NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data 406
jfruh writes: This may not come as a huge shock, but the director of the NSA doesn't believe that you have the right to encrypt your data in a way that the government can't access it. At a cybersecurity policy event, Michael Rogers said that the U.S. should be able to craft a policy that allows the NSA and law enforcement agencies to read encrypted data when they need to.
Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Funny)
Go fuck yourself.
That is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to forget these people are part of the Obama Administration and take their direction from him.
He's either oblivious and doesn't give a shit, or he's on board with it.
Pick one and then say "Dear Rodeo Clown, Go Fuck Yourself."
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Informative)
You say that as if the same kind of crap doesn't go on under the other party's watch. I mean, it's not like the Bush administration started all of the domestic spying that the Obama administration decided to continue.
Oh... Wait...
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Insightful)
come on already - neither party actually makes the decisions, it's all coming from above. they're just there to polarise and divide us from unifying against them ;)
you take a look at the likes of Canada and Australia and you can see there is a common directive in regards to putting everyone under surveillance, gutting environmental protection and putting in place laws that allow corporations to sue the government in regard to laws that may affect their profit margins.
I really wish some whistleblower somewhere amongst the power elite was able to get us the evidence of who's calling the shots - just like NSA spying on us, there were hints of it happening out there and a lot of IT professionals suspected it - but suspicion isn't enough to make people pay attention.
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Woodrow Wilson already did that when he was leaving office. It was quite direct and regretful of what he had done.
You don't like the answers we have already? (Score:3)
Seriously, this has been tackled and answered. People just don't want to believe it, and of course the same powers pulling the strings own all of the media "average" people consume. Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope" is a comprehensive book covering the whole thing. Nobody wants to read the 1300 pages, because it's hard and quite frankly scary to contemplate. Gary Allen's book was a severely limited rehash of details found in "Tragedy and Hope" attempting to wake people up to what is really happening.
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Informative)
Both sides have used and abused their authorities regarding monitoring of US person, though be careful when trying to throw stones. The issues you bring up did not first appear under Bush, but each president has had the power to address it, and so far I only see Reagan made a decent attempt at trying to stop it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting that you only provide facts that defend one side while conveniently ignoring everything else.
Under which administration did all of the domestic surveillance get started? Under W Bush, a Republican. What did Obama do? Kept going with business as usual. BOTH parties are guilty of letting the NSA run amok. It doesn't matter under what circumstances it was created. Hell, the two parties in this day and age are nothing like they were even back in the 80's, much less the 40's and 50's when the Republicans were desegregating while the Democrats were fighting it. If someone like Reagan were to run today he would be crucified for compromising with the other side and run out of the race in the Iowa caucuses.
Quite frankly, trying to pin all of the problems with domestic spying on one party or the other is just ignorant. The fact of the matter is that both sides are equally to blame.
Re: (Score:3)
Under which administration did all of the domestic surveillance get started? Under W Bush, a Republican.
who modded this up? If you think domestic surveillance only started under bush you are a fool. Everyone knows that going back at LEAST as far as FDR it was going on . then you got hoover in the FBI for how many decades??? McCarthyism??? to think it started under bush is either ignorant or intentionally false
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk about a strawman. I never said domestic spying in general. I'm talking about the NSA surveillance program that was started under Bush that the Obama administration chose to continue. GP threw in the non sequitur about all kinds of things that happened long before Congress passed the Patriot Act (which overrode Reagan's EO BTW) that Bush used to start the whole domestic surveillance program.
I also find it interesting that you take his quote out of context and completely ignore the fact that he said "The issues you bring up did not first appear under Bush". In fact, the Patriot Act was pushed through by Bush. It opened the floodgates for domestic spying and was the justification for the NSA's surveillance program. So the issues I brought up were initiated under specific direction by Bush. Not just under his watch. By his direct order. It's pretty obvious that GP is entirely wrong in his defense of Bush.
I'm taking both parties to task. Why are people trying to defend one or the other? I guess people are hung up on the "if you're attacking the side I like you must be defending the side I don't like" strawman. When in reality, I'm attacking BOTH sides for being equally complicit.
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Insightful)
ANYbody who believes that either party has the best interests of the AMERICAN PEOPLE at heart, is living in a fantasy world.. Until about midway thru BushJr's second term, I was a Republican.. Then I began to realize that BOTH parties were out for NOTHING but their own power.. The ONLY thing they pay attention to is the big-bucks donations that keep them in office.. America is SCREWED...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it matter? Do violations become more palatable depending on who started it, or whether it is condoned by your party?
If Joe is a villain, it doesn't imply that Jack is a saint.
Stop blaming. Do something. Shout loud and clear "No more".
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still trying to decipher your message. It's a tough one.
get creative. talk to a judge. get a warrant (Score:2)
just like you had a reason to look at stuff, ya goofballs
Qrne Zvpurny Ebtref, (Score:2)
Tb shpx lbhefrys.
Gung vf nyy.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Well Michael Rogers is doing his job.
His job a NSA is to find threats... The best way for him to do his job is to ask for more access to data.
Now don't fault him on asking. The issue comes down to if we as a society are brave enough to say we value our freedom more than our security.
But his job is to try to maximize security, so to do his job, he will request permission to hinder our freedom.
If he was going, oh I don't want access to this data. He should be fired for not doing his job. It isn't up to the
Re: (Score:3)
Now don't fault him on asking. The issue comes down to if we as a society are brave enough to say we value our freedom more than our security.
I do fault him for asking. By using strong encryption you are essentially saying "I hereby restrict access to this data to authorized users only." The problem Mr. Rogers has is that he lacks the authority to demand access to protected data. This is especially true for warrantless activities, things get much more interesting if he gets a federal warrant. I'd much rather have that discussion take place in a courtroom where everything is out in the open and both sides can argue their legal positions in front o
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score:4, Insightful)
Better phrased:
"The fourth amendment of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, says 'Go fuck yourself.'"
Re: (Score:3)
This quote is priceless:
Rogers objected to using the word “backdoor”. “When I hear the phrase ‘backdoor’, I think, ‘Well, this is kind of shady. Why would you want to go in the backdoor? It would be very public,’” he said. “Again, my view is: We can create a legal framework for how we do this. It isn’t something we have to hide, per se.”
Too late, I'm afraid. You've lost any sense of credibility you may have had after essentially being caught spying on the entire internet, and especially US citizens. The only reason you're going public is because private individuals and companies are taking the ability to read data at will out of your hands by using state-of-the-art encryption.
He still can't even answer questions that would logically come up about other countries wanting backdoors, of course:
Alex Stamos, Yahoo (AS): So you do believe then, that we should build those for other countries if they pass laws?
Mike Rogers, NSA (MR): I think we can work our way through this.
AS: I’m sure the Chinese and Russians are going to have the same opinion.
MR: I said I think we can work through this.
AS: Okay, nice to meet you. Thanks.
[laughter]
There are other ways to
Re:Dear Michael Rogers, Putin will have the keys (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a back door exists, all power hungry countries will find the keys.
Re: (Score:3)
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
qANQR1DDDQQJAwIMNv3id5M397/SSAG3cvBn/38GCdzDkdSzlmGZZTrVo6+Og/Cj
QklHRIjQk6QmVUwLYopSjLwOzoNQvg5hl2rcuD8rul9xJAeFV27w2T/ydJuEUg==
=iaah
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score:5, Insightful)
> ... to illegally access everyone's communications, especially that of their own citizens to solidify power, or serve corporate/elite/shadowy overlords ...
But this is what is happening, no ? And this is what people in power positions are requesting access for - ability to read ANYONE's communications. Snowden revelations clearly listed massive dragnet surveillance on own US citizens.
They don't whine that they can't read Iran's / North Korea's communications, or even Germany's or France's. They whine that they can't read EVERYBODY's communications, including those of political opponents (remember Nixon ? or own NSA's lack of legislative/judicial oversight ?).
So what's shocking is not that they were reading's US enemy's communications - that was expected; not even that they recorded US citizens on US soil, although you were labeled a conspiratard if you voiced your opinion.
What's shocking is that they are reading and archiving EVERYBODY's communication, because they may be useful in the future. And then they come and say, when caught, not that they are sorry and destroy the archives, but that we have to actually bend over, spread the cheeks and say thank you.
Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score:4, Informative)
... I realize you think this isn't the case, and that all of your communications are being mined and monitored (illegally, no less), and since proving a negative is impossible, I won't be able to help in that regard.
While my thoughts on the general matter at hand fall somewhere between daveschroeder's and the AC, I feel it's a bit insincere to imply that all US communications are NOT being monitored at all unless a warrant is involved. As far as metadata goes, we *know* they are; Snowden leaks have shown it; it's been confirmed by multiple sources; it happening isn't really a question.
Are they logging the content of all communications, or monitoring it, or analyzing it, etc? I don't know. Maybe that's what you are referring to. AC will probably still argue with you, but being more accurate and honest about recent events would lend your argument a bit more credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you understand that an individualized warrant is required to target, collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the communications content of a US Person anywhere on the globe, and that the current law on the issue is stronger and more restrictive with regard to US Persons than it has ever been?
That is delusions of political scale.
Also, notice 'content'.
Massive abuses can be, and have been, taken with metadata too.
Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is secret courts and that they have been caught spying on everyone multiple times already.
If he was arguing that they should be able to get a court order at a NORMAL court not the FISA one and with probably cause have the right to decrypt the data and only the data covered by the search warrant then I would support him.
Re: (Score:2)
Naval Information Warfare Officer, right?
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, that must invalidate everything I have to say!
Sorry, been there, done that, been through all the logical fallacies you can lob my way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just nice to know the motivation for ones position. It means something. And it serves to further validate the counterpoints. The cops want to disarm the people.
Re:Facts not in evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facts not in evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
wow, I haven't seen so many shills in one place in quite a while. the reason you are being called out isn't because of your position but because you conveniently leave out details which completely invalidate your arguments.
1. secret courts - yes, the original intention was to make sure there was probable cause before the court was to issue a warrant. In reality, even statements by the court indicate that it has been not much more than a rubber stamp. Less that one percent of requests for warrants have actually been denied. The court is not protecting any citizens. It is protecting the impression of process and procedures so that the government cannot be sued for breaking fourth amendment protections.
2. Spying on everyone. - yes, we all know that the NSA director perjured himself when he said that only metadata was being collected. Within weeks, the rest of us learned about prism which collects not only metadata but content itself. The fact that you leave this out means to me that you know your argument is flawed and that you are trying to discount and minimize facts and evidence that has already been publicly disseminated.
blah blah blah. more bullshit about things being legal that in fact were not legal until unconstitutional laws were instituted to make them less illegal. Lets not even get into the fact that when these laws were passed, the senate intelligence committee did not even know about prism and other programs which were meant to "collect all data".
As for phone record metadata, this is the type of information that government and investigators used to need a warrant to get and they needed to request it from the phone company. Now you are implying that a warrant isn't needed because it's public information and therefore there is no expectation of privacy. FUCK YOU! If there is a reason to suspect someone of a crime, then there is cause to get a warrant. If there isn't, then you have no claim to that or any other information.
Blah blah blah. About the NSA and breaking laws. Laws have been created to make what the NSA is doing "legal". That does not in any way mean that it is constitutional. These things are not at all equivalent to how things were in 1979 or even before the patriot act. You are disingenuous to imply that these things are even remotely equivalent. In 1979, the intelligence infrastructure was even remotely set up to monitor the activities of normal American citizens.
Blah blah blah. terrorists use the same networks and such. You know there was a time when the intelligence services needed to actually do real investigative work. They didn't just get to treat everyone like a criminal until one committed a crime.
Freedom isn't free. It's difficult and expensive. Attempting to take away peoples privacy and autonomy to make the jobs at the NSA easier doesn't make us more free. It makes us less free. Being free without the freedom part of it is actually not being free. Even if some government officials are lying to you about how much freedom you actually have.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score:5, Interesting)
There are multiple problems with your statement. Lets look at them all, shall we:
No. The trigger for this isn't that companies are holding data...it's that users have data, and the NSA wants to force the companies to keep/get access their users data even if the company doesn't want to, so that the NSA can access it also. This is a *very* different proposition. If Apple doesn't want to hold its user's data, why should the NSA force them to just so that the NSA can read it? That seems to be the NSA's problem, not Apple's.
Saying "encryption" does not make the data magical, but it also doesn't entitle the NSA to special treatment. If they can break it, fine. If they can't, there is no valid reason for me to make it easy for them.
Attacking RSA/DSA/AES/etc is the NSA's job. If they can do that, fine. Deliberately weakening an existing system to make it *easier* for them to do those attacks isn't our job, or our problem. If they want to beat their heads against AES, go for it. But that's not a valid reason for country-wide key escrow.
Lastly, on the specialness of America: Do we really believe that the US is the only one who has the "right" to access any backdoor/golden-key/whatever? That's absolute nonsense. If the US forces Apple, Google, MS, etc to build key escrow into their devices so that the NSA can read the data on them, then that key will be used by every government on the earth. If you really believe that the NSA will manage to keep exclusive control of a master key for all encryption for a given major vendor, then I'm going to call you delusional.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And? NSA may "want" a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are goin
Re: (Score:3)
If, on the other hand, you live in a world where simply crying "Encryption!" is some kind of barrier that magically sanctifies the underlying data, and that it then cannot and should not ever be accessed by anyone other than the data owner...well, then I would ask what you think about the German and Japanese codes in WWII?
Are you really stupid enough to think that if we had legislation mandating backdoors in the 1940s, that the Japanese and German would have incorporated them?
If not, what's your point?
This has nothing to do with surveillance of "the enemy", whoever that may be at any given time. Because they won't build in the back doors. It has everything to do with ability to read the data of those who are not the enemy, and who can't guard themselves from CIA. Ordinary people and businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the exact reverse of what you are saying.
This is not about whether the Germans or Japanese should have incorporated "backdoors" that any external entity would have required.
This is about the fact that US adversaries, today, as you and I speak, are using the EXACT SAME systems, networks, devices, services, OSes, and encryption standards and protocols, as you and I and innocent Americans and many others in the world. THAT is the issue...does this fact put those communications off limits?
Please. Y
Re: (Score:3)
This is about the fact that US adversaries, today, as you and I speak, are using the EXACT SAME systems, networks, devices, services, OSes, and encryption standards and protocols, as you and I and innocent Americans and many others in the world. THAT is the issue...does this fact put those communications off limits?
That is because there is no evidence that those systems have a backdoor.
If a backdoor is mandated, so that everyone will be using one with a backdoor, everyone outside the reach of US law will fork their own standard without those backdoors.
So, in the end, it will only be used against Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who want to hide from the US will not include your backdoors in their systems. The backdoors only serve to allow the NSA (and possibly anyone else) to read Americans' communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're essentially saying that it was only okay for the US and our allies to, for example, break the German or Japanese codes during WWII simply because Americans weren't also using the same codes, and therefore that is the only reason that the government could be "trusted" to not misbehave or abuse its powers, then we have a serious problem on our hands.
nope. The constitution doesn't apply to citizens of other countries.
What he "wants", when US-based companies hold data that still can technically be accessed for legitimate foreign intelligence purposes supported by our system of law, is that a legal framework should allow for it. When it can't be, it's up to NSA to determine other mechanisms to access that data.
and that data should be subject to constitutional protections, same as mail and other forms of communication that are. This whole idea of 'on the internet' not having the same status is just dirty reach around tactics. If anything, the government's behavior in this area is proof of why we need those protections in the first place. Regardless of how the data was acquired, if it is associated with an american citizen, he is owed due proces
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"An even worse joke is when people believe NSA is operating rouge..."
And just think if they were wearing eyeliner - the mind boggles!
A.
good bye to US datacenters (Score:5, Insightful)
they'll be moving to places with more sensible security policies
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm encrypting my data with my own keys, how exactly, other than brute force, is the NSA going to get access to the data?
If I was to use an online service like, say, Dropbox or Google Drive, to story confidential data, it would be to use them simply as file storage. The files themselves would be locked down by my own keys, which would not be stored on these companies' servers.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm encrypting my data with my own keys, how exactly, other than brute force, is the NSA going to get access to the data?
There may be a backdoor or vulnerability in the software you use. You may have a keylogger on your computer that allows them to grab your password.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm encrypting my data with my own keys, how exactly, other than brute force, is the NSA going to get access to the data?
By classifying you as a terrorist and using torture to extract whatever information they need to decrypt the data.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only extract what is available. You may rest assured that I will ensure one thing: That I do not possess any keys I could hand over when I have to travel to anywhere where any violent regime can easily access me physically and use torture to extract such a key.
Re: (Score:2)
And now let's try with me not being anywhere close to US jurisdiction.
Remember Snowden? The guy a lot of US three letter agencies and three letter news networks wanna hang higher? He's still alive. Guess why.
Since when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and no.
For any governemnt or agency to get away with something like this in the long term they need to have some kind of legal authorization to which they can point their employees. In the case of the NSA they were successful for a relatively long time given the numbers of employees involved before they had one that didn't agree with the legal reasoning and had the guts to expose is. The smaller the project is the less important it is to have the legal basis for your activity because you can limit invo
The NSA wants right to snoop on encryted data? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, if we receive the legal right to snoop on the NSA. Fair trade.
Re: (Score:3)
This guy is priceless (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, there are going to be some areas where we’re going to have different perspectives. That doesn’t bother me at all. One of the reasons why, quite frankly, I believe in doing things like this is that when I do that, I say, “Look, there are no restrictions on questions. You can ask me anything.”
Welcome to the new Amerika. Your possessions and money may be seized at any time via civil asset forfeiture, your communications are under constant surveillance, and now they want to make sure absolutely nothing can be kept private.
But, hey, so long as we're having "dialogue" (you'll do what you want anyways) and we have your permission to ask questions then it's all good.
Who really won the cold war?
Re:This guy is priceless (Score:5, Insightful)
Who really won the cold war?
The terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, Bush, Cheney, O'Bomber... The usual group of thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
relevant link. The political stage is dated, but the intended message to americans is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You already have that policy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a subpoena.
What you want is a system that allows it, and if you have a backdoor, they have it too. Snowden's leaks didn't convince me that you were the all powerful octopus, it convinced me that you were the Keystone Cops of the Information Superhighway. I don't distrust you because of your bad intent. I don't trust you because of your incompetence.
But you can access it (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a warrant and demand the keys. Or brute force it. Same as a locked box. I know the legal system is such a pain in the ass for making you do your God damned jobs the proper way.
Re: (Score:2)
"But sir, it will take one hundred billion billion billion gorillian Brazilian computational years to brute force that key"
"Fine, we'll just ask congress for more money and data centers"
Re: (Score:2)
Get a warrant and demand the keys. Or brute force it. Same as a locked box. I know the legal system is such a pain in the ass for making you do your God damned jobs the proper way.
But it's for the children you know.... We just have to get access to save them... (/sarcasm)
The Devil is in the Implementation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, lets assume they are right and the government **should** be allowed to access encrypted data (not that I agree with this).
Its going to be an absolutely impossible for them to implement technically it without significantly increasing the risk an unauthorized 3rd party can.
The non-technical way (give me your password) has constitutional issues.
This falls into two categories.
1.) Lawful investigation (warrant and all). In this case, encryption has been regarded as a 'locked box' they can seize and search your gun safe but they can not ask you to give up the combination. If they get past that, there are other legal hurdles....The Government cannot compel you to incriminate yourself (give up the key) (5th Amendment).....If that doesn't work, who says you can recall the password or didn't lose the key--This could be fun and I don't know the law.....
2.) We will call it "Creative Surveillance". Well, thats a whole can of 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't RTFA but is he suggesting:
1) Hard encryption should be illegal -- ie, you can't actually sell software that does encryption that either the NSA can't break or that doesn't provide key escrow?
2) Third party vendors (eg, Apple) can't sell devices which self-encrypt in a way that Apple doesn't have access to? Ie, if you buy an iPhone it will self-encrypt but with a key that Apple has access to?
My guess is he's aiming at the latter, he wants most products that do encryption t
Re: (Score:2)
And why the fuck would I want to have such a device?
If this makes anything virtually certain then that people will consider "made in the US" something to steer clear of when it comes to anything that could possibly have anything remotely to do with encryption.
Funny ... (Score:5, Funny)
I was just thinking the rest of the world should have the legal right to kick anybody from the NSA in the nuts.
These people are assholes who don't give a crap about civil liberties and human rights.
Mauled by bears would be too good for them.
He can make the policy (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world don't want products with official US backdoors though. So you'll have a very hard time selling anything US made abroad and you'd have to ban foreign imports that don't comply with your backdoor policy. Probably also all second hand private imports like eBay. And open source. If the NSA didn't cost the US enough money already, it will after that. I remember a time when you had to fight to get non-crippled crypto out of the US, only 40 bits for us schmucks. I guess now you'll have to fight to get non-crippled crypto back in...
Re: (Score:2)
>> The rest of the world don't want products with official US backdoors though. So you'll have a very hard time selling anything US made abroad
I don't agree with that.
Look at how many non-US people still run Windows, even though Microsoft build-in backdoors and provide snooping/data reovery tools such as cigarete to pretty much any official body who asks for them (NSA, FBI and even police forces).
Re: (Score:2)
sorry I meant cofee not cigarete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Banned in the US" will become a security seal of approval...
Oh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the cold war era so many of our American leaders criticized the totalitarianism and lack of human rights in China and the Soviet bloc nations. Now fifty some years later we are gradually becoming just like them.
Re: (Score:2)
We've always wanted to be like that. Only back then we had to put up a facade of being the good guy so the people over there could be bullshitted into thinking they'd have it better over here.
Yes, essentially the Soviet Union kept us free.
In concert with the UK (Score:2)
The same burblings emerged from our Prime Minister a few weeks ago.
From him, it was potentially forgivable as the technically ignorant ramblings of a politican trying to score some election points.
From the Director of the NSA.... he knows exactly what he's asking for. Compulsory key escrow.
They tried this already with Clipper. They were unanimously told where to shove it. Are we really going to have to fight this battle every 20 years?
Maybe he's just acting out all petulant because their biggest hack, steal
Warrants (Score:3)
I don't know how someone so ignorant got to be so high in the bureaucracy, but there is a mechanism for this. It's called a warrant. One of the reasons we have this system is as a failsafe precisely in case that someone so ignorant does happen to get so high in the bureaucracy.
He want legal right to repeal math proofs? (Score:2)
First is NSA, then FSB? (Score:2)
MIsinformation (Score:2)
The whole thing is bullshit.
He is only trying to mask the fact that they already have broken most if not all encryption.
You reap what you sow... (Score:5, Insightful)
The encryption drive was caused by the NSA and others not obeying due process when they went after information. They used little legal loopholes or just broke the law outright as it suited them. And of course that being known people are going to take steps to protect themselves.
The damage the NSA has done will take a generation to repair and that would be a generation with the NSA not actively doing damage the entire time. Absent that, we're not going back to the way things were... possibly ever.
And that means the NSA should get used to running into encrypted brick walls. They had all the trust. Companies would openly brag that their security had been vetted by the NSA. Now, no one says that because there is always the fear that the NSA saw a flaw and intentionally kept it secret so they could exploit it or worse they might have even injected a backdoor in themselves.
The trust is gone and they have only themselves to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
I want secure communications. (Score:2)
I want my communications to be as secure as technically feasible.
If it's a choice between hobbling my security or hobbling the NSA, I pick hobbling the NSA.
Sorry this right can not be granted (Score:2)
I am sorry, but you are not allowed to have those keys for reasons of national security. No I'm not going to explain it, for reasons of national security.
What? I just play his game!
Funny thing about opinions, everyone has one. (Score:2)
Mr Rogers imaginary neighborhood (Score:2)
So âoebackdoorâ is not the context I would use. When I hear the phrase âoebackdoor,â I think, âoewell, this is kind of shady. Why would you want to go in the backdoor?"
In venues I have read or listened to NSA brass speak they come prepared with exotic definitions of plain language and seek to confuse and manipulate perception by invoking nonsense that would give most lawyers a run for their money.
Completely Ignoring underlying topic when you act like a weasel hard to understand how it is you expect to earn any respect or consideration for your cause.
And I want a pony (Score:3)
The problem is I won't get those things but the constitution violating NSA Director Michael Rogers stands a reasonable chance of getting what he wants.
Aaaaaaaannd here we go again. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the textbooks of tomorrow will say we started the revolution out of a hatred of tea and stamps.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no. Had we been allowed a seat in Parliament we would be happy Brits to this day. Well, maybe more like Canadians.
No, strike that. Not like Canadians as we have tans here.
Also, their tea really sucked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re:I don't see what's wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory you are right. The problem is that laws change and I cannot predict in what fashion.
What you do today and what is perfectly legal may well be illegal tomorrow. Take, say, smoking. Maybe you're smoking. Now let's imagine smoking gets banned. Well, tobacco is addictive. And if you're known to be a smoker, maybe you should be monitored whether you heed that ban or whether you engage in some illegal activity now that your addictive substance is banned.
And should you have dared to criticize the government in a way that has caused enough waves, this just might serve as the excuse needed to make you disappear behind some bars where you cannot reach those that like to listen to you. And hopefully soon you'll be forgotten and life will go on.
There are some countries, and I'm far from talking third world dictatorships, that are on the verge of heavy unrest. I don't want to say civil war, we're far from that, but there's a LOT of very unhappy and very disillusioned people in many countries that we'd consider first world countries.
All it takes is someone to gather behind. And that's to be avoided at all cost if you're a government, interested in preserving the status quo as long as you can.
So anything to get rid of such people is a good excuse. And having access to data is one way to find something. In case you ever wondered what purpose all those unexectuable laws we're seeing popping up could possibly serve, this pretty much is it. But if you need to construct dirt about someone, you need to have access to his documents.
Everyone breaks the law. Daily. Multiple times. All it takes is access to the proof.
Re:I don't see what's wrong with this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ugh. Just ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hilarious. For a moment I wondered if the transcript is even real. This makes Eliza look sophisticated.
He seems to believe, "I think we can work through this" is an acceptable answer to a simple yes/no question. The guy doesn't even have a coherent answer to one of the most basic and obvious questions he could possibly be asked. I thought Comey did a poor job of explaining his position but this takes it to a whole other level.
Re: (Score:3)
We have 'RIPA', the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] containing the scary "Part III": Investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc. Power to require disclosure
In plain English, it says "If you have encrypted data, and you know, or have ever known, the key to that data, you have to decrypt the data for the police when they tell you to. And you're not allowed to tell anyone the police told you to decrypt the data, if they tell you not t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then I guess the NSA is terribly afraid. Of whom? Us? Because it's us they hide their "secrets" from.
Re: (Score:2)
I was pretty much thinking that. Of course burglars don't like that doors are locked, but they are the fucking REASON those doors are locked!
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago, the great prophet Dave Mustaine predicted this: Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away. [megadeth.com]