Over and over:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
The open source folks have worked around this before:
Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
21–30 of 230 posts
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#22Earlier 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…
isnt that a bad example though, because the counter-terrorism policy was already prewritten before the event. it wasnt a hasty reaction.
That's how you're supposed to do things, though. You want to write the policies before the event, when you can think things through slowly and carefully. There's nothing wrong with this part of what he has to say...only the other parts.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#23Earlier 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…
isnt that a bad example though, because the counter-terrorism policy was already prewritten before the event. it wasnt a hasty reaction.
The hasty reaction was the panic that led lawmakers to grab for the most sweeping policy option they could find. What looks like prudence and caution in normal times looks like half-measures and cowardice in the heat of an emergency. Those policy proposals would have continued gathering dust forever, had not 9/11 provided a political moment that transformed things that everyone had considered faults into something that looked like virtues.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#24The cat's out of the bag. All this would lead to is law-abiding citizens having their information at risk while criminals continue to use crypto without backdoors.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
Agreed. It's better to have the conversation now because if we don't and the "event" does occur those who support encryption backdoors will use it as the basis of their argument in all possible manner.
"We must do something now, it's clear that we need backdoors because of X!" <- That's a much worse position to be in during a debate.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#26It is quite certain that law enforcement has more capabilities than they are willing to reveal in courts. Even if encryption backdoors were available, it is dubious they would routinely submit it in evidence.
Encryption is not an impediment to an investigation into an ongoing activity, files need to be decrypted, there are side channels everywhere, etc. Metadata and physical surveillance is enough to convict or put a person in a position where they could be convicted under some other law if there is no convincing explanation for why they were where they were.
Usually the point of mass surveillance is to retroactively look up a person of interest and blackmail them.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You have a point. By decree what I meant was that in the event of a disaster and panic the public will back any law that forces, say, Apple to give unfettered access to law enforcement. By then it's too late to engage in debates. The public became interested and very unforgivenly sided with law enforcement. They'd have prioritized their safety over being able to send cat pictures securely. Similar to 9/11.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
True. And even if we stop them now, we must be prepared to fight the battle again, because after a major incident, people will be screaming "See, we really need them! Give them to us so it won't happen again!" And we will have to explain, again, to people in panic, or people looking to exploit panic, that it still isn't a good idea, even after a major incident.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Luth…
We can't defer to people's judgement of themselves and their intentions. The law and the courts make an independent distinction between legal and illegal.
Re: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Address Conference on Cyber Security
#30He claims encryption is "warrant proof" which is not true. You can have a court order someone to open the lock. They want the ability to dig through people's stuff without them knowing. That's what it's really about.
Sure, but I can just refuse to decrypt my data. They can just break physical locks.