The FBI used to recommend encryption. Now they want to ban it

[Deleted]

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...want-to-ban-it

Quotes:

The FBI wants to make us all less safe. At least that’s the implication from FBI director Jim Comey’s push to ban unbreakable encryption and deliberately weaken everyone’s security. And it’s past time that the White House makes its position clear once and for all.
...
Comey was back before Congress this week - this time in front of the House Appropriations Committee - imploring Congressmen to pass a law that would force tech companies to create a backdoor in any phone or communications tool that uses encryption.

He also revealed the Obama administration may be crafting such a law right now. “One of the things that the administration is working on right now is what would a legislative response look like that would allow us … with court process to get access to that evidence”, he said.

The whole controversy stems from Apple’s decision to encrypt iPhones by default - so that only the user can unlock a phone with a pin or password and even Apple itself does not have the key. It was a huge step forward for security, and given that the US government considers cybersecurity attacks a more dire threat than terrorism, you’d think they’d be encouraging everyone to use more encryption. But Comey essentially argued to Congress that because encryption sometimes makes FBI investigations harder, it should be outlawed.
...
If you want to understand why encryption is important for protecting your data, look no further than the FBI’s own website. Well, at least you could until last week. For years, the FBI recommended people enable encryption on their phone to protect themselves against criminals, but at some point prior to Comey’s testimony, the FBI scrubbed that information from public view. (On 27 March the FBI told the National Journal that the security tips were not intentionally deleted, but “were because of the agency’s ongoing website redesign.”)

In other words, as security expert Jonathan Zdziarski remarked, the FBI “has weakened their recommended standards [and] best practices to intentionally leave you vulnerable to security breaches.” Computer science professor Matt Blaze put it another way: “Basically, the FBI is saying that they think you’re more likely to commit a crime than need to protect yourself against crime.”
...
The White House, for its part, was allegedly supposed to release their official position on the issue already, given the controversy. A White House official recently said: “[Obama] actually said there is no scenario in which the US government does not support strong encryption”. But now Comey is saying they may be drafting a law that states the opposite.

So which is it, do they want to encourage people to protect their security and privacy with technology, or do they want to pass a law to make that illegal?

It is also worth noting that Apple did not just do that for consumers. It is to protect itself from all sources of intrusion and espionage, an enormous risk for the company - see NSA, China and the recent huge Sony hacking scandal.

Other companies are following suite regardless.

[StayTuned]

Id just like to know how much work the FBI and CIA are actually getting done. If they were to disappear tomorrow, would we see aircrafts falling from the sky every minute, and would Berlin dissappear within minutes in an atomic cloud?

[Independent voter]

They are probably targeting encrypted data. If you don't encrypt your message to your sweety about what to have for dinner tonight, they can skip your message, if it is encrypted, they have to waste time opening it.

[Deleted]

Now now, please cut them some slack. the US has about 320.000.000 hidden terrorists within it's borders, this is just to keep them on check.
And remember: your freedoms are only then really safe if they are taken away and securely locked up. It's for your own good!

[Rassium]

I don't see why they want to ban encryption, the NSA already has backdoors built into the most popular algorithms.

[MMKing]

So... does this apply to companies as well? I understand that some companies may receive permits for working with dangerous materials usually restricted otherwise. But i can see no logical reason why companies should be allowed to encrypt their data, while private citizens should not. Which leads to the dangerous implication of even smaller companies moving their computer departments, or if they are renting from a 3rd party, switch provider to outside the country.

As an added benefit to being able to spy on American citizens more effectively, legally you are not obliged to witness against yourself. So if your data is encrypted, you can refuse to open up the files.

[Deleted]

As an added benefit to being able to spy on American citizens more effectively, legally you are not obliged to witness against yourself. So if your data is encrypted, you can refuse to open up the files.

Assuming that's actually still true in practice, I highly doubt that will last long to be honest. Many other developed countries already have laws that require you to disclose keys to encryption or you are facing a crime that can put you away, almost always with a minimum prison sentence.

In this kind of fear-based, anti-terrorism-justified bypass of all laws and rights, none of your long-held values or rights are safe.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Id just like to know how much work the FBI and CIA are actually getting done. If they were to disappear tomorrow, would we see aircrafts falling from the sky every minute, and would Berlin dissappear within minutes in an atomic cloud?

^ They do federal-level investigations of crimes which sounds important on the surface but I'm also curious how bad life would be without them.

but muh terrurists

- - - Updated - - -

Assuming that's actually still true in practice, I highly doubt that will last long to be honest. Many other developed countries already have laws that require you to disclose keys to encryption or you are facing a crime that can put you away, almost always with a minimum prison sentence.

In this kind of fear-based, anti-terrorism-justified bypass of all laws and rights, none of your long-held values or rights are safe.

If it gets bad, we might just need to colonize another island that only applies the "Don't tread on me" approach to life and lets you do everything else.

With all these laws and regulations, the only thing it's protecting is the people in power.

[Drakoes]

Kind of surprising how one person (Edward Snowden) can change... the world and a lot of security processes.

[Marrel]

They are probably targeting encrypted data. If you don't encrypt your message to your sweety about what to have for dinner tonight, they can skip your message, if it is encrypted, they have to waste time opening it.

Cmon, if they are going to spy on my nude pics I at least want them to have to work for it

[StayTuned]

^ They do federal-level investigations of crimes which sounds important on the surface but I'm also curious how bad life would be without them.

but muh terrurists

Never have I heard the argument from the sides of CIA and FBI that they need their surveillance and encryption hacking for domestic reasons. It's always Terrorists. The truth is of course domestic control, but Terrorists sell better.

I fucking shit you not, you are either a Terrorist or a Pedophile if you want to have your data safely encrypted. That's the line of argumentation they use and if you don't agree it's almost as if you committed social suicide.

In somewhat related news, Snowden shows that the CIA has not stopped a single terrorist attack through their mass surveillance. If I am not mistaken at least.