'There has never been a right to absolute privacy' – US Deputy AG slams 'warrant-proof' crypto Continuing the US government's menacing of strong end-to-end encryption, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told an audience at the US Naval Academy that encryption isn't protected by the American Constitution. In short, software writers and other nerds: the math behind modern cryptography is trumped by the Fourth …
I can read. I've read the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. You are entirely wrong Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Expressing a wrong opinion does not equal changing the US Constitution, no matter how much you wish it would.
Review Please:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If the government meets their obligations before search and seizure, then they get what they get. Not-a-thing in the Fourth Amendment stipulates anything-at-all about any citizen ever having to make any of their persons, houses, papers and effects searchable.
Therefore, if the physical safe with the evidence is never able to be opened, that is the state of affairs. If the virtual safe with the evidence is never able to be opened, that this the state of affairs. Any US citizen can keep anything personal in anything. There is no limitation.
Read the Amendment again please. No more confabulation please! What you're claiming to be there, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, is not there, is it.
I hope the motivation behind your wrong statement wasn't totalitarianism.
Except practically no safe known to man has been able to beat a determined safe cracker. Thus why they're rated by time. Worst case, unless it's a vault, they find a way to dismount the safe and take the whole thing with them.
Electronic communications CAN, however, be permanently scrambled beyond recovery. Indeed, some adversaries SEEK this to break communications chains.
Can we now say that if a computer has been compromised by the loss of a govenrment-owned backdoor key that the system has been "Rosensteined"?
"How in christ's name did The Lucky Chang Vehicle Group get hold of our game-changing automobile tech?"
"Sorry, chief, we were Rosensteined. The Department of Homeland Encryption just announced they were rooted last March"
Not really. The key word in the Amendment is "reasonable". Thing is, what can you call reasonable when you're under perpetual existential threat?
When I see fluffy white elephants with pink polka dots flying around the room, I know it's time to put the funpills away for a while.
Might be time for you to cut back on your doses as well, don'tcha think?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
All memebrs of the UN are signed up to it, and Encrypted communications is maintaining the privacy of corespondance hence it is protected. If they have a legitamate reason to view it, Get a Warrant thats what they are for.
The title and underlying message of this story is false, wrong and a lie.
Do you only have a 3rd grade reading level?
The statement is, "There is no constitutional right to SELL WARRANT PROOF encryption".
This is true about anything and everything. So to make it a huge deal is moronic.
This applies equally to locks, safes, fences, pockets, cubby holes, etc. If a warrant is issued, the owner is obligated to provide access.
The message of the entire speech is, "Responsible encryption".
More ultra-far left wing lies to invoke emotion, because they know when people are emotional, they don't think through things. They only grab on to what someone says, whether it's true or a lie.
Troll, but for anyone else reading:
As was established in Bernstein v. United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States there is in fact a First Amendment right to publish encryption code.
It'd also follow that there is a First Amendment right to publish, say, designs for a lock that police or intelligence agencies cannot reasonably pick/manipulate, but as far as I know this hasn't been tested in court because noone has been stupid enough to actually try to cripple the security of physical locks. For some reason this obvious common sense thing disappears when it comes to "locks" on data.
There is no way for a lock manufacturer, regardless of warrants or any other legal (or illegal) means directed at them, to hand over a key for a lock someone keyed themselves.
And lock manufacturers do in fact release new designs when it becomes known that someone, including governments, have figured out a way to open them in a way that breaks the underlying security assumptions.
BiLock has stated this in public, for example:
"After extensive internal testing, and some additional upgrades, we are getting ready to submit an even more improved version for US and Canada certification. This BiLock system will far exceed the requirements set forth in UL 437. The new design will also thwart even the most sophisticated picking and decoding tools that are in use by the US intelligence agencies."
So I suppose he should call for "responsible lock designs" that are pickable so police and others can gain covert access when they have a warrant to do so?
Weakening everyone's security - and making life easier for criminals- in the process, of course. Just like it would for encryption.
(PS. For the record, I am a certified right-wing nutjob.)
Moot topic. If the government banned perfect encryption, someone would put the code, method, and logic on the web for free. It would be tested by many, rated, reviewed, and distributed before the first search warrant was issued to stop it. If something is possible, it will be done and put on the Internet.
Besides, people have always had the ability to develop their own, private language (and some have done so) or code, understandable to no one else. If you want to send undecipherable information, you can do so. It just takes a little creativity.
"Besides, people have always had the ability to develop their own, private language (and some have done so) or code, understandable to no one else. If you want to send undecipherable information, you can do so. It just takes a little creativity."
I want to upvote and downvote your comment. Up, people can certainly invent their own language or encryption. Down, unless they are extremely clever it won't be worth much.
The gold standard is encryption where the code can be published, examined and hacked since a secret is dead once somebody spills it if you are rely on obfuscation for security. Perfection is impossible but if The Man® isn't willing to dedicate a serious amount of hardware and time to decoding your correspondence, it can be perfect enough. Code that good isn't something that anybody can do after a semester in a cryptology class.
"...that's all we've ever had in this country is a list of temporary privileges.", "...because rights aren't rights if someone can take them away." -George Carlin, It's bad for ya
The Constitution DOES say that it's citizens have; "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Government can act like a totalitarian dictatorship with the absolute right to know everything it's citizens do and say. Yeah, oversight! Like the oversight of the NSA, DNI, and the FBI in abusing the FISA courts, or maybe the sharp oversight of the bank bailouts where billions if not trillions of dollars was wasted, yet Congress doesn't know how or for what and the banks amazingly didn't keep records or won't say (bonuses and parties). But there is never any consequences for this lack of oversight and the waste of tax money that goes with them. I am curious as to where all that repaid money went, it wasn't paid back into the national debt. Was it really paid back?
So the Government does NOT have the right to look at everything transmitted or written by it's citizens. Back-doors into encryption will be handled with the same careless and reckless attitude and behavior as the Government has done with FISA courts wiretapping, warrants, searches, protection of rights, with a "screw you" attitude!
“Our society has never had a system where evidence of criminal wrongdoing was totally impervious to detection.”
NSA, CIA, FBI, local and state police, the "justice" system (with the courts protecting criminals who happen to also be rich), stuff at various levels of government (federal, state and local), stuff protecting various corporations, stuff done by the various armed services.
How many "system(s) where evidence of criminal wrongdoing (is) totally impervious to detection" have I missed?
And where such crimes are detected, within those systems above there are many many ways to either have the crime go unpunished, or have the true perp go unpunished while some innocent (or not) bystander takes the wrap and does the time.
"Not really. The key word in the Amendment is "reasonable". Thing is, what can you call reasonable when you're under perpetual existential threat?"
But you aren't are you.. DAESH and Al Qaeda lack the power to significantly damage the USA, re-order it's society or damage it's constitution, they can make a few messes and kill a small fraction of the population. Unpleasant, but not an existential threat. Your government on the other hand can do all three and in these circumstances is the player that needs to be carefully watched.
"How do you know they lack the power? Perhaps they're just just biding their time or waiting for a force multiplier, a domino effect, or a decapitation strike."
They been under SiGINT, SATINT, PR and Special Forces Infiltration for years now, They can't hold the territory they took :
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2017/newsspec_17978/img/territory-control_976.png
Their ability to mount an operation against the USA significant enough to imperil it's existence is nil. The state actors supporting ISIS will do everything possible to keep Nuclear Weapons out of their hands. They wouldn't be able to keep their involvement quiet and DOTUS would spend about 0.1 picoseconds considering the ethical issues before glaing their real estate with instant sunshine
"Their ability to mount an operation against the USA significant enough to imperil it's existence is nil."
Yeah, right, and no one thought it prudent to consider that airliners can be hijacked and turned into suicide vehicles. I trust those SIGINT whatevers about as far as I can throw them. Plus, even after 9/11, some suicide attacks still occurred because the instigators were the actual, licensed, etc. pilots.
If the plods say they don't have a chance, they're looking in the wrong place.
"Yeah, right, and no one thought it prudent to consider that airliners can be hijacked and turned into suicide vehicles."
And those attacks in no way constituted an existential threat to the USA. Damage to a small area of commercial and government property and a relatively small number of deaths in comparison to an actual existential threat. For example the Luftwaffe campaign against Great Britain; The Bomber Command/USAAF campaign against Germany; the USAAF campaign against Japan culminating in two atomic releases. It soesn't even compare in scale to the collateral damage caused by the secondary air campaign against North Vietnam by USAF/USN
The only actor currently possessing the power to imperil the existence of the USA as it is currently constituted and operating is the US government.
I bet you an atomic bomb detonated 20 miles over South Dakota would change your tune. Or perhaps a superfluous farmed by ferrets and passed by a willing participant passing though JFK, O'hare, Reagan, and a number of other major transit hubs
As for 9/11, that was likely a dry run. If they REALLY wanted to hit hard, they'd have hit during the State of the Union address...using the plane carrying the hidden Cabinet member. With some sleeper cells, you could also take out the governors, creating enough of a power vacuum for a mass assault to work.
Attempted to buy a development board here in Scotland.
Yes contains a secure core, we all want.
https://www.nordicsemi.com/eng/Products/nRF52840
America said no, I was not able to purchase it due to export restrictions.
So, I attempted a European company, they said they would only sell to companies.
What is a man on the street to do,
when they protect money
but not people?
The advent of smartphones has made law enforcement lazy. Before they would have had to directly monitor subjects to learn what they were saying or searched physical locations (probably multiple physical locations) to unearth evidence.
Once we created smartphones, it became easy for law enforcement. Get the phone and you get it all. No need to scale telephone poles to install alligator clips on lines, no need to rifle through the grunge at some loser's apartment. It was clean, it was easy and life was good -- for law enforcement.
Now that encryption threatens to **RETURN US** to a time when law enforcement had to work for information, people such as Rosenstein are complaining like teenagers asked to clean the kitchen.
Smartphones are the information drug that law enforcement got hooked on, and they don't know how to go on living without it. Their brethren from half a century ago would be very disappointed in them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
