Paris attack stokes the flames in fight over US data encryption
Last week's terrorist attack on Paris sounded a call to arms for hawkish U.S. officials seeking broad oversight of encrypted digital communications, some of whom used the opportunity to rekindle discussions with Silicon Valley technology companies.
In an interview with MSNBC on Monday, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Silicon Valley companies, particularly those marketing secure Internet messaging services, should help government agencies protect the homeland by allowing controlled access to encrypted data.
"They have apps to communicate on that cannot be pierced even with a court order, so they have a kind of secret way of being able to conduct operations and operational planning," Feinstein said of ISIS terrorists. She hammered the point home, reminding MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell of recent video footage showing ISIS leaders giving potential sleeper cells the go ahead to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.
Last month the Senate passed the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, a bill that effectively allows companies to legally share customer data with the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the bill.
As iOS and Android dominate modern mobile communications, Apple and Google have been singled out as part of the problem for providing end-to-end encryption messaging services. For example, strong encryption in iOS 8 and above makes it virtually impossible to eavesdrop on iMessage conversations or gain physical device access, even with appropriate warrants.
"I have actually gone to Silicon Valley, I have met with the chief counsels of most of the big companies, I have asked for help and I haven't gotten any help," Feinstein said. "I think Silicon Valley has to take a look at their products, because if you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that's a big problem."
Bloomberg reports other top-ranking U.S. officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, made similar comments, but fell short of asking that new laws be enacted.
"There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult -- both technically as well as legally -- for intelligence security services to have insight that they need," Brennan said today at an event in Washington, D.C.
For its part, Apple has been a vocal advocate of consumer privacy and pushed back against CISA alongside other tech companies in October. CEO Tim Cook has repeatedly warned of the detrimental effects a back door policy would have not only on individual users, but the tech industry as a whole.
Critics to Apple's position argue CISA lets providers share data while still maintaining privacy, a proverbial win-win situation for everyone involved. Americans could find themselves putting to those claims to the test sooner rather than later, as the bill is headed to the House of Representatives and, if passed, to President Obama for ratification.
In an interview with MSNBC on Monday, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Silicon Valley companies, particularly those marketing secure Internet messaging services, should help government agencies protect the homeland by allowing controlled access to encrypted data.
"They have apps to communicate on that cannot be pierced even with a court order, so they have a kind of secret way of being able to conduct operations and operational planning," Feinstein said of ISIS terrorists. She hammered the point home, reminding MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell of recent video footage showing ISIS leaders giving potential sleeper cells the go ahead to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.
Last month the Senate passed the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, a bill that effectively allows companies to legally share customer data with the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the bill.
As iOS and Android dominate modern mobile communications, Apple and Google have been singled out as part of the problem for providing end-to-end encryption messaging services. For example, strong encryption in iOS 8 and above makes it virtually impossible to eavesdrop on iMessage conversations or gain physical device access, even with appropriate warrants.
"I have actually gone to Silicon Valley, I have met with the chief counsels of most of the big companies, I have asked for help and I haven't gotten any help," Feinstein said. "I think Silicon Valley has to take a look at their products, because if you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that's a big problem."
Bloomberg reports other top-ranking U.S. officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, made similar comments, but fell short of asking that new laws be enacted.
"There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult -- both technically as well as legally -- for intelligence security services to have insight that they need," Brennan said today at an event in Washington, D.C.
For its part, Apple has been a vocal advocate of consumer privacy and pushed back against CISA alongside other tech companies in October. CEO Tim Cook has repeatedly warned of the detrimental effects a back door policy would have not only on individual users, but the tech industry as a whole.
Critics to Apple's position argue CISA lets providers share data while still maintaining privacy, a proverbial win-win situation for everyone involved. Americans could find themselves putting to those claims to the test sooner rather than later, as the bill is headed to the House of Representatives and, if passed, to President Obama for ratification.
Comments
"Trust no one" is best applied to those hiding behind the ruse of public safety being more important than liberty.
These idiot lawmakers just want to wiretap everyone. Do they really think we are all stupid enough to believe the terrorists will keep using iMessage after the US makes it mandatory by law to have a backdoor? No they will use other end-to-end encrypted technology and software freely available on the internet and the rest of the population will be open to NSA snooping into our lives. The arguments these lawmakers are completely flawed and make absolutely no sense. Don't believe the lies from these fear-mongerers.
Recent tragic events didn't make their arguments for encryption back doors any more valid or sound. It's just the equivalent of them asking, "so are you scared enough yet to give us what we want?"
Paris attack stokes the flames in fight over US data encryption
There’s no fight. No legal one, at any rate. Right to privacy trumps “right” to totalitarianism.
Blah, blah, blah. A lot of people want real gun control yet the government does nothing. Lots of innocent people have died in schools, malls, just about everywhere because of guns but all they can talk about is a way to spy on everyone in an attempt to locate these people before they do something. Hey, you know what? It isn't going to work. "Bad" people will always find a way to talk to each other without someone listening and honest people will always have to pay the price of losing our privacy because of the inability of governments to treat people nicely and get rid of an environment where there is hate. It's not Apple's fault for doing their best to protect people's privacy.
Haven't we learned from facts and those in the know. Government does not need more control over our lives.
How many more 'argumentums' do you have up your sleeve?
Exactly. The privacy that is being protected does not just involve normal email, text, photo and video communications, but also people' financial, tax, employment and health data.
Moreover, it's naive to believe that some smart kid somewhere couldn't create yet another app to encrypt communications amongst the bad guys.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." —Benjamin Franklin
These idiot lawmakers just want to wiretap everyone. Do they really think we are all stupid enough to believe the terrorists will keep using iMessage after the US makes it mandatory by law to have a backdoor? No they will use other end-to-end encrypted technology and software freely available on the internet and the rest of the population will be open to NSA snooping into our lives. The arguments these lawmakers are completely flawed and make absolutely no sense. Don't believe the lies from these fear-mongerers.
It's hard to believe they don't realize weakening security on devices only impacts people who are not doing anything wrong - as you said, the ones who want to hide what they are doing will seek other ways.
The only two things I can think of why they're pushing for this so they have a built in excuse if something happens, or giving the impression they are "doing something".
It's difficult to believe they don't know it will make everyone, but the "intended targets", more vulnerable.
As tragic as this event is, in 2013 alone over 11,000 people were murdered by guns in the US, and over 80,000 injured. Yet we vehemently defend our right to own guns. And these clowns think we should give up our right to privacy? If you want to prevent mass murder in the US, which happens every year, there is s better way to start than taking away our right to privacy, and our right to online security.
I don't think inanimate objects murder people. And given the article topic, guns are largely banned in France; how'd that turn out?
Jeeze, sounds like a tea-bagger convention in here.
There are NRA members in France. They would sell guns to Heydrich.
No access does. Let's see, we have 10,000 gun deaths a year. They would need several attacks a week to catch up to us.
We have our own terrorist who go into theaters and kill for the fun of it with cops on site.
Meanwhile, laws protecting privacy are like laws protecting free speech. They aren't tested by Republican wimps reciting nursery rhymes.