Live data from Hacker News

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

justice.gov

11–20 of 230 posts

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's either a false flag or fear mongering, neither of which should be used to take away rights.

Both of which are bad in their own right. He really is an awful AG.

Just as awful as your comprehension?

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#12
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

I might be missing some subtleties here, because it does read surprisingly reasonable. A "crisis" "galvanizing public opinion" is always a recipe for disaster. See e.g. US overreaction to 9/11, from which the whole world still suffers.

Yeah. I'm no fan of Barr, but "we should think about this stuff before a big event stirs public outrage" is very reasonable.

"Don't do anything until we have a big problem" is how we got the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#13
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1) give no hiding place to the bad guys (2) make the good guys undiscoverable. It'd be sad to see a solution by decree (9/11-style) but I fear that's where we're headed so long as private companies are unwilling to find a workable solution. Peacetime is a delusion.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#14
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but I don't read this that way, no. It reads to me more like he's saying that from a planning perspective it's better to figure the worst thing that could happen and have a plan already developed that could handle that, rather than being caught by surprise and then having law and policy made in a mad, panicked rush. (In other words, let's not do with cybersecurity policy what we did with coun…

This is how I interpreted it. It seems like a wise, level-headed approach.

Wise? You think encryption back doors are wise?

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#15
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1)…

They can issue as many decrees as they like but they can't solve the problem with decrees any more than they can decree that water is dry. All they can decree is that it is illegal to use effective encryption, which would be, um, unfortunate.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#16
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

The public opinion is clear - security should not be compromised, just because some want to have backdoors and can't get over the fact that it's a very bad idea.

> We think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption while also providing secure legal access.

Yeah, may be he can also claim, tech sector can achive perpetuum mobile. This just keeps coming back all over again. He should get over the fact that it's impossible, and move on to dealing with it. Next time he should consult actual security expects before producing the above nonsense.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#17
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but I don't read this that way, no. It reads to me more like he's saying that from a planning perspective it's better to figure the worst thing that could happen and have a plan already developed that could handle that, rather than being caught by surprise and then having law and policy made in a mad, panicked rush. (In other words, let's not do with cybersecurity policy what we did with coun…

isnt that a bad example though, because the counter-terrorism policy was already prewritten before the event. it wasnt a hasty reaction.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#18
post #14
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how I interpreted it. It seems like a wise, level-headed approach.

Wise? You think encryption back doors are wise?

Encryption back doors are not wise, no.

Barr's point is that it's better to have that argument now, in a level-headed moment and with opportunities for all the relevant stakeholders to provide input, than it would be to have it in the middle of some dire emergency.

If you oppose back doors, I would think you would agree with him on this -- government tends to be delegated sweeping powers in emergencies, so it would be much harder to stop gov-friendly proposals like "back door all the things" in that kind of moment than it would be to stop them now.

Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security

#19
post #2

Did he basically just announce a false flag? "Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major inci…

Sounds to me like he's trying to kick off a conversation about how to go about making it difficult for the bad guys to hide behind encryption and other security products. It's really not an easy solution as there's very few bad guys we need to expose but many good people we need to protect, for reasons currently known and, more importantly, unknown. This one is a hard dichotomy that will be interesting to solve: (1)…

Speaking of dichotomies, referring to people as "good guys" or "bad guys" is a peeve of mine. Obviously, society should do what it can to prevent people from committing crime or terrorism, even using lethal force when necessary. These "bad guys" don't imagine themselves as evil actors though. They may be wrong or misguided, but most of them are doing what they think is right. To put things in perspective, Martin Luther King was considered a criminal by segregationists and WW2 resistance fighters were considered terrorists by the Nazis. You're never going to win wars on crime or terror by sifting out bad people from good people.
Post reply on HN