Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00

I dunno - the "or else" is pretty goddamn mealymouthed:

    Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions.

The "or else" is in language slightly less strong than the "we recognize that encryption is real" statement:

    Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.

I mean, they ran this with an image of Pine Gap because of course they did when really we're talking about

Because this is a discussion of agencies that literally vacuumed up ALL voice and data traffic going into or out of the United States and fuckn' hell, they're actually saying "the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible" and that's kind of like MADD saying "a drink or two every now and then shouldn't be a problem for most people" and frankly, considering the past 20 years I maybe would lead with that.




mk  ·  42 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.

The assumption that government should be able to weigh in on use of encryption is likely the purpose of this letter, IMO. They are framing the argument by assuming a permission-based situation.

As it stands, you don't need permission to use encryption in communications, and it needn't be rare.

The government of a free people necessarily has its hands tied. This letter is trying to undermine that notion.

kleinbl00  ·  41 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah, but they've been making that statement about PGP since '91. They tried to characterize encryption as munitions back in '93. We're pretty much to our second generation of law enforcement dealing with encryption as routine and the game is always "we have a right to search" / "no but they have 5th Amendment rights."

I dunno, man. In a world where Americans born using midwives are having their passports revoked and immigrants are staying off WIC so they don't get deported I CANNOT work myself into a lather over abstract subtleties such as "we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions".

These are the babysnatchers we're talking about. The bombers of school buses. If Jeff Sessions decided he had an opinion on cryptography, there would be an executive order declaring cryptography to be a felony, regardless of the legality or practicality of the edict.

b_b  ·  41 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I know a couple whose daughter was adopted from Korea who have been unable to obtain a learner's permit from our Secretary of State (our version of the DMV) because her birth certificate and adoption records don't prove she's an American to the Trumpist Michigan government. For real. A fucking learner's permit.

kleinbl00  ·  41 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I mean, after all, we are at war with Korea.

b_b  ·  41 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Good point. I feel safer now.