US Attorney General Barr doubles down on encryption backdoors call
The US Attorney General William Barr has waded into the ongoing encryption debate, claiming the encryption of data is putting the security of America at risk by stopping law enforcement officials from being able to track criminals, and calling for the creation of security-defeating backdoors that somehow do not weaken encryption.
US Attorney General William Barr (via Associated Press)
Speaking at a Fordham University conference on cybersecurity on Tuesday, Barr suggested the use of encryption "is already imposing huge costs on society," and seriously "degrades the ability for law enforcement to detect and prevent crime before it occurs." In investigating crimes, it is also "thwarting law enforcements' ability to identify those responsible, or to successfully prosecute the guilty parties."
Barr insists the issue will exponentially increase as the use of "warrant-proof encryption" accelerates, as this will "embolden" criminals who believe they cannot be caught, video from the Associated Press reports.
The speed them moved on to urging tech firms to cease "dogmatic pronouncements" claiming encryption backdoors cannot be done. "It can be and it must be," Barr believes. "We are confident that there are technical solutions that will allow lawful access to encrypted data and communications by law enforcement, without materially weakening the security provided by encryption.
Barr then suggests tech companies should turn their efforts in declaring backdoors "aren't worth exploring" to instead use their talents to "developing products that will reconcile good cybersecurity to the imperative of public safety and national security."
Barr's comments are a continuation of a long-running feud between governments and law enforcement who want access to encrypted data, and tech companies and privacy advocates wanting to maintain the security of encryption.
Governments and agencies, such as the FBI and the police, are in favor of weakening security by introducing backdoors, which would provide a similar function to wiretaps of providing law enforcement officials with a means to see the communications between two parties of interest.
Law enforcement officials have repeatedly suggested there are ways to allow law enforcement to gain access to data backdoors without exposing customer data to risk, in an effort to fix the so-called "going dark" problem.
There has even been the suggestion from the UK's GCHQ to create backdoors similar to the Group FaceTime bug from earlier in 2019, that could allow agencies to become a silent extra participant in a call, allowing it to be encrypted between all parties, but still enabling the ability to listen in or surveil the communications. In theory this would enable monitoring of systems with end-to-end encryption, such as FaceTime calls and iMessage communications, but it would require the producers of those systems to build access into them from the start.
In June, it was revealed the Trump administration was considering the possibility of outlawing end-to-end encryption in its entirety. While there were some within a National Security Council meeting that supported a similar measure to make encrypted data accessible, there was some pushback by the Commerce and State Departments over the potential economic and diplomatic consequences of backdoors.
Tech companies and privacy advocates insist that adding a backdoor to encryption fundamentally weakens it.
If encryption is a solid wall, the proposed backdoor is a lockable passageway that anyone with the key can get through. In this analogy, governments would gain access to the keys, but it is arguable that others could make copies of the keys, such as foreign agencies or criminals, or could even be accessed without the keys at all by a determined intruder.
There is also the argument by tech companies that adding a backdoor can hurt consumer confidence in a product or service. As for criminals, while a law could force legitimate services to break encryption for law enforcement, this wouldn't stop bad actors from setting up their own encrypted communications system.
US Attorney General William Barr (via Associated Press)
Speaking at a Fordham University conference on cybersecurity on Tuesday, Barr suggested the use of encryption "is already imposing huge costs on society," and seriously "degrades the ability for law enforcement to detect and prevent crime before it occurs." In investigating crimes, it is also "thwarting law enforcements' ability to identify those responsible, or to successfully prosecute the guilty parties."
Barr insists the issue will exponentially increase as the use of "warrant-proof encryption" accelerates, as this will "embolden" criminals who believe they cannot be caught, video from the Associated Press reports.
The speed them moved on to urging tech firms to cease "dogmatic pronouncements" claiming encryption backdoors cannot be done. "It can be and it must be," Barr believes. "We are confident that there are technical solutions that will allow lawful access to encrypted data and communications by law enforcement, without materially weakening the security provided by encryption.
Barr then suggests tech companies should turn their efforts in declaring backdoors "aren't worth exploring" to instead use their talents to "developing products that will reconcile good cybersecurity to the imperative of public safety and national security."
Barr's comments are a continuation of a long-running feud between governments and law enforcement who want access to encrypted data, and tech companies and privacy advocates wanting to maintain the security of encryption.
Governments and agencies, such as the FBI and the police, are in favor of weakening security by introducing backdoors, which would provide a similar function to wiretaps of providing law enforcement officials with a means to see the communications between two parties of interest.
Law enforcement officials have repeatedly suggested there are ways to allow law enforcement to gain access to data backdoors without exposing customer data to risk, in an effort to fix the so-called "going dark" problem.
There has even been the suggestion from the UK's GCHQ to create backdoors similar to the Group FaceTime bug from earlier in 2019, that could allow agencies to become a silent extra participant in a call, allowing it to be encrypted between all parties, but still enabling the ability to listen in or surveil the communications. In theory this would enable monitoring of systems with end-to-end encryption, such as FaceTime calls and iMessage communications, but it would require the producers of those systems to build access into them from the start.
In June, it was revealed the Trump administration was considering the possibility of outlawing end-to-end encryption in its entirety. While there were some within a National Security Council meeting that supported a similar measure to make encrypted data accessible, there was some pushback by the Commerce and State Departments over the potential economic and diplomatic consequences of backdoors.
Tech companies and privacy advocates insist that adding a backdoor to encryption fundamentally weakens it.
If encryption is a solid wall, the proposed backdoor is a lockable passageway that anyone with the key can get through. In this analogy, governments would gain access to the keys, but it is arguable that others could make copies of the keys, such as foreign agencies or criminals, or could even be accessed without the keys at all by a determined intruder.
There is also the argument by tech companies that adding a backdoor can hurt consumer confidence in a product or service. As for criminals, while a law could force legitimate services to break encryption for law enforcement, this wouldn't stop bad actors from setting up their own encrypted communications system.
Comments
/s
Luckily the world isn't the USA, good luck at stopping Telegram.
So clearly the government can't be trusted with back door access and Barr is either clueless or couldn't care less. It's important you write to your congressman, point out what happened the last time the NSA had backdoor tools, and that you vote accordingly.
Did I miss some news?
Has he read the book “1984”?
Does Barr want U.S. to be a police state?
Does Barr want to eavesdrop everyone’s conversation too?
Barr is correct, though, in that this does hinder types of investigation that they used to be able to do years ago (ex: wiretap analogy). And, it certainly does make the world more dangerous if they aren't able to appropriately find terrorists before the strike, etc. So, I hear where you are coming from.
However, properly understood, the reason it is so unpopular is not that we don't want terrorists stopped and criminals apprehended... it's because it isn't possible in the world we now live to have it both ways. Anything the gov't has, the bad-guys will either have and/or bypass, too. In the world we live in today, the downsides of that are just too bad to be worth that risk.
This is similar to saying that freedom is a problem because people can do bad things within a system with freedom. That's true, but what's the alternative?
The other problem, is that as society declines and the govn't becomes increasingly corrupt, what gets labeled as 'terrorism' and/or 'criminal activity' is going to be defined arbitrarily by the powers that be. You might be thinking you're fine with terrorists and criminals being monitored right now, but what about when a terrorist or criminal includes you?