Should encryption be illegal?

[WorldofWarcraft]

Should encryption be illegal or at least, should the programmers of encryption software provide the government with backdoors to have access to any and all encrypted data in the world?

The FBI is whining about how it's making it harder for them to catch "terrorists" and "pedophiles." Keywords that will push lawmakers to support new legislation against encryption.

They may pass new laws to make it illegal for companies to not provide or code in back doors for their encryption programs.

But that doesn't stop anonymous open-source programmers to not provide that functionality... which might push them to legislate something that would make it a criminal act to encrypt ANY data that uses an encryption program that is not on their "whitelist."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d144...tice-dept-taking-encryption-concerns-congress

Much of the western world has varied encryption laws. In general, law enforcement MUST be provided access to encrypted data either by the owner of said data or 3rd party (encryption technology programmers/companies) to provide a way to gain entry into the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

My opinion is, FUCK NO.

Everyone should have the right to privacy.

 

[Rod1]

Bah, the collective psyche created that beast, so let us enjoy our king stork.

 

[IDL]

They can shove that up their encrypted arses

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sad state of affairs if special permission is required to safeguard your communications. I don't believe in forced compliance/cooperation with government agents either.

 

[IDL]

They can probably already break most encryption algorithms anyways with their sleezy super computers.

 

[jrams]

 

[KILL KILL]

No. Not at all.

 

[elmo_1968]

Much of the western world has varied encryption laws. In general, law enforcement MUST be provided access to encrypted data either by the owner of said data or 3rd party (encryption technology programmers/companies) to provide a way to gain entry into the data.

Not in the USA. The law cannot compel me to decrypt my data for them, that violates the Fifth Amendment.

If some third party has the decryption key or plain text, law enforcement can subpoena it with a warrant. But for much encryption today no third party has that.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

Should they also get the passwords to everyone's diary?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Should they also get the passwords to everyone's diary?

This is essentially the question we are being asked.

 

[Sabin]

I'm not sure. I don't really like how the terrorist / pedophile argument can be used to close the door on any argument though. It's the foot in the door for any of the new invasive technology. The argument is a strong one so no one will argue against it, but some of this technology feels so invasive and unnatural. Here it's being used against internet and computer privacy. I've heard it advanced as an argument for biologically implanted GPS tracking of those convicts. Now that I think about it, I'm for encryption and computer privacy and then searches with a warrant. With the GPS I guess the fear there would be the slippery slope if other offenders become eligible for tagging.

 

[Falsedawn]

Absolutely not. That defeats the entire purpose of encryption.

 

[Phanuel]

Should they also get the passwords to everyone's diary?

You don't have anything to hide do you?

You do not have ties to foreign extremists do you?

Then let us have the password to that little diary if you have nothing to hide.

I promise you we will never open it, just for your safety and the safety of America its best we have it stored in our records in case something happens.



:icon_chee

 

[Winnie The Foo]

You don't have anything to hide do you?

You do not have ties to foreign extremists do you?

Then let us have the password to that little diary if you have nothing to hide.

I promise you we will never open it, just for your safety and the safety of America its best we have it stored in our records in case something happens.



:icon_chee

Freedom ain't free brother!

 

[Videer]

More and better encryption is good for everyone. Backdoors are simply retarded as those are open just as much to FBI as they are to Chinese hackers and FSB.

 

[Malthian]

No.

Given the extraordinarily small percentage of the population that are involved in terrorism, it seems ludicrous to abrogate the right to privacy of hundreds of millions and potentially billions of human beings.

The CIA puts ISIS at between 20,000-30,000 members, with the most outlandish estimates being 200,000 by a Kurdish leader in the region.

That puts the percentage of the population of planet Earth who are members of ISIS somewhere between 0.0000028% and 0.0028%. Given that most of those people are living in the hills or desert and aren't exactly kicking around on their IPads and laptops, you're talking about violating the rights of almost everyone on the remote chance that you stumble across something actionable.

Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden evaded capture for YEARS not by using a 3rd party encryption package, but by sending HAND WRITTEN messages by courier.

Additionally, this sort of legislation has ZERO value in the world of state espionage. Any rogue state will have the money and resources to simply develop their own algorithms (it's just math) or use published algorithms to write their own encryption tools.

The intelligence services have been complaining for years now about having TOO MUCH intelligence information. They can't even sort through what they have now given the vast amount of traffic on the internet and telephone networks. How would increasing that ocean of data by a factor of 100, 1000 or 1M times be helpful?

Finally, how can we credibly trust that such a tool will remain secure? How do we know that it won't be given to everyday law enforcement? Or leaked to large corporations and the tremendously wealthy that currently fund the election of the major parties? Or that that information won't eventually end up in the hands of criminal syndicates or hacker groups? Or that it won't find its way into the hands of hostile governments through espionage that could use it to hack the communications of US citizens and businesses? And even if we did trust the US government, how do we know that it won't be offered to other governments that are less trustworthy and less secure?

Let encryption continue to involve freely. The government has the money and resources to brute force the most important data given enough time, they don't need a skeleton key which could be abused, stolen, sold or given to untrustworthy parties. They don't need such ease of use that the temptation is to violate privacy so high that the bar for invading that privacy becomes so low that it is no longer of a question of whether they should invade your privacy, but why should they NOT invade your privacy.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

should the programmers of encryption software provide the government with backdoors to have access to any and all encrypted data in the world?

As long as law enforcement has to obtain a proper warrant I don't see why not.

Don't see the difference between encrypted software and a locked house or safe. Get a warrant and it can be searched.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Not in the USA. The law cannot compel me to decrypt my data for them, that violates the Fifth Amendment.

If some third party has the decryption key or plain text, law enforcement can subpoena it with a warrant. But for much encryption today no third party has that.

I don't see how this violates the 5th amendment.

 

[Phanuel]

Here is a very informative lecture delivered by Jacob Appelbaum, gives us insight into what exactly the NSA/Cia/fbi and other entities are capable of doing along with local law enforcement.

 

[Malthian]

As long as law enforcement has to obtain a proper warrant I don't see why not.

Don't see the difference between encrypted software and a locked house or safe. Get a warrant and it can be searched.

The difference is that the government doesn't have a copy of the key to every house door nor do they have the combination to everyone's home safe.

Additionally, under the Patriot Act they don't actually NEED to show probable cause in order to obtain a warrant to go onto your physical premises and search your home or safe.

The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.

A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

https://www.aclu.org/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

In other words, there are very few restrictions in terms of when they can need to ask for a warrant when it comes to electronic surveillance. They don't have to show any probable cause that you are involved in illegal activity, or even that your activities are directly or even tangentially related to an actual investigation.

In fact, prior to a court ruling THIS year, the NSA and other agencies was using the Patriot Act to execute completely WARRANTLESS searches and surveillance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-patriot-act-allow-bulk-surveillance/392651/

In other words, for YEARS the government was performing surveillance on US citizens and companies without a warrant, without probable cause, and without even the slightest evidence of a tangential relationship to ongoing investigations.

Essentially, some guy in a room said, "Keep an eye on XXX" and BAM. Welcome to a bunch of techs digging into your phone and e-mails.

Sorry, I don't know about you but I'm not going to trust a bunch of guys in a government cubicle with NO real restrictions or oversight to NOT abuse their authority, or even to keep that information secure, or even keep the methods which they obtain that information (like back door encryption keys) secure.