• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

FBI's Christopher Wray Is Anti-Encryption: “We Can't Have an Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement”

Redhead On Moped

Redhead On Moped

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,859
USA, Sol 3, Universe 1
I am livid, and if you are a citizen of the United States of America, a tech head, or a privacy lover, you should be too.

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/05/fbi-director-christopher-wray-on-encryption/

Excerpt below.

"It can't be a sustainable end state for there to be an entirely unfettered space that's utterly beyond law enforcement for criminals to hide," Wray said, echoing a position that law enforcement officials have taken on encryption time and time again.

Apple is continually dealing with additional law enforcement attempts to weaken encryption. Multiple tech companies, Apple included, have formed the Reform Government Surveillance coalition to promote strong device encryption and fight against legislation calling for backdoor access into electronic devices.

Apple has argued that strong encryption is essential for keeping its customers safe from hackers and other malicious entities. A backdoor created for government access would not necessarily remain in government hands and could put the company's entire customer base at risk.

During the interview, Wray said that encryption is a "provocative subject" and he provided no additional insight into how tech companies might provide strong encryption for customers while also acquiescing to law enforcement demands for device access.

Wray did say that the U.S. is seeing an uptick in threats from "various foreign adversaries" that are using criminal hackers, which suggests the need for strong encryption is greater than ever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The FBI's war against encryption is a war against all freedom loving Americans. It's never just about one device. Say no to back doors, say no to weakening encryption.


b373d850-6825-46dd-a1dykj6.png


 
Last edited:
jchap

jchap

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,772
Encryption exist to be broken. We should at least make it a challenge for them.
 
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
Not exactly new. The IC of most countries have been pretty clear they hate the idea of privacy.
 
YaBish

YaBish

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,341
It's obvious from his position in government why he believes this.

Doesn't mean it's right.
 
nStruct

nStruct

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
3,134
Seattle, WA
Encryption is ultimately just math. If you force manufacturers to put in back-doors it's still entirely possible for bad guys to use their own encryption applications, in which case the only thing you accomplished was making it worse for everyone else.
 
Lant_War

Lant_War

Classic Anus Game
The Fallen
Jul 14, 2018
23,556
bUT i HaVE nOtHinG tO HiDE

There's gotta be some serious brainwashing to defend installing backdoors for the government.
 
RadzPrower

RadzPrower

One Winged Slayer
Member
Jan 19, 2018
6,042
EnCt2eeecb97521f5a97db0da972a0b2b28da8bba8c20eeecb97521f5a97db0da972a1MOic8KmKwF
4V1npflzNB1VynULD+wb7aC/U461sRGf2Itbg6ivcfqm5KxAntErz6o6UWnJhd6xLKo8hEKtcL294EcD
3H6/NaVk6loIocmT5Wo4DIwEmS

Clue: siteyear
 

ParanormalFupa

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,141
Why isn't Apple doing more to protect our privacy if they are also arguing for the essentials of encryption? Seems like they allow our data to be collected and sold like cattle and encryption serves them by protecting that market to extent. I don't think Apple helping law enforcement with a terrorist's phone is that slippery of a slope.
 
Steel

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I mean, I'd be shocked if a head of an intelligence agency was pro-private encryption.
 
Rover

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,417
This door got opened with stuff like the Patriot Act. The 'war against freedom loving Americans" ended almost 20 years ago.
 
OP
OP
Redhead On Moped

Redhead On Moped

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,859
USA, Sol 3, Universe 1
ParanormalFupa said:
Why isn't Apple doing more to protect our privacy if they are also arguing for the essentials of encryption? Seems like they allow our data to be collected and sold like cattle and encryption serves them by protecting that market to extent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/

https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

https://www.apple.com/privacy/manage-your-privacy/

https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/

https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
 

ParanormalFupa

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,141
OP
OP
Redhead On Moped

Redhead On Moped

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,859
USA, Sol 3, Universe 1
ParanormalFupa said:
So Apple ensures the apps it approves on its devices are all following the same standards? They don't collect a single bit of user data to be sold or used for ads? Genuine questions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On iOS devices, the user must allow permissions, gradual permission for EVERY aspect. Take a shopping app where you can post picture reviews and get savings by linking your health data. Before it can do any of that, the operating system will ask you if you wish to give it location access, camera access, photo access, health data access, etc individually.

And if you DO allow access, you are prompted on conditionals. Do you want allow sharing and accesss only when it is open, or at all times? Any sharing of data is entirely and completely your call and you must have allowed affirmative consent prior. If you download any app and you don't agree with allowing enough consent or don't consent at all, some or all of the app will simply not work and you can harmlessly delete it. You are never compromised for merely installing an app. You are in control from the start, that includes stock apps. First time you boot up camera on a new iPhone for example, it asks you if it can save location data, which you can decline.
e7676908-650e-4e3b-98qjz3.jpeg
 
Saucycarpdog

Saucycarpdog

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,310
The problem is law enforcement want a backdoor or master key to encrypted systems. Which would be incredibly dangerous to everyone's cyber security.
 

Deleted member 8561

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
11,284
From the perspective of intelligence agencies it's obvious encryption is a major issue and roadblock to their efforts.

From the perspective of a private citizen I say if you're smart enough to encrypt and protect your devices then "lol fuck you"
 
BrassDragon

BrassDragon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,154
The Netherlands
Kthulhu said:
Not exactly new. The IC of most countries have been pretty clear they hate the idea of privacy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It appears that way if you hear IC leaders talk. But that lets the intelligence customers off the hook - policymakers, lead investigators and military commanders just don't accept that there are practical, legal and moral limits to intelligence collection.

They will keep asking for more: What's this person thinking? Why did this happen? Why can't we hear what they're saying when they meet? Why is this assessment so unsure? Why don't we have eyes in that location? How can we track that shipment without being near it?

There is also the stubborn notion that more collection yields better analysis; but in the era of big data, it just creates massive bottlenecks in the intelligence cycle as more and more data is shoved down the pipe and misinformation/deception keeps pace with the growth. Even the image of a single consumer device contains insane amounts of data.

By all means, take the IC to task but remember they don't operate in a vacuum. It's the customers driving the obsessive, gluttonous collection efforts.
 
Maple

Maple

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,722
Isn't encryption just math? So basically anyone saying they're against encryption is really just saying they're opposed to a certain branch of mathematics?
 
Kernel

Kernel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,865
Meh they've already tried the stealth route:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_BSAFE

The backdoor was confirmed in the Snowden leaks in 2013, and it was insinuated that NSA had paid RSA Security US$10 million to use Dual_EC_DRBG by default in 2004,though RSA Security denied that they knew about the backdoor in 2004. The Reuters article which revealed the secret $10 million contract to use Dual_EC_DRBG described the deal as "handled by business leaders rather than pure technologists".RSA Security has largely declined to explain their choice to continue using Dual_EC_DRBG even after the defects and potential backdoor were discovered in 2006 and 2007, and has denied knowingly inserting the backdoor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Waging war on encryption is like demanding all paper be indestructible because someone might destroy evidence.
 
ZackieChan

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
Redhead On Moped said:
Sadly, of course it's nothing new, but this event and these words happened today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And they'll be arguing the same for decades and forever.
TheLostBigBoss said:
From the perspective of intelligence agencies it's obvious encryption is a major issue and roadblock to their efforts.

From the perspective of a private citizen I say if you're smart enough to encrypt and protect your devices then "lol fuck you"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basically this. From my perspective, we lose more than we gain by having a backdoor, so I'm pro-encryption. Something something he who gives up liberty for security something something
 
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
BrassDragon said:
By all means, take the IC to task but remember they don't operate in a vacuum. It's the customers driving the obsessive, gluttonous collection efforts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Much of the data collected is done without the consent of the users. Private options that do exist are either expensive or require technical knowledge that makes it inconvenient and impractical.

This is not even mentioning the fact that tech companies collect data on you in ways you cannot avoid and some data collected is necessary just to function at a technical level.
 
FernandoRocker

FernandoRocker

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,987
México
Redhead On Moped said:
On iOS devices, the user must allow permissions, gradual permission for EVERY aspect. Take a shopping app where you can post picture reviews and get savings by linking your health data. Before it can do any of that, the operating system will ask you if you wish to give it location access, camera access, photo access, health data access, etc individually.

And if you DO allow access, you are prompted on conditionals. Do you want allow sharing and accesss only when it is open, or at all times? Any sharing of data is entirely and completely your call and you must have allowed affirmative consent prior. If you download any app and you don't agree with allowing enough consent or don't consent at all, some or all of the app will simply not work and you can harmlessly delete it. You are never compromised for merely installing an app. You are in control from the start, that includes stock apps. First time you boot up camera on a new iPhone for example, it asks you if it can save location data, which you can decline.
e7676908-650e-4e3b-98qjz3.jpeg
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You just explained the permission system of every phone out there. This is not a iOS thing.
 
Falcon511

Falcon511

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,148
Yeah he has said something like this before. Just having a backdoor out there is incredibly dangerous as it is. Imagine if there is, China and Russia would invest so much money to figure out what it is and possibly compromise the personal data on millions of users.

Thats not even taking into account what our own government (USA) collects on us everyday.
 
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,398
I do agree that law enforcement and the courts need a way to get into all communications, if they have a warrant. But they should be kept out of it otherwise.
 
BobLoblaw

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,288
CitizenVectron said:
I do agree that law enforcement and the courts need a way to get into all communications, if they have a warrant. But they should be kept out of it otherwise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This. Imagine police having probable cause to search a child molester's house, but the child molester has a special door where police can't get in despite having a warrant. Phone encryption is the same thing. You're not entitled to absolute privacy. At least according to our Constitution. Now, if cops or law enforcement doesn't have a warrant, then they should fuck off.
 
Cor

Cor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,463
BobLoblaw said:
This. Imagine police having probable cause to search a child molester's house, but the child molester has a special door where police can't get in despite having a warrant. Phone encryption is the same thing. You're not entitled to absolute privacy. At least according to our Constitution. Now, if cops or law enforcement doesn't have a warrant, then they should fuck off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
having information that cannot be coerced outta you isnt the same as being entitled to absolute privacy. That is a false equivalency.
Phone encryption isnt the same as having an inaccessible room.
Comparing encryption to raping kids is a terrible analogy.

Might as well try for a ticking time bomb analogy while youre at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.