Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Government Privacy Security United States

Trump White House Reportedly Debating Encryption Policy Behind Closed Doors (gizmodo.com) 199

Posted by BeauHD from the behind-the-scenes dept.
According to a report in Politico, the Trump administration held a National Security Council meeting on Wednesday that weighed the challenges and benefits of encryption. "One of Politico's sources said that the meeting was split into two camps: Decide, create and publicize the administration's position on encryption or go so far as to ask Congress for legislation to ban end-to-end encryption," reports Gizmodo. From the report: That would be a huge escalation in the encryption fight and, moreover, would probably be unsuccessful due to a lack of willpower in Congress. No decision was made by the Trump administration officials, Politico reported. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The fact that these discussions are ongoing both within the White House and with Silicon Valley shows that the issue is still very much alive within the corridors of power.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump White House Reportedly Debating Encryption Policy Behind Closed Doors More

Trump White House Reportedly Debating Encryption Policy Behind Closed Doors

Comments Filter:

  • Easier... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Easier to ban 1s and 0s than to ban end-to-end encryption.

  • Oh really....... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @10:15PM (#58837844) Journal

    "...or go so far as to ask Congress for legislation to ban end-to-end encryption,"

    Yes, let's uninvent mathematics and knowledge in an attempt to cast a magic spell. Surely it will work, just like it's worked all the other times it's been tried!

    While we're at it, I'd like them to pass a bill to remove the letter "e" from the alphabet and make a new law to prevent people from thinking about chocolate.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "...or go so far as to ask Congress for legislation to ban end-to-end encryption,"

      Yes, let's uninvent mathematics and knowledge in an attempt to cast a magic spell. Surely it will work, just like it's worked all the other times it's been tried!

      While we're at it, I'd like them to pass a bill to remove the letter "e" from the alphabet and make a new law to prevent people from thinking about chocolate.

      We'll we could also ban the unchecked keyword in C#. I'm pretty sure that's useful for implementing encryption. Probably have to ban C/C++ altogether, and just forget about asm.

      Then again, I'm sure I could implement AES in javascript if I tried.

      Oh, I guess we have to turn in all the CPUs made in what the last ten years. It's built in.

      Full disk encryption as used by lots of corporate and other users would have to go.

      I suppose I'd have to go on a watch list, for having published two encryption related pape

      • We did this battle before... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:25PM (#58838040)

        We had this battle back in the early 1990s when we had Lieberman going after crypto. PRZ made PGP 1.0, then the 2.x series so the average person had at least something secure.

        The result of the battle was that we won crypto, but lost endpoints, with ring -1 stuff and things like Intel vPro. However, this isn't a killer.

        If pressure is put on crypto, people will actually get serious about it, and instead of using worthless messaging programs like Instagram, may move back to PGP or end to end messaging like Signal. Banning something that people want only backfires.

        If pressure became extreme, people will just take their stuff offline. A Raspberry Pi 4 as an offline computer, using VeraCrypt with hidden volumes, the OS running Phonebook FS, ensuring that different users mounting the same filesystem would see different things. Then, messages go on MicroSD cards, and sent via dead drops, courier lines, or many other means that are impossible to track via conventional surveillance.

        • You don't seem to realize this is about general access to mass communication, not access to people using security procedures even 99% of criminals don't use. Not a chance the masses go through the trouble.
          And btw, banking and e-commerce will be easily exempted, because the government already has front end access to all your bank and card transactions.

      • Re:Oh really....... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @12:12AM (#58838176)
        Last time this was attempted, people were printing the RSA algorithm implemented in 3 lines on perl on T-shirts. The theory was that wearing it on display in public makes it speech, and while you might be able to ban computer programs, banning speech would require a constitutional change. Thankfully the effort failed before that had to get tested.

        • It's not about making it speech. It's about making it published, well-known information so that it's no longer controlled by ITAR.

          • ahhh, right in time for nostalgia for those "This T-shirt is a munition" shirts from the early 90's. Time to dig it out from the bottom of the drawer.

            Truly history may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
            The scriptwriter for this reality is a drunken hack with no respect for the intelligence of his audience.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      Yes, let's uninvent mathematics and knowledge in an attempt to cast a magic spell. Surely it will work, just like it's worked all the other times it's been tried!

      What are you on about? If your packets are encrypted, and one endpoint isn't on the whitelist, you go to jail, simple as that. Same for a phone the provider can't unlock. You can outlaw all sorts of stuff, unwise and hostile to freedom though it might be.

      Outlawing drugs hasn't dome much to end drug use, but it has succeeded in putting an astonishing number of people in jail.

      Steganography is a different matter, but don't get your hopes up. The TOR project has been fighting the Chinese government to hide

    • Relevent XKCD... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:26PM (#58838042) Homepage

      ...here [xkcd.com]

      The idea isn't to un-invent encryption, the idea is to make life miserable for anyone who uses it and gets caught.

      Just because arson is illegal doesn't mean it isn't trivially easy to pour gasoline all over your neighbor's house. It's also no big chore to stick things in your pocket and leave a store without paying for them. It's generally the severity of the punishment that is the deterrent, not the degree of difficulty in committing the crime.

      • Re:Relevent XKCD... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Whatsisname ( 891214 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @12:51AM (#58838304) Homepage

        It's generally the severity of the punishment that is the deterrent, not the degree of difficulty in committing the crime.

        This is false. You have it backwards. Risk of getting caught is the primary deterrent of crime. When criminals commit their crimes, they don't plan to get caught. The severity of the punishment is not a significant factor, because if you don't get caught, it makes no difference what the punishment is. Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.

        There is a shitload of evidence to back this claim up.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mentil ( 1748130 )

          Where'd my modpoints run off to...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          Getting caught wouldn't be a deterrent if all that happened was you got a literal slap on the wrist. The vast majority of people don't break the law because the consequences of getting caught are bad.

          If this law came in with a prison sentence, most people would immediately stop using end to end encryption. Criminals would start using techniques like steganography or not discussing their plans on the Internet.

          The government presumably wants this ban so they can discover criminal activity before it happens, b

          • The vast majority of people don't break the law because they simply don't want to be somebody that breaks the law. Many laws are moral laws (theft, vandalism, and murder for example) and the vast majority of people are moral.

            Even with a slap on the wrist getting caught is a deterrent since it among other things quite quickly becomes a nuisance and that the crime leads to no benefit (aka if everything you steal will always be returned to the owner since the chance of getting caught is very high then what is

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by urusan ( 1755332 )

              I agree, even just interacting with the court system is already punishment enough for many crimes.

              My brother had a traffic infraction that was so small that he was ultimately let off the hook, but he missed his court date. He went to go clear things up and while they were very lenient, he had to show up to another court date two months later. He was in the middle of moving a long way away, so had to decide between returning months later or staying for months. When he finally got to the court, he showed them

            • Very often it's easy to rationalize violating laws, even laws with a clear moral basis.

              Re theft: "I live in poverty, society has mistreated me, it has effectively stolen the good life that I deserve, it's only fair that I take from the wealthy corporations to undo that theft."

              Re vandalism: "They left this thing out in public, effectively they gave me permission to use it, including redecorating it in a way I like"

              Re murder: "She left me for that other guy, how can she get away with hurting me so badly? Ther

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by JD111 ( 5931788 )
      lol, you sir, are a true statesman...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      "let's uninvent mathematics"

      Encryption is simply Constitutionally protected free speech, with which the government has no legitimate power to interfere. No, it's not a "munition", as claimed.

      "make a new law to prevent people from thinking about chocolate."

      Tolstoy created a club, where to be a member you had to stand in a corner for 30 minutes and not think about a white bear.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mentil ( 1748130 )

      If it's illegal to use XOR, then only illegals will use XOR!
      Am I doing this right?

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 )

      Keep in mind that President Trump is a guy who believes you have a finite amount of energy in your body, like an alkaline battery, and that by exercising you're blowing that energy needlessly, hastening your demise. He *seriously* believes this. So the idea that you can "just ban it" is small potatoes to a mind like that.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Banning end-to-end encryption isn't like saying that a company has to break the encryption - it's saying that yes it exists, but you can't use it. Sort of like murder is always possible but is banned (outside of very specific circumstances like military combat, state executions, self-defense, etc).

      Getting caught with an encryption program on your computer would be just like getting caught with child porn: you go to jail.

      It's scary, it's draconian, but it's not an impossible law.

  • I really have to wonder what will come of this.

    The track record of this administration is that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is permitted except what will be seen by the public as the greater glory of the guy at the top. In other words everything is a PR issue and nothing more and nothing less.

    It isn't a good way to come up with cohesive policy. Our best hope is the guy at the top is not paying attention, and there is a slim-but-not-zero chance something of benefit for the rest of us will emerge.

    • I really have to wonder what will come of this.

      It will fail in congress, and most people will ignore that it ever happened. Encryption is here.

      • Many countries require the providing of the key if law enforcement asks.

        Here in the USA, government could mandate algorithms that have key escrow. It's been discussed before over a decade ago.

        sure, you could use other methods, but then you'd be a criminal.

        • Re:Well this is puzzling (Score:4, Informative)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:41PM (#58838086) Journal

          Here in the USA, government could mandate algorithms that have key escrow.

          This battle was fought in the 90s and we won. The only ones who want encryption that is broken are the National Security Council, and this was a meeting with them. They've been trying to get that since the 90s.

          The time when this had the best chance of happening was between 2001 and 2003, when people were terrified of terrorism, and were willing to give up their rights to be protected. The security establishment had a chance of getting what they wanted back then, but they failed because they focused on getting the Patriot Act instead. Now with every iteration the Patriot Act gets weaker and weaker, it's unlikely that the security establishment will have the clout to get something like this passed, unless there is a simultaneous terrorist attack on Facebook, Apple, and Google campuses, and it's done in a way that we have dramatic footage.

          In this meeting, the NSC tried to get Trump to ask Congress to do something, but in the end they couldn't even get him to take an official position on the topic. So they leaked details to the press, hoping that would get something done. It won't.

          • >"In this meeting, the NSC tried to get Trump to ask Congress to do something, but in the end they couldn't even get him to take an official position on the topic. So they leaked details to the press, hoping that would get something done. It won't."

            +1

            But the better and more accurate wording would be "So they leaked the details to the press, hoping that many people's hatred of Trump might somehow put a positive spin on banning encryption since his administration isn't moving forward with it." Either way,

          • "we won"

            oh did we? the government didn't carry out mass surveillance and profiling of the citizens after that using back doors to supposedly secure comm channels?

            Not being able to get key escrow, they then went to man-in-the-middle

            • after that using back doors to supposedly secure comm channels?

              What the hell was wrong with you that you thought those comm channels were secure?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          1. A criminal isn't going to be persuaded to use communication methods that lack encryption just because of the additional penalty. Chances are if you're a criminal using encryption intentionally, the punishment for what ever crimes you've committed or are planning to commit far outweigh anything that will apply to encryption alone.

          2. This discussion was had 20 years ago, and it failed 2 years ago for the same reason. It either creates a single point of failure that everyone has access to in the case of a m

          • you're confused, you say "a criminal" isn't going to do this and that.

            In a police state, the citizens are assumed to be criminals, the criminal is you. Dirt is collected on everyone for use at strategic time.

        • Having a key that the government can use to decrypt messages is inherently insecure. Even if we assume that the government would NEVER use that key for malicious purposes (a huge assumption), all it takes is a hacker discovering what the key is (via a leak, having an insecure database, etc). Then, the hacker can decrypt things just like the government can. And once that key is out there, all those messages will be fair game for hackers. There is no way to make a "for official government use only door" in en

      • I really have to wonder what will come of this.

        It will fail in congress, and most people will ignore that it ever happened. Encryption is here.

        Since we already know Congress isn't interested in this, it seems debatable that there is an "it" that "happened."

    • If they outlaw encrypted communications, only outlaws will have encrypted communications.

      • Re:Well this is puzzling (Score:5, Informative)

        by Q-Hack! ( 37846 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:24PM (#58838034)

        Trump is not the first President to attempt to deny encryption to the masses...

        Obama era: https://theintercept.com/2015/... [theintercept.com]
        G.W.Bush era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        Clinton era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Trump is a business man. I suspect he will not want to interfere with the bottom line. Especially since encryption busting is already big business. Making it mandatory for law enforcement to have access would kill their business model.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          "Trump is a business man."...Bwahahahahahahaha....thanks, I needed a good chuckle this morning to set my day off right. Trump ran a nepotistic Mom and Pop operation and became Putin's bitch in the process. He also managed to drive his Mom and Pop operation into 6 bankruptcies. Ma and Pa Kettle were better business people than he.

        • Trump is not a business man and if he is one, he's been a fucking poor one at best. He's a con-man and an egotistical man who pretends at running a business using money he inherited, scammed, lied, and cheated his way into ontop of massive bank loans. At one point the banks sued to and were successful in putting him on a literal budget so they could make sure they'd start getting paid back. "Business men" don't need the courts to setup a budget on how much money they can blow away on dumb shit in a day. The

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gtall ( 79522 )

            And in addition, he had a reputation among small businesses to stay the hell away from due to his tendency to stiff them on the bills, and forcing them into court cases they could ill-afford to waste their money upon. You can see his attitude when he figures defense treaties are protection rackets.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by doug141 ( 863552 )

          Trump's never cared about his bottom line as long as he could re-direct investor money to his family. You aren't seeing past the con.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      As luck would have it, I was in on those meetings. A short excerpt should show we have nothing to fear:

      NSC Bolton: Mr....Whatever...we need to talk about encryption.

      Mr. W.: Whazzat?

      B: E n c r y p t i o n. It's what you don't use in talking to your main squeeze.

      Mr. W.: I don't think we need to bring Putin into this.

      B: Ummmmm....let's concentrate on encryption, you know, encoding emails and other things so prying eyes cannot see them.

      Mr. W.: Don't get all scientific with me, no one knows more about encryption

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Well, the Orange One has the attention span of gnat. It requires one of his acting secretaries to carry it forward. Fortunately, they seem just as incompetent as he is.

  • If there's one thing I care about, it's that fuckwit's opinion about something! This is important. If he says he'd prefer people not use ssh, I might have to decide to stop doing that.

  • I mean, if the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear.

  • The military and intelligence communities have been arguing for this since encryption was invented. Doesn't matter which party/person has been office. If you don't think this discussion has not happened before, no matter who was in office shows how narrow minded and bigoted you really are. And yes, it has been reported before.

    And just because they are talking about it in this nation doesn't mean shit. The Chinese/Russians/????? don't have to follow our laws with regard to encryption. You really think o
    • Out of curiosity, exactly *when* do you think encryption was invented?

    • And just because they are talking about it in this nation doesn't mean shit. The Chinese/Russians/????? don't have to follow our laws with regard to encryption. You really think others in positions of authority don't know this? What ever department?

      Inevitably, when this is proposed, we're told that we NEED to do this to catch terrorists. The problem is that the strong encryption genie is out of the bottle. I could find a bunch of open source encryption technologies right now online. Does anyone really think

  • At this point Trump can use reverse psychology. Whatever he wants to do, state that he wants to do the opposite, and watch the Congress contort itself into pretzels passing what he actually wanted in the first place. Success is 100% guaranteed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Failure is guaranteed, Trump never succeeded at anything and he'd only find a new way to screw this scheme up.

  • Alex Jones are you listening????? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Trump your hero supports civil asset forfeiture AND wants to ban encryption!!

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @05:04AM (#58838824)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • >"Just like how DRM only affects and limits the choices for actual paying costumers, while pirates gets more freedom by stripping out the DRM."

      And just like "gun-control" and "gun-free-zones" only really affects and limits the choices for good/law-abiding citizens, while bad criminals don't care and do whatever they like. As a bonus, it defies the Constitution AND has the exact opposite intended effect, making the populous *less* safe by leaving the weaker prey to the strong and removing a major deterre

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution: You get one muzzle-loading firearm and you get to fire it only when you are part of a government defense force such as the National Guard and only while training. There's the Constitutional right to bear arms, no waving your gun around like a He-Boy to show us you have little girly mouse balls.

        • everything you just said is wrong. it says this A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. it does not say what guns and you have to serve the government. it says the opposite you retard.

        • >"I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution: You get one muzzle-loading firearm and you get to fire it only when you are part of a government defense force such as the National Guard and only while training."

          Believe what you like, but your interpretation is completely wrong. That is not what it says, that is not what is meant, and that is not supported by any historical documents. See the comma. It really is that important.

          This is why the Supreme court and almost all founding-father his

        • you get to fire it only when you are part of a government defense force such as the National Guard

          Odd. I always thought a militia was NOT formed by the government, but rather by common interest between people. I think you may want to reexamine your views on the Second Amendment.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Agripa ( 139780 )

          I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution: you can use a pencil or pen with paper or a hand powered mechanical printing press without restrictions but anything more requires a permit from the government and all speech must be submitted ahead of time for approval.

  • Behind Closed Doors (Score:3)

    by Gabest ( 852807 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @06:18AM (#58839002)
    I guess they like their privacy.
  • Never give up your freedom for supposed "security".

  • Waiting for the severely brain-damaged chud/libertarian-but-still-GOP-voting sphere here to try and justify the idea of Trump possibly asking for a ban on end-to-end encryption.

  • then there's no need to debate it behind closed doors.

  • ... doors where the leaks are coming from?

  • ...and by hiding they seem to prefer the 'security by obscurity', like all those people who don't know shit about real security.

  • [potus] Alright, you guys go ahead and start. I'm tweeting about this "deep nude" thing I discovered on the interweb.
    [pence] Come to order...
    [pompeo] Sir, this is important information. It deserves your full attention.
    [potus] (to self while using phone) check...out...little..miss..pochahontas..in..deepnude...wouldn't...poke...that...hantas.
    [mattis] Let's just start. He'll be a while.
    [mcaleenan] Gentlemen. And ladies. As you all know, we've been discussing the need for a National data encryption po

  • Trump White House Reportedly Debating Encryption Policy Behind Closed Doors

    So... meat-space encryption?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close