I think we all win if our networks are more secure.
Advertisement
Comey repeatedly said that the leaders of technology firms were “good people” but that they had a responsibility to help protect the public.
Comey didn’t offer any evidence regarding FBI investigations thwarted by strong encryption technology. Twitter, Facebook and Google have all stepped up encryption efforts, allowing users more options for protecting their data, and Congress passed a law with new limits on collecting bulk meta-data from Americans’ phone calls. He confronted our people with a knife, and unfortunately, they had to use their weapons.
It’s quickly becoming the standard way people communicate.
Programs like Chrome, Firefox, iMessage on iPhone all have encryption built-in. But, she added, “given the gravity and urgency of the situation, I think it’s important that we kick it up a notch”.
“Given the large number of investigative tools available to the FBI… the notion that encryption imperils all law enforcement operations is ludicrous,” Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute wrote in The Hill newspaper.
“We are moving inexorably to a place where all of our lives, all of our papers and effects, all of our communications will be covered by universal strong encryption”, Comey said.
The details of how a ban on strong cryptography or other backdoor mandate will be unconstitutional will vary, but there are serious problems with almost every iteration of a “no real encryption allowed” proposal we’ve seen so far.
“Weak encryption is essentially no encryption, leaving all consumers vulnerable to breaches of privacy and cybercrime”, the group said in a statement.
She did not rule out introducing legislation on the issue if an agreement with technology companies cannot be reached.
He also believes a compromise can be struck between the two competing interests. Roman generals used it to keep orders secret from enemies. Such an idea, he said, “is a big time loser”.
So what’s the government’s beef with encryption?
In court documents filed last month, officials say that in a wiretapped phone conversation, Rahim said he wanted to “meet Allah” before July 4, when he and several other men allegedly wanted to attack Pam Geller, the New York woman who organized the Draw Muhammad contest in Garland, Texas.
“Weakening encryption is a lose-lose proposition, which decreases security and privacy”.
“These proposals are unworkable in practice, raise enormous legal and ethical questions, and would undo progress on security at a time when Internet vulnerabilities are causing extreme economic harm,” the tech experts wrote.
It’s estimated it would take billions of years and thousands of computers to break well-encrypted data. When someone sends an encrypted message, for example, they also send coding that gives access only to the intended recipient. FBI Director James Comey, along with officials from the Department of Justice and state law enforcement, requested a “dialogue” with the private sector to enable the government to obtain exceptional access to encrypted data. Those companies have resisted, arguing that building in such access would undermine encryption and weaken systems against criminals and computer hackers. That’s why cybersecurity companies pushed for temporary access codes to begin with.
The experts, however, say this solution is technically impractical, given how the government’s inability to secure its own infrastructure.
Technology experts later in the hearing said the government would need to launch a broad authoritarian crackdown on American Internet use and implement strict border controls to resolve concerns about encryption.
He, and others, are blind to the fact that undermining encryption by installing backdoors won’t prevent crime. Defenders have to be right all the time, everywhere.
“I really am not a maniac (or at least my family says so)”.
Advertisement
Comey sees it differently. The paper concludes that “analysis of law enforcement demands for exceptional access to private communications and data show that such access will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation-states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend”. “We are creating safe zones where unsafe criminals and terrorists can operate and avoid detection”.
