Close
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default They're back! 'Feds only' encryption backdoors prepped in US by Dems

    They're back! 'Feds only' encryption backdoors prepped in US by Dems

    Feinstein, Vance to try yet again to create magic math

    US lawmakers are yet again trying to force backdoors into tech products, allowing Uncle Sam, and anyone else with the necessary skills, to rifle through people's private encrypted information.

    Two years after her effort to introduce new legislation died, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is again spearheading an effort to make it possible for law enforcement to access any information sent or stored electronically. Such a backdoor could be exploited by skilled miscreants to also read people's files and communications, crypto-experts continue to warn.

    Tech lobbyists this month met the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the proposed legislation – a sign that politicians have changed tactics since trying, and failing, to force through new laws back in 2016.

    New York District Attorney and backdoor advocate Cyrus Vance (D-NY) also briefed the same committee late last month about why he felt new legislation was necessary.

    Vance has been arguing for fresh anti-encryption laws for several years, even producing a 42-page report back in November 2015 that walked through how the inability to trawl through people's personal communications was making his job harder.

    Tech lobbyists and Congressional staffers have been leaking details of the meetings to, among others, Politico and the New York Times.

    Magic roundabout

    The meetings have also prompted cryptography experts and privacy pit bull Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) to write letters outlining their concerns, including asking for details on a FBI program to devise a technical solution.
    READ MORE
    The US Department of Justice and the FBI have apparently been working together with three unidentified researchers to come up with a secure way to allow only law enforcement to access encrypted information. The FBI official seemingly in charge of that program – Valerie Cofield – was present at the Vance briefing, which also boasted a large number of Congressional staffers in attendance.

    Earlier this year, the FBI was formally asked to disclose who the experts are that are telling the agency it is possible to create a secure Feds-only backdoor. It has so far refused to do so.

    The argument by politicians and law enforcement that there is some way to create a backdoor in a strongly secure system that only the "right" people can access has been put forward so frequently for so long that it even has its own term: "magic thinking."

    But the constant reminder that mathematics does not discriminate has been purposefully ignored for years on both sides of the Atlantic, with occasional speeches from senior politicians and law enforcement personnel parroting the same line that they are sure the "brilliant brains" at tech companies can come up with a solution that will work.

    In January, FBI director Christopher Wray told a conference in New York that there was an ever-growing backlog of devices that it could not access. He also made the same arguments as his predecessor made repeatedly: that the FBI was only interested in the contents phones used by terrorists and criminals; that not having access to phone data was a "major public safety issue"; and that the FBI wanted to work with tech companies to come up with "thoughtfully designed" solutions.

    And again

    Wray then reiterated the exact same message last month at a difference conference. "This problem impacts our investigations across the board – human trafficking, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, gangs, organized crime, child exploitation, and cyber," he said. But, of course, failed to put forward a solution, noting only that he is "open to all constructive solutions."

    Meanwhile the spy agencies of the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand – the so-called "Five Eyes" – have been meeting repeatedlyabout how best to bypass encryption.

    The last big push for new backdoor powers came when the FBI engaged in a very public legal fight with Apple over the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Sayed Farook: a fight that the FBI ultimately backed down from.

    A recent report by the Department of Justice strongly suggested that the FBI used the shooting as a pretext to get a legal precedent forcing Apple to unravel its encryption systems.

    Pro-backdoor advocates have presumably been waiting for the next terrorist attack in order to relaunch efforts but their patience appears to be running thin, sparking the fresh round of meetings and new legislative proposals.

    So far, actual details are limited, although according to one set of leaks, the plans are focused on hardware and operating systems, and not application software, ie: the ability to commandeer a device, by seizing it or remotely over the air, to read a target's messages, rather than break the encryption protocol of, say, Signal.

    In other words, if you can break into someone's phone and pretend to be them, you don't have to bother with intercepting network traffic and forcibly decrypting the in-transit data.

    And it sounds as though that's the route snoops want to go down: unlocking and accessing locked encrypted devices via a low-level software backdoor, remotely or with a physical connection. ®
    Last edited by Gman; 04-09-2018 at 17:25.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  2. #2
    At least my tag is unmolested
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    CANON CITY, CO
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    Biggest pack of liars in the world.
    Sayonara

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Northglenn, CO
    Posts
    947

    Default

    where's the liberal call to ban electronic devices?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Splays for the Bidet CS1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    6,260

    Default

    Combined with this potentially lovely bit of "legislation"... hmm.. at least in Cali.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018...nline-content/
    The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

    It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

    SB1424 is brief. Read it:

    This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

    (a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

    (b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

    (1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

    (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

    (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

    (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

    (c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.
    Feedback

    It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. - The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921, GK Chesterton

  5. #5
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Why should the FBI care about people losing their privacy?
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  6. #6
    Zombie Slayer
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pueblo
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    If you participate in this thread you get put on their list.

  7. #7
    Splays for the Bidet CS1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    6,260

    Default

    I'm probably already on like 18 lists. At this point, my goal is simply to give their DBAs carpal tunnel.
    Feedback

    It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. - The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921, GK Chesterton

  8. #8
    Zombie Slayer
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pueblo
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Quoted from the article...


    "Pro-backdoor advocates"

  9. #9
    CO-AR's Secret Jedi roberth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Elk City, Oklahoma
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy View Post
    Quoted from the article...


    "Pro-backdoor advocates"
    Isn't it queer how the (D) always want to backdoor their policies?

  10. #10
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy View Post
    If you participate in this thread you get put on their list.
    I started the thread, so I must be on all the lists.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •