Topic: As encryption spreads, U.S. grapples with clash between privacy, security (Read 633 times)

The problem is people who value privacy are in a minority. It is not important enough an issue to be part of a presidential campaign.

That and all the policing incidents regarding minorites in general under the pretenses of justice such as the recent shot in the back several times then planting a gun incident in the news recently are making the US more of a survalience and military state, it is very concering to see the militarization of police forces around the United States due to all the surplus gear that the military has and makes for a bad precedent for the rest of the world to follow, if they choose to do so.

A cop with a taser a pistol and maybe some teargas and cuffs is far more approachable than one dressed in Full SWAT gear and always on the lookout for a riot, keeping the perception of safety while not scaring the civilian populace is something the police have been lacking more lately.

The next person who says to me 'if you have nothing to hide....' is going to get a punch in the face lol

I don't buy any of their terrorist scaremongering, which is all it is. Can't remember a single time when a ISIS member got caught updating their Facebook profile, it just doesn't happen. Glad I spent all of my childhood without mobile phones and social media.

Why are we going to be forced to choose when we picked our leaders?
It's time to to elect people of the newer generation to be presidents (the right people though). The old fellows just don't either seem or want to understand.

People will have to choose one out of two things: Privacy or Security. I will go for Privacy as my personal choice.

The basic human rights are being disregarded. I don't like anyone even looking at my phone at all. Those are the things that should be kept private even though I regularly delete everything.
The US is already almost a surveillance state.

I'm against all backdoors set into software by default
The maxim innocent until proven guilty should stand even in the digital age, otherwise we take steps towards becoming a survalience state.

There is no respect for privacy. The argument 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry' is quite bad. Just because you want to hunt down terrorists doesn't mean that you should have access to all my private stuff. Just imagine the private conversations, documents and pictures (!) that people keep on a phone.
There are things that are meant for just 1 person to see.

Individuals need to have the ability to generate and secure their own keys in order to make the debate about how centralized custodians manage keys irrelevant.

Unbelievable, shows the true mindset of intelligence agencies: WE WANT ALL YOUR DATA NOW!!

The more they push this agenda, the more companies are (hopefully) going to develop, and encourage their customers to use, encryption.

No, tech companies should refuse any requests without reasonable warrants. They should also start suing because of this behavior because I doubt its even legal.


I honestly don't see what the point of this is. Whatever measures they put in place to catch 'the bad guys' said bad guys will either stop using the technology or find ways around it to evade detection.

I don't think this is necessary. They can't even make a single example where phone encryption prevented them from stopping a crime.
I don't like his proposal either. The US government would probably work it out quickly and the "multiple locks" would be quickly used. What's stopping them to make a contract between the agencies so that they have to provide the keys as soon as someone requests them?

In this globalized world, there will be questions about which government agency. Would an EU company be willing to follow the orders of an US agency? What if there is a clash of laws - EU privacy laws vs US government requests?

Then again, if you have a request from some tin-pot dictator, would you honour it just because it came from a government agency?

For months, federal law enforcement agencies and industry have been deadlocked on a highly contentious issue: Should tech companies be obliged to guarantee government access to encrypted data on smartphones and other digital devices, and is that even possible without compromising the security of law-abiding customers?

Recently, the head of the National Security Agency provided a rare hint of what some U.S. officials think might be a technical solution. Why not, suggested Adm. Michael S. Rogers, require technology companies to create a digital key that could open any smartphone or other locked device to obtain text messages or photos, but divide the key into pieces so that no one person or agency alone could decide to use it?

“I don’t want a back door,” Rogers, the director of the nation’s top electronic spy agency, said during a speech at Princeton University, using a tech industry term for covert measures to bypass device security. “I want a front door. And I want the front door to have multiple locks. Big locks.”

Law enforcement and intelligence officials have been warning that the growing use of encryption could seriously hinder criminal and national security investigations. But the White House, which is preparing a report for President Obama on the issue, is still weighing a range of options, including whether authorities have other ways to get the data they need rather than compelling companies through regulatory or legislative action.

The task is not easy. Those taking part in the debate have polarized views, with advocates of default commercial encryption finding little common ground with government officials who see increasing peril as the technology becomes widespread on mobile phones and on text messaging apps.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-encryption-spreads-us-worries-about-access-to-data-for-investigations/2015/04/10/7c1c7518-d401-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html