Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Sep 2018 21:14 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption

The US, UK, and three other governments have called on tech companies to build backdoors into their encrypted products, so that law enforcement will always be able to obtain access. If companies don't, the governments say they "may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative, or other measures" in order to get into locked devices and services.

Their statement came out of a meeting last week between nations in the Five Eyes pact, an intelligence sharing agreement between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The nations issued a statement covering a range of technology-related issues they face, but it was their remarks on encryption that stood out the most.

Break encryption, or we'll break you.

Thread beginning with comment 662036
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
timl
Member since:
2005-12-06

I wonder if, in a complete reversal of previous policy, the US will then impose *im*port restrictions on strong, independently created cryptography?

Reply Parent Score: 5

kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

I wonder if, in a complete reversal of previous policy, the US will then impose *im*port restrictions on strong, independently created cryptography?


They had something like that in the past, restricting all cryptography available to citizens to 40-bits. This is why the CSS protection in DVDs and WEP were bruteforce-able from launch day, they simply had to work within the 40-bits max limit.

Basically, the simple question is: Should companies be allowed to manufacture and sell to the public a safe that cannot be opened without the password and immediately destroys all its contents the moment someone tries to crack it open with a blowtorch? There is no easy answer to this question.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kurkosdr,

Basically, the simple question is: Should companies be allowed to manufacture and sell to the public a safe that cannot be opened without the password and immediately destroys all its contents the moment someone tries to crack it open with a blowtorch? There is no easy answer to this question.



In a government "for the people by the people", the government really shouldn't have any say over this. In fact, we ought to be entitled to demand all "our" government's secrets rather than the other way around. Our private matters are none of their business. It's only through a perverted role-change that we've ended up becoming subjects of government rules. Democracy isn't supposed to work this way, we the people should be making the rules and the government should obey.

Some will argue that weakening crypto is for the public good, but A) you can't stop people from using math, and B) whatever the case is for prohibiting effective crypto, it needs to be made in the open were it is the people's will. It is inherently undemocratic for a government to dictate rules without the public's consent.

Edited 2018-09-07 03:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Dr.Cyber Member since:
2017-06-17



Basically, the simple question is: Should companies be allowed to manufacture and sell to the public a safe that cannot be opened without the password and immediately destroys all its contents the moment someone tries to crack it open with a blowtorch? There is no easy answer to this question.

Actually there is an easy answer to that question. The people pay for the government and thus the government should serve the people. If you pay taxes, then the government should owe you, not own you.

So the government does not have the right to limit our privacy because it does not serve us when they do. We on the other hand do have the right to demand their secrets because their secrets are also paid for by us. Without us the government and all it's secrets could not exist.

You seem to be in the mindset that the people ought to serve the government instead of the government serving the people. I know that nowadays the people do serve the government and the government does not serve the people, but this is not how it ought to be.

Reply Parent Score: 2