U.S. House Judiciary Committee determines encryption backdoors against national interests

Apple Insider ^ | Wednesday, December 21, 2016, 02:18 pm PT (05:18 pm ET) | By Daniel Eran Dilger

[Swordmaker]

In a rebuke to the anti-encryption campaign waged by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation--with Apple as a target--the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Encryption Working Group issued a report today stating "any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest."

In a bipartisan report, the group observed that "any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest," citing representatives of the national security community who noted that "strong encryption is vital to the national defense and to securing vital assets, such as critical infrastructure."

A second finding of the report was that "encryption technology is a global technology that is widely and increasingly available around the world." That echoed an earlier study for Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society."Any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest"

Conducted by cryptography expert Bruce Schneier and colleagues Kathleen Seidel and Saranya Vijayakumar, that report from February surveyed the availability of encryption products worldwide and compiled findings that made it clear that U.S. laws to weaken domestic encryption wouldn't stop malicious users from obtaining foreign encryption but would put U.S. firms--such as Apple--at a competitive disadvantage.

The HJC report further suggested that "Congress should foster cooperation between the law enforcement community and technology companies," the same suggestion Apple's chief executive Tim Cook made in asking that the elected representatives of the U.S. Congress work on the issue rather than having it be pushed through under court orders facilitated by the state police, invoking fears of terrorism as a emotional ploy.

Good cop? Bad cop.

The prospect of legally requiring backdoors to bypass encryption has simmered in the background ever since digital encryption became affordable and practical for individuals in the 1990s. However, the matter came to a head in February of this year when a federal judge issued an order requiring Apple to work for the FBI in an attempt to bypass iOS security measures to allow access to decrypt data on an iPhone 5c.

Cook resisted the order, standing up not only to the FBI but also to initial media reports that criticized the company for supposedly "failing to help unlock a phone used by a terrorist."

That message was false; Apple had no ability to "unlock" the encrypted phone, and the federal government's police lacked the authority to dictate that Apple had to build them a security-compromised version of iOS.

FBI director James Comey pursued a charm campaign using FBI press releases to insist that "the San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message," and subsequently repeated those comments in testimony to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.


FBI director James Comey

However, Comey has a vast public record of desperately seeking to break encryption. In 2015, Comey unsuccessfully lobbied the Obama administration to press for laws empowering the police to force private companies to break their own encryption products.

Just days after claiming to the American people and to Congress that the FBI wasn't "trying to set a precedent," Comey let the truth slip in comments before the House Judiciary Committee, admitting that "of course" his agency would seek to use the precedent gained from a win in the San Bernardino to unlock other phones.

Comey has since embroiled himself and his agency in further controversy by creating the appearance of actively seeking to influence the U.S. Presidential election in favor of a candidate that had earlier jumped into the encryption debate unarmed with facts or even a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, but with a strong "law and order" rhetoric that enflamed support for whatever Comey's FBI might demand.

[proxy_user]

As long as there are open source libraries and compilers, anyone who wants to have secure encryption can have it. I, and hundreds of thousands of other programmers worldwide, could easily create uncrackable applications right here on our very own computers.

[Swordmaker]

Congress may actually be beginning to see the light about encryption and privacy on personal phones and computers! Amazing. U.S. House Judiciary Committee determines encryption backdoors against national interests. — PING!

Congress May Be Seeing Logic On
Device Encryption v. Government Snooping
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

[WENDLE]

I love encryption. I use it every day. I don’t want the government in my business. I want the government protecting my borders and killing the enemies of this great land. Ill take nice highways but that’s about it.

[mrsmith]

What drivel from this publicist.

Sissy Peter Cook and his fans vs Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump- I think the Constitution will be defended despite Apple’s millions to Congress.

[dp0622]

Just type in one back door word like in War Games :)

[Swordmaker]

As long as there are open source libraries and compilers, anyone who wants to have secure encryption can have it. I, and hundreds of thousands of other programmers worldwide, could easily create uncrackable applications right here on our very own computers.

BINGO! The problem is where do you store the key on a device that is unfindable? Apple has that solution built into their hardware in their Secure Enclave dedicated encryption processor where the user key is not even stored on the device. If the user elects to use a sufficiently long user key, the encryption will be so robust that it will be literally unbreakable for all practical purposes.

[Swordmaker]

What drivel from this publicist.

Sissy Peter Cook and his fans vs Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump- I think the Constitution will be defended despite Apple’s millions to Congress.

You think that getting Congress to prohibit the FBI, CIA, and NSA from mandating that every device must have a government accessible encryption backdoor is "drivel" that was somehow associated with a publicist?

This is an article from the US House of Representative's Judiciary Committee's "Encryption Working Group Year End Report" conclusion that having such backdoors is contrary to the best interests of the United States. It is driven by a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!

It is the defense of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution, or haven't you read them?

You are DERANGED if you think that conclusion is somehow "drivel from this publicist!" Think again.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“sufficiently long user key,”

How long should that be Swordmaker?

[mrsmith]

What a waste words are on you.

[ConservativeMind]

It is not in our national interest to have backdoors to encryption.

If government wants to spy on all of us, mandate 24/7 surveillance of everyone. That would also allow capture of people's passwords as they type them.

[Mark17]

Thanks for posting bro.

[palmer]

I think the Constitution will be defended despite Apple’s millions to Congress.

Are you suggesting that defending the Constitution means mandating encryption back doors? Or should we mandate the Clipper Chip.

[mrsmith]

"... if the government already knows that you know the password, you can be required to enter it in without a Fifth Amendment bar."
That is the ruling manufacturers of cheap mass encryption (like Apple) want.
However it won't persuade jihadis (or other desperate people) to enter the password.

What 'national interest' is served by destroying the Fifth Amendment- and making the Fourth Amendment ineffectual?

Encryption is not the simple problem Apple wants people to think it is.

[ConservativeMind]

Torture them, then.

Every hacker and foreign nation will gain entry through these backdoors.

No one will be able to trust anything because nothing will be secure and free from possible taint.

[mrsmith]

Not a general 'Clipper Chip', that would not be even slightly secure.
However I see no way around requiring manufacturers to maintain an individual means to access mass produced devices.

[Swordmaker]

What a waste words are on you.

Constitutional Concepts are wasted on you. I recall you toeing the FBI line all the way back when the San Bernardino issue was front and center, failing to grasp the differences between a proper search warrant and an All Writs order compelling a third party to do something the Court did not have the Constitutional or Statutorial power to order! It turned out that judge DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER IT! The orders were quashed.

I was right and you were wrong.

[theBuckwheat]

I reserve my unalienable right to privacy and to be secure in my person and papers.

[theBuckwheat]

I reserve my unalienable right to privacy and to be secure in my person and papers.

[mrsmith]

Your simplistic idiocy protects you from charges of dishonesty.