. This doesn't compromise the integrity of the cipher used on the data, or on the other key packages. The danger lies in the security of the Master Key itself, which must be included in some form in every single instance of the encryption system. Unless the Master Key is made truly unique for every instance - a records-keeping nightmare - then an attacker only needs to break one key to break them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time the system creates a key package, it creates another copy of the single-use key, encrypted with a hidden 'master key' supplied by whoever ordered the backdoor.
Got it, thanks.
Re:How does it work (Score:4, Interesting)
Because encryption is usually a bit more complex then just that. A common system is to encrypt the data with a a strong symmetric cipher, using a single-use key key generated on the fly, then encrypt a copy of that key with the method of the user's choice, such as a password or asymmetric cipher. This way, you lessen the impact of using a slower or weaker method, as it is encrypting what is hopefully a relatively small and utterly random packet of data. Diffie-Hellman key exchange, NTFS file encryption, and others use this principle.
The 'master key' exploit should be fairly obvious, at this point: Every time the system creates a key package, it creates another copy of the single-use key, encrypted with a hidden 'master key' supplied by whoever ordered the backdoor. This doesn't compromise the integrity of the cipher used on the data, or on the other key packages. The danger lies in the security of the Master Key itself, which must be included in some form in every single instance of the encryption system. Unless the Master Key is made truly unique for every instance - a records-keeping nightmare - then an attacker only needs to break one key to break them all.
Wouldn't it then be fairly trivial for a user (or easy to use utility) to delete the 2nd copy of the key, removing the back door?
Re: (Score:3)
Not if that key is created and stored at rest on remote infrastructure (e.g. the servers of Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and so on). Think about that for a moment or two, and you begin to realise why such backdoors undermine security so fundamentally: the only way to ensure users can't simply delete (or, more realistically, prevent transmission of) the second copy of the key is to mandate that the encryption happens on the server, not the client; so not only is it a bad idea for these second copies t
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it then be fairly trivial for a user (or easy to use utility) to delete the 2nd copy of the key, removing the back door?
Not on an iPhone, you aren't the one who controls the device.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a flaw in the Clipper chip. It was possible to forge a false law enforcement key.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Serious question here......how would that work from a technical perspective?
All your keys are belong to U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Truecrypt, LUKS, ...
Essentially a symmetric key is encrypted with all asymmetric keys. You decrypt the symmetric key, and then use it to access the data.
it's not the smart people, it's the PHB (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the smart people don't drive the commentary, they just stand there in the background face-palming them selves.
Honestly government isn't any different from enterprise:
The Techs & Scientists give management a clear answer on a subject, stipulating all the factors and issues with a stance that the boss is taking, providing alternate approaches & data that shows what they want is irrelevant anyway.
The PHB doesn't like what he's hearing so just goes out and says what he thinks, regardless of the facts. "Well that's what I've promised the client, so you'll have to deliver"
Do you think that politicians & leaders in the "security" services are any different ?
Re:it's not the smart people, it's the PHB (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo, too bad you posted as an AC. Most people think of technology as FM, Fucking Magic. Most people in policy positions of government are no different because they come from the ranks of most people. They do not believe someone telling them something cannot be done because they've "consumed" too many TV shows that tell them technology is FM. Those crazy scientists and engineers are always pulling someone's nuts out of the fire at the last minute when the previous 3/4 of the show convinced them it those nuts are going fry.
The policy makers still come from the ranks of most people. Ever listen to most people calling on CSPANs morning callin show? They are nuts. Few are able to think logically much less rationally. They believe Jews control the world, WTC was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, there's a shadow government, Obama is a Muslim. Expect this lot to somehow come up with sensible policies is like asking for square eggs.
The rank and file in the government, for the most part not the policy makers, are more or less normal, can think logically and rationally, many have advanced degrees so the nutjobs got weeded out. The policy makers were mostly elected or rose to their position by stepping on qualified people to make themselves look better. They are mostly firm believers in FM because they want to believe in FM. The fact that their reasoning is circular is only reinforcing their beliefs to themselves.
Re:it's not the smart people, it's the PHB (Score:4, Interesting)
> , there's a shadow government,
Gee, and that's why the G20 summit secret law [slashdot.org] and TPP [wikileaks.org] (Trans-Pacific Partnership) were held in the open, right? Oh, wait,they're weren't until WELL after the fact.
Maybe if governments would stop making bullshit reasons for secret laws [techdirt.com] maybe this conspiracy would finally die.
> WTC was an inside job,
And yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, Building 7 just "mysteriously" collapses.
What was the official report on the cause of _that_ again??
Only a fucking idiot would believe it was "the terrorists."
Re: (Score:2)
What was the official report on the cause of _that_ again??
A fuel tank in the basement with a "pressurized line" to an upper floor, where it supposedly fed the fire with diesel fuel for hours.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that their reasoning is circular is only reinforcing their beliefs to themselves.
Exactly, like the billboard near my house, proclaiming 'The Bible contains evidence that God exists!'.. but I digress.. I've worked with electricity, then electronics, then computers, since I was ten or eleven years old, and I'm middle-aged now. Seems like every day I take for granted basic things about those three subjects that I know, and am reminded by (to borrow your term) 'Most People' of that fact, when I see them give me confused, and even sometimes scared, looks about technology. If it's just shooti
Re:it's not the smart people, it's the PHB (Score:5, Insightful)
The bible containing proof that god exists is like Harry Potter containing proof that magic exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the original scriptures of the OT were written in ancient Hebrew. For the NT it is hard to say. Koine Greek is the most likely language of some of its older sources (Q source, maybe M source), so it is probable that the Gospels themselves were written in Greek.
Jesus, provided he existed in the first place, would not have spoken Greek, though. First of all, as the son of a carpenter he most likely would not have received any advanced education, which would have been pretty much the requirement to speak
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually easier when you notice that a lot of threats are empty and that the emperor has no clothes. As soon as you notice this, the whole shit has no power over you anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't most if not all of the Rockefellers Protestant Christians?
Re: (Score:2)
Won't address the rest, but as for the Moon landing - why would we go back? The trip is F-ing *expensive*, and for the price of putting something on the moon we could put it pretty much anywhere in the solar system. Plus if you're talking about sending people then you have to worry about the return trip too, which makes it radically more expensive. And rovers - well we already sent *people* who collected interesting rocks and brought them back to Earth so we can study them in proper labs at our leisure.
Focused on attack instead of defense. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the old days, you could attack one thing. You could defend one thing. But, that doesn't map well to the internet. Now, we all talk to each other. We all use the same methods of defense. When one actor attacks another, the attack is exposed, analyzed, and re-used. Now, when somebody attacks, they increase the cost of defense for everybody. When somebody comes up with improved defense, we all learn how to increase the cost of attack for everybody.
For over a decade, several branches of the US government have focused almost all their energy on attacking others across the internet. The result is an internet where compromise and breach are daily events. Somehow, our protectors don't see that they are crafting the tools of our demise and handing them to our enemies. If we are honest, we are more to blame for the great compromise at the OPM than our attackers. If we had spent the last decade on creating and encouraging defense, then breach would be difficult and rare.
Now, our governments are blindly following the tradition of attack. They wish to attack the protocols we use to determine identity and create security. They don't see or care that everybody else will do likewise. They don't see the great devastation that will follow.
Ban Encryption & Guns, so ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then only criminals will have guns and encryption.
The logic is absolutely inescapable with these scenarios: The US government is working with criminals and will thus help them to succeed.
Criminal gangs can get their hands on various encryption programs. Backdoors on hardware won't make a damn worth of difference.
...because... (Score:2)
Governments lie about needing encryption back doors precisely because they don't need them.
Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Misdirection. Legerdemain. The "backdoors" are already there. The encryption is already broken. The network is already hacked.
Sigh... [citation needed]
Since the failure of the Vietnam war (Score:5, Insightful)
The late Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post has recalled: ... [documented] hidden away in the Pentagon Papers..."
"I guess it started for me with Vietnam, when the establishment felt it had to lie to justify a policy that, as it turned out, was never going to work
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
It seems to me we (the electorate) keep sending the people who are best at it, because they keep telling us what we want to hear, back in.
Because Santa Claus (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep asking the encryption question and you'll find out how far away from a democracy we've drifted. And when our government gives up with the b.s. stories and lays down the law, they'll do it with armed troops.
Because It Works (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple truth is that while unbreakable encryption is out there in the form of books or papers with the math, most people -- bad guys included -- are lazy and just going to use what the simple, convenient stuff. (The back-doored stuff.)
They fall into the trap of thinking "there are so many people using Facebook chat, the authorities will never find MY stuff in all that noise". In many cases they end up using simple code-book substitution and trivial code names. Instead of Abdul al-Hazred, they'll use "Mr. White". Instead of the Twin Towers they'll use "Faculty of Commerce". They think they're being clever because THEY would never catch this stuff.
I've had this argument with gov't lawyers and it boiled down to me saying "but this is trivial to bypass -- smart bad guys would just use X", and them responding "yeah, but we'll catch the stupid ones and there are a TON of those".
Anyone who has studied the history of crypto knows it is damn near impossible to get it right every last time, much less develop it without bugs. Even WITH source code samples, algorithms and coding skills people who have been doing this for a lifetime screw it up. Thus, "the horse has escaped the barn" isn't really an honest argument. That horse is going to trip of its own volition fairly quickly.
The popular cryptographer and author Bruce Schneier in his blog recalled a conversation with fellow crypto expert Matt Blaze of the University of Pennsylvania, who said the publication of the Snowden documents would begin a âoenew dark age of cryptography, as people abandon good algorithms and software for snake oil of their own devising.â
The Four Best Arguments Against Backdoors (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) Aldrich Ames;
(2) Kim Philby;
(3) J. Edgar Hoover; and
(4) the State of Alabama (NAACP v. Button).
Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to revisit the Fourth Amendment as it relates to wireless communications. Perhaps the feds are trying to shape the course of public opinion in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
The State was after the NAACP's membership lists (among other things). The pretext was barratry, etc., but this was just another ingenious attempt for a racist political establishment to try to hurt an organization seeking racial equality.
That's what I was trying to convey.
Because to work in government... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because to work in government, the primary qualification you need is to be a complete psychopath.
surprised? (Score:3)
As Friedman said:
Re:surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the United States, the Constitution was written to put three branches of government IN CONFLICT with each other, so that no one - nor even any two - branches of government can become destructive of liberty. But we don't use it as written any more, and many of the "progressive" elements of the early 1900s have conspired to rip down the barriers.
The first was the 17th Amendment, allowing direct election of Senators. The Senate was DESIGNED to be the body that represented the STATES interests, while the House was directly elected. The 17th Amendment allowed for the Federal Government to tramp on the responsibilities and rights of the States. The 16th Amendment allowing for an income tax (introduced earlier, but passed with the 17th in 1913) allowed the Federal Government to grow rapidly.
This is the same fucktard .... (Score:2)
... that believes ad blockers are unethical.
And when someone call Lauren out on his absolute stupidity [google.com] they get censored.
Re: (Score:2)
Like who the fuck didn't already know this? (Score:3)
Bill of RIghts built on distrust of government (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bill of Rights recognizes that the government needs to be kept at arm's length, to be limited in its power. In the last few decades, we've been slowly giving more and more power to the government, sometimes in the name of "national security," (Patriot Act) sometimes in the name of "fairness for all" (Affordable Care Act). We've been taught to let the friendly folks at Washington take care of us. Now we're starting to see the dark side again. The government is saying, "Trust us with your data!"--either when they take it secretly (NSA/Snowden) or when they demand it publicly (backdoors). Maybe it's time for a digital Bill of Rights. The problem is, the government isn't just going to sit down and let go of the power they already have.
We Elected Our Own Jailers (Score:2)
"Since the ruling class is usually safe from terrorists, and in bed with criminals, I’m guessing that “political opponents” will get the most spying."
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit... [pjmedia.com]
For government, terrorism just makes them look bad - but political opposition can remove them from power. That's why encryption hysteria ALWAYS is about protecting government from the citizens. We need to stop electing lefty governmental flunkies like Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and start to reduce the size and
It's the other way around (Score:2)
The people who ask questions like this are the disingenuous ones: they too must be smart and they too must understand that the smart people in government - yes, they're there, in fact, they meet them at conferences and stuff - are in no position to seek out the news-media like that. And they too must understand that people have jobs that include assignments and not meeting them can mean that you get fired. People in governments have jobs to do. Some of those do it in front of cameras, others in front of com
This is not news (Score:2)
It is opinion.
I do not claim it is wrong.
I am not denigrating the author.
It is, however, just an opinion published on someone's blog. Hence the disclaimer (if you read all the way to the bottom.)
Slashdot is supposed to publish news for nerds, and this is not that.
Follow The Money (Score:2, Informative)
There's another dimension to this story, which gets lost in the critically important discussion regarding privacy, but it's money.
If a government got their way and were able to impose the types of control that is now being argued for, it would require a vast amount of new infrastructure to be developed. For example, there would need to be a key escrow system; there would need to be the means of storing all data being transmitted between citizens, there would need to be vastly more money spent on all of this
Well, yeah... (Score:2)
From the article:
So it seems clear that the real reason for the government push for encryption backdoors is an attempt not to catch the most dangerous terrorists that they're constantly talking about, but rather a selection of "low-hanging fruit" of various sorts: Inept would-be low-level terrorists [...]
Yes, this is exactly who the government wants to get to -- inept low-level terrorists who aren't knowledgable or trained enough to consistently use secure/ISIS approved software and instead use the standard communications software that came with their cell phone or computer, because that's what is convenient and familiar to them.
And that isn't nothing, given that one of the big threats is "self-radicalizing individuals" who by definition won't be be elite ISIS commandos but rather otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like trying to "manage expectations".
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you cannot trust a politician.
Politics is derived from:
poly = many
tics = blood sucking parasites.
Democracy is derived from the street observation:
Dem are crazy
Re: (Score:2)
Why Governments Lie About Encryption Backdoors
The sole purpose of government is to create more government...
Really? [citation needed]