Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'

VictorTango777 said:
US government once classified strong encryption algorithms as munitions. Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from an oppressive government and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Anyone who supports Second Amendment should also support the people's right to strong encryption.
Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Oh, the many convenient ways this is interpreted.

Most supporters have not fired, or even held, a gun under qualified supervised training conditions; almost as much as driving a car!

(Well trained here)
 
Last edited:
mozumder said:
Even privacy advocates recognize that strong encryption is completely dangerous to society.
Click to expand...
Criminals will use any encryption that they can get their hands on and that encryption doesn't need to be supplied by big companies.
Unless you have a way to break all encryption, hamstringing encryption only affects law abiding citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NT1440 and Heineken
WatchFromAfar said:
Actually the Government can't ban encryption per se but they can pass laws saying you can't encrypt on other companies networks/platforms as you don't own them.

You want to create an encryption service used by you and your friends? You absolutly have the right and will always do so. You want encrypted stuff stored on another companies "cloud" servers or devices? well you agreed to that companies T&Cs and they have to abide by the law no-matter what you think, in-fact you have no rights and are beholden to your company of choice.

BTW "cloud" is just a term for "someone else's computer"; doesn't sound so secure now does it?
Click to expand...
So all we need is a company that has encryption in their t&c and we are good to go. For example apple.
 
Sorry FBI, but you've lost all credibility. You've got a long road ahead to earn back any trust, then maybe you can begin to have a conversation about encryption - one that starts with privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoctorTech and bigchief
This is not very different from saying:
"We are afraid smugglers are hiding a bag of cocaine in a house somewhere. Everyone should build transparent glass homes to stay safe!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPandian1 and NT1440
Waiting for the FBI to propose a law that requires everybody to superglue a go-pro camera to their foreheads for 24/7 surveillance.
 
dilbert99 said:
Criminals will use any encryption that they can get their hands on and that encryption doesn't need to be supplied by big companies.
Unless you have a way to break all encryption, hamstringing encryption only affects law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

And this is the biggest problem right here.

Encryption isn't manufactured, or something in finite supply, it is applied mathematics. And that math is documented and public. With how sophisticated computer crime is getting, it isn't a stretch to assume that someone will either offer encrypted communication tools over the black market, or get hired by an organization to produce them. I suspect it's already a real thing (although those on the cheap just flock to services like Telegram).

Really, the only "benefit" this would have is to make it easier to convict people dumb enough to use the compromised devices/software in the first place, which is admittedly more than you'd think. But is that worth the cost for the many law abiding citizens whose privacy exists only so long as the backdoor itself isn't compromised?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dilbert99
wayneholbrook said:
and there are other ways of collecting information than cracking encryption or using backdoors?

Really? What? Failed to mention one
Click to expand...

Solving crimes is the job of law enforcement. It is not easy. Just because you claim to have nothing to hide should not mean you should not be able to do so. If it has even the remote chance for abuse, it will be.
 
WatchFromAfar said:
Actually the Government can't ban encryption per se but they can pass laws saying you can't encrypt on other companies networks/platforms as you don't own them.

You want to create an encryption service used by you and your friends? You absolutly have the right and will always do so. You want encrypted stuff stored on another companies "cloud" servers or devices? well you agreed to that companies T&Cs and they have to abide by the law no-matter what you think, in-fact you have no rights and are beholden to your company of choice.

BTW "cloud" is just a term for "someone else's computer"; doesn't sound so secure now does it?
Click to expand...
What? I read your entire post 3 times already and there is still no sense of coherence... Would you mind rephrasing it?
 
MacRumors said:



christopherwrayfbi-250x250.jpg
Encryption should not provide an "unfettered space" for criminals to hide behind, FBI Director Christopher Wray said today in an interview at the RSA conference, a cybersecurity event in San Francisco.

As noted by CNET, Wray said that while the FBI is not seeking backdoors in electronics, encryption needs to have limitations.

"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 and other technology companies have been clashing with law enforcement agencies like the FBI and fighting anti-encryption legislation for years now. Apple's most public battle with the U.S. government was in 2016, when the Cupertino company was ordered to help the FBI unlock the iPhone used by Syed Farook, a shooter in the 2015 attacks in San Bernardino.

Apple opposed the order and said that it would set a "dangerous precedent" with serious implications for the future of smartphone encryption. Apple held its ground and the U.S. government backed off after finding an alternate way to access the data on the device, but 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.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: FBI Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'
Click to expand...
[doublepost=1551911161][/doublepost]So what he is saying is that you can have passwords to your own personal files. But the passwords can only be 4 characters long and must be a numerical pin number; no letters or symbols. That way it isn't too hard for law enforcement to crack. Also it will help if you will use your birthday as that code.

I can buy that.
 
AustinIllini said:
You can't unmake a back door into a decrypted system.

Putting a back door into Apple encryption destroys it.
[doublepost=1551839059][/doublepost]
Why should the government have absolute access to every user's communications? Is nothing private?
Click to expand...

KPandian1 said:
To achieve this target 100% like you suggest, you will have zero privacy. That is the beast of this argument - banking and investment of any kind, identity, love letters, children's whereabout, home security, automobile control, mass transportation safety such as Air and Rail travelers. will be available to anyone to "indulge". Are you game for this scenario?

I am not accepting such terms.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they have to have warrants and a reason to search.
Nothing is 100% safe online and phones are no different.
This has to be done for security. Nothing is perfect
 
Raid said:
The import was also illegal, back in the late 90's the DES encryption standard was on the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) list... and classified as a 'munition'. Though I suspect that's not much of a worry now.
Click to expand...

Import wasn't ever illegal, but export was. This is what led to Bernstein v. US, which was well on its way in the direction of a SCOTUS decision that computer code was the equivalent of speech in the first amendment sense before the Clinton justice department hurriedly mooted the case.

The current fracas between New Jersey and Defense Distributed may yet prove to be the avenue by which that is decided. And if code is indeed speech, then all of the huffing and puffing from the FBI won't be able to blow the crypto wall down.
 
steve333 said:
I'm assuming they have to have warrants and a reason to search.
Nothing is 100% safe online and phones are no different.
This has to be done for security. Nothing is perfect
Click to expand...
"Nothing is 100% safe online"

...so the solution is to unlock everyone's phones?

Forget that. No back doors. Use triangulation, cloud services, and other things to stop criminals. iMessage should stay encrypted.
 
steve333 said:
I'm assuming they have to have warrants and a reason to search.
Nothing is 100% safe online and phones are no different.
This has to be done for security. Nothing is perfect
Click to expand...
Thats' almost a bit like saying lets make everyone leave the doors unlocked.

Those that don't understand encryption even at a high level will always say we need a way to get through the encryption.
what would you propose to satisfy the requests of governments?
 
Heineken said:
So all we need is a company that has encryption in their t&c and we are good to go. For example apple.
Click to expand...
Also in every T&C ever written is the line "subject to change" and you have no legal recourse if they pull the trigger on that term.
 
BUT the FBI Director never says anything about privacy and encryption.. only catching the "Bad guys"

How about that ? They only relate to 'one side of the table' .

Sometimes i wonder how FAR they can actually see.

AustinIllini said:
"Nothing is 100% safe online"

...so the solution is to unlock everyone's phones?

Forget that. No back doors. Use triangulation, cloud services, and other things to stop criminals. iMessage should stay encrypted.
Click to expand...

No,, the solution would be to start trusting the government... That's IF they could be trusted, which they can't

So, i don't see how this can be resolved. I don't even trust my friends with encrypted passwords.

If governments/FBI only used it for what they said they wanted it for, we would probably trust them more.. but we know they lie... as they have done in the past.

You dont't get any second chances. (Heck, you don't even get a 1st chance with me)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back