Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/partial-victory-obama-encryption-policy-reject-laws-mandating-backdoors-leaves

by DiabloD3 • 11 years ago

200 77 11 years ago

cryoshon4• 11 years ago

Deceptive title, unintentionally.

FTA: "Instead, the Post reports, the “administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt their customers’ data to create a way for the government to still peer into people’s data when needed for criminal or terrorism investigations.”

While eschewing attempts to legislatively mandate that tech companies build backdoors into their services, the president is continuing the status quo – that is, informally pressuring companies to give the government access to unencrypted data."

Status quo is that the government doesn't respect the privacy of its citizens.

mtgx• 11 years ago

HN title should have a "- For Now" at the end.

jpwagner• 11 years ago

I thought you were making a joke, but it literally says:

"Obama 'will not —for now— call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.'"

dang• 11 years ago

Policies are always for now.

simonh2• 11 years ago

Agreed, but it's still a massive improvement over mandating that all encryption used by citizens be thoroughly crippled. The status quo should be that the degree to which Government can intrude into citizens privacy is limited by law and subject to open public debate. We're not quite there yet, either in the US or here in the UK, but dropping the idea of crippled encryption is at least a step back from the brink even if it's not enough steps back for my liking. It's at least an implicit acknowledgement that the EFF/privacy hippies aren't completely wrong.

BackWhackBeaner• 11 years ago

Ergo, why projects that provide encryption tools are so important.

wfo• 11 years ago

I think threatening to ban all secure communication in a psychotic unrealistic policy position and having important "serious" people like the director of the FBI push for it isn't really intended to get it codified into law, rather to elicit responses like yours -- it's designed to massively push the Overton window against privacy so that we can feel okay about how bad things currently are -- at least the insane unrealistic threats that were thrown around weren't followed through.

acaloiar• 11 years ago

My thoughts mirror @wfo's, but more simplistically. It is a negotiation tactic. When seller A wants to sell something for $20, it is initially offered for $30. When buyer B's $25 counter offer is accepted, B is pleased with the result because they've purchased the item under asking price, while A is pleased for having sold at a premium.

JoshTriplett• 11 years ago

On the other hand, as long as backdoors remain out of legislation, those companies are still free to say "no".

cryoshon4• 11 years ago

Many won't say no, because the advantage of having a government willing to look out for their bottom line is far too large to ignore for the sake of a few users.

quaunaut5• 11 years ago

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that?

I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

drcube• 11 years ago

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all.

Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants to ruffle through your luggage can get universal keys for all TSA locks. What happens when that same scenario plays out with your bank account, your company emails, or any online store you've made purchases from?

baconner• 11 years ago

Sure, but there are many avenues of investigation that were previously available to law enforcement and still are. The question in my mind is does having effectively unbreakable ways to store data do more harm than good? I think it does more good. There are still tons of options available to law enforcement that worked in the past to catch criminals. The sheer quantity of data that is stored about each one of us opens up a lot of potential for harm (which has been massively abused). What we're talking about is simply a return to the state where if you want to gather data about a person you have to mostly start at the point when they become a real suspect not before.

You also can't get a warrant to peer into the other unbreakable data store - a suspect's mind. If there were such a technology would it be ok for it to be warrantable or should some things just actually be private?

coldpie3• 11 years ago

Crypto is all or nothing. You can't have "backdoors" into crypto algorithms that are secret only to the government. It is literally impossible. Someone will find those backdoors, and now all information that has been encrypted is wide open. So you are either advocating for the complete destruction of ecommerce and online privacy, or you are advocating for unfettered access to cryptography software. Which do you choose?

johnsea• 11 years ago

I'd say: first throw out the ability for NSA to spy without letting the persons concerned speak about it. Then we can talk about 'warrants in the case of probable cause'. US as a country has lost a lot of goodwill and trust.

And don't forget:

- number of deaths from acts of domestic terrorism: 36

- number of deaths–homicide, suicide, and accidental–caused by firearms: 316,545

(in a decade, link: http://magazine.good.is/articles/president-obama-gun-deaths-...)

It's hilarious how some people forget what really counts (as in pain and sorrow) and where the priorities should be.

subdane• 11 years ago

The ability to wiretap was a side effect of the POTS. But a side effect doesn't need to be a required feature of future technology. There's a good argument to be made that there's more rights in our constitution for protected and private speech by individuals than there are for the government to have access to it.

cryoshon4• 11 years ago

They're investigating us, who are not suspected of any crime. Let's throw out their ability to investigate.

Traditional policework goes a very, very long way, and it's time to admit that the terrorism angle is too overblown and intentionally abused to take seriously anymore.

Ultra-narrowly targeted, ultra limited duration, warrant-required wiretaps which are disclosed as evidence in full during court trial are what is acceptable when exhaustion of traditional methods hasn't closed the case. That is the standard we should work from.

tedks• 11 years ago

I think what you're not understanding is that computers are literal extensions of brains and minds. We have outsourced our memories and our thought to these devices, and we must have the same assurances over them as we would over ourselves. This will become only more clear as the line between a biological memory storage device and a digital memory storage device blurs into nonexistence.

And that is also a conversation we've had before. There is no warrant you can get to force a suspect to testify against himself.

Though, it's cute that you think these "conversations" are meaningful. If the American government thinks you're too interesting to not know more about, they'll black-bag you and ship you off to a secret CIA dungeon where you'll be tortured for the rest of your life. Even if you end up being held without charge in a cushy place like Guantanamo, you'll never be released because you were held without charge and that makes you a terrorist.

I find it hilarious how surveillance advocates manage to forget that your government does not respect rule of law, it rules by law. It is the law.

mkobit• 11 years ago

The article title doesn't seem as deceptive as this post title:

Partial Victory: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors, But Leaves the Door Open for Informal Deals

Compared to:

Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

It also doesn't sound like a full on rejection, as new information might cause him to change his stance:

“will not —for now—call for legislation requiring companies to decode messages for law enforcement.”

sdenton42• 11 years ago

It's probably a bad idea to pass policy against passing future policy... That applies both to 'informal deals' and leaving the door open for future legislation.

Really the only reason to pass policy against policy in this case is to score political points with the Hacker News interest group, which is a pretty niche constituency...

Laaw2• 11 years ago

I don't understand why respect would be part of this, or loyalty, patriotism, or whatever. Do you really think the best strategy to defend against an adversary is to shame them into behaving?

This is about what's cryptographically possible and what isn't. I don't frankly care if anyone respects my privacy, what I want is the ability to shut adversaries out, period, using math.

This decision means companies can say 'no'. That's a win, because it lets the math be possible in the first place.

cryoshon4• 11 years ago

Well, being realistic, we have three avenues out of our totalitarian mess we find ourselves deeply in:

1. Political (use money, shame, votes, and threats, praying that these things still work to effect change)

2. Technological (use encryption, praying technological solutions are implemented evenly and properly and that there are no back doors)

3. Violence

1 and 2 are the workable strategies, and they only work when practiced together. Currently we are seeing the government's #1 try to trample on #2, frequently using #3. If we can whittle a bit more respect for #2 using #1, it'll make the rest of the journey back to liberal democracy easier. Political changes happen through shifted mindsets.

SteveLAnderson• 11 years ago

Umm, I hate to be too nit picky, but the headline isn't deceptive.

"Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors"

The Obama administration is rejecting mandated backdoors. That's what the headline says and it's completely correct.

The rest of your comment is correct; they aren't rejecting backdoors, just rejecting making them mandatory.

james4k• 11 years ago

I am surprised the petition has yet to reach 100k signatures.

Is it optimistic to think that most of the tech community at least should recognize the significance of this? Even if you doubt its effect on real policy.

mordocai2• 11 years ago

I think most people are just too lazy/paranoid to sign petitions. Tech or not.

toomuchtodo• 11 years ago

Petitions don't do anything. I donate to the EFF and Demand Progress instead.

jstx• 11 years ago

I'm not. Who has time to fully comprehend (and act upon) this? Especially when we're already working >50h a week to maintain household status quo. It's hard to focus on the state of society's infrastructure when I'm spending every waking moment working to maintain my own. Yes, I know what is at stake, but one avenue is a long burn and the other is a short fuse. I'll tackle the more pressing issue first.

Disclosure: I work in the netsec industry and only signed this because HN brought it to my attention in the rare spare moments between my daily tasks. To use an analogy, I feel like I can't worry about putting out the forest fire if my house is already on fire in the midst of it. At the same time, I'm throwing money at someone that says they'll help me free up more time to do the forest fire fighting. We'll see if I've made a grave mistake in how I prioritize things.

hcon• 11 years ago

This is my reaction whenever I hear someone suggest that "we should be rioting in the streets." I have daily personal struggles and work that I'm trying to pin down every day with all my energy. And my remaining time/energy go into finding a mate if I even have any at all.

nacs• 11 years ago

Direct link to petition: https://savecrypto.org/?r=eff

late2part4• 11 years ago

The Obama administration has continued flawed policies in many areas, especially those infringing on the 4th Amendment.

TallGuyShort• 11 years ago

The other day I heard someone say (and I'm not exaggerating or excluding key context here), "I think Obama is similar to Hitler. He's changing our Constitution and taking away our freedoms." I couldn't begin to list the things Obama said Bush had overreached on and would end, that he later renewed in one form or another.

derefr• 11 years ago

A lot of these policies continue because they're considered optimal/necessary by the layer of thinktanks and technocrats that feed Washington its data. I doubt any administration could change them, no matter what was said on their campaign trail.

late2part4• 11 years ago

The president can change many things. They choose not to because there is a cost. Of course, checks and balances with legislators and the courts, but the executive branch has tremendous leeway in executive policy and action. Obama could order the NSA to stop tapping domestic fiber and they would. He chooses not to because he doesn't want the Washinton insiders to attack him. This is our country, not the career politicians. It's not a cliche, it's true. Those of us who are voting citizens should realize that politics need not be a Hegelian compromise, elect people that affect positive change, and punish and vote out those that don't.

mhurron• 11 years ago

Government basically exists to maintain the status quo. Anyone who might really change anything really won't get far enough in order to.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

late2part4• 11 years ago

Wouldn't it be good to have hope, and expect change? Our government, our country, our people can change, for the better, or for the worse. I'm sad that you think the status quo can't be changed. It can and should be.

outside1234• 11 years ago

Why does the Apple one get special kudos? They just say they "don't allow government access to their SERVERS" - they never say anything about the data.

a3n2• 11 years ago

the administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt their customers’ data to create a way for the government to still peer into people’s data

If you are one of these companies that are informally cooperating with the government on this, please state so publicly, in the signup process and by message to current users, so that we can avoid using your services now, or at least when it's discovered later if you weren't honest about it up front.

declan2• 11 years ago

Well put. We tried to take a very privacy-protective stand when building Recent News (https://recent.io) because of the amount of personalization we do. This warrant canary is part of our privacy policy:

As of [date], we have not received any legal process or demand from any federal, state, or local government that includes a gag order. We have received no National Security Letters, civil subpoenas, search warrants, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders, grand jury subpoenas, or any other form of compulsory process accompanied by a gag order.

As of [date], we have received no legal orders requiring us to monitor users' future activities or to modify our service.

If we do receive any form of compulsory process from any government entity, we will do our best to ensure that our users' legal rights and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are protected. That includes challenging overly broad orders in court.

It is still valid, I'm happy to say, for [date] values of today.

polymatter2• 11 years ago

IANAL, but the judge may order you to keep the warrant canary or find you in contempt. Law is based on intent and if your intent in removing that clause is in broadcasting you are under gag order, when the gag order restricts you from doing exactly that, you may find that will be taken as a breach.

This should not be taken as legal advice, YMMV, yadda yadda.

declan2• 11 years ago

This is mostly good news. A few thoughts:

* The FBI-NSA-etc. axis already tried to ban nonescrowed crypto. This was in 1997, when far fewer products relied on it, far fewer people used the Internet, and far fewer groups mobilized to oppose it. If even that effort failed, this one was likely to fail as well.

* Excerpt from that 1997 proposal, which was actually approved(!) by a House of Representatives committee: "It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for distribution, distribute, or import encryption products intended for sale or use in the United States, unless that product..." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr108p4&dbna...

* I disclosed in 2012 that the FBI had drafted a proposed law to require backdoors; that legislation was never introduced, even as a placeholder. My 2012 article: http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites... Of course the FBI's bill could be kept in reserve to become Patriot Act 2.0, just like the FBI-NSA-etc. axis had EPPSCA in reserve, which morphed into Patriot Act 1.0 a month after the 9/11 attacks, as I wrote about here: http://www.cnet.com/news/how-bin-laden-and-911-attacks-shape...

* If the legislative approach is now off the table, as the WashPost piece indicates, look for the FBI-NSA-etc. axis to try more creative approaches. "Oh, you want that $2 billion government contract? You want your new device to be FIPS 140-2 certified? How about that merger or FTC antitrust review? Environmental reviews? Trade? Taxes? It sure would be a shame if things didn't go your way. Maybe you can help us and we'll help you..."

This is why it's worth supporting groups like EFF (I donated last year and need to again before the end of this year). They provide a moral argument that counters that of the Washington establishment--and also provides guidance for tech firms when they're faced with challenges like those above.

a3n2• 11 years ago

"Persuade."

How can we know that NSL's aren't being used right now to "persuade" or coerce companies to cooperate? Who needs legislation when you effectively don't have to reveal anything?

pasbesoin• 11 years ago

Meta: We might have more respect -- in limited measure -- for the government's position if they actually cleaned up their own malfeasance, instead of persistently, predictably trying to bury it.

You want transparency? Lead by example.

Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

Related Stories