DrJBHL DrJBHL

FBI Wants Mandatory Backdoors

▼

FBI Wants Mandatory Backdoors

from JoeUser Forums

 

So, they (choose any set of initials you wish) want to have easy access to all internet communications…hence backdoors in email/chat/messenger apps.

This also means that any encryption firms put in their software must be built in a way that law enforcement has the key to unlock the encryption so they can read your communications.

To be clear: The key would be binary in the sense that the firm has one half, and the other half would be held by the government. At this point I was laughing uncontrollably, because we all know how well the government is geared to guard secrecy and security. So, only by court order could the company’s half (demi?) key be released to the government. We all know how zealously the FISA Court protects our rights…but is seemingly immune to review.

Why this now? Because the government fears companies are strengthening encryption which gives the criminals/spies/terrorists/etc. too much protection and secrecy to plot their dark deeds and avoid the benevolent, watchful eye of those sworn to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). Even granting that might be true most of the time, what about the rest of the time? Anyone remember J. Edgar Hoover and his files? Sorry, I don’t trust the government to keep within legal guidelines nor their own IT security procedures. It’s just too tempting for them to excuse their excesses by, “We’re only doing it to protect you.” That just reminds me too much of: “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

All this follows on the heels of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling about metadata. This is a great way to neutralize the Court’s ruling.

But here’s the thing: Backdoors inherently weaken security. No matter how ‘secure’ that door seems to be, someone will find a way in. Murphy’s Law. Can anyone show an example of unhackable software in a world where idiots don’t isolate classified from unclassified systems? Ask The president’s appointment schedule…hacked by the Russians. Why can’t they understand that simple truth? Maybe because they don’t want to?

Sorry. There are no foolproof solutions…remember the old saw? “Intel inside…idiot outside”.

Just so you know: The president is planning to sign legislation to make these mandatory “backdoors” easier.

 

Source:

https://www.infopackets.com/news/9591/fbi-wants-ban-secure-internet-using-backdoors

127,872 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 21


Quoting starkers,
reply 18

well more Queensland in this case,



Just get out of the 'deep north'....what sun you get there in between storms and floods [that prevents you from having daylight saving cos it fades the blinds and confuses the cows] just pickles your [collective] brain.

In Vic you are 'required' to carry your licence when driving...but if you don't have it you can just show it at your local cop shop within 7 days.

Of course, I can cite the number from memory and they can always look it up with the onboard comp.... but it's no hassle to carry...been doing so for 42 years...;P

Having a photo-ID at hand comes in handy often, anyway.

I've never heard of any GPS-type chip being put on any licence in Oz.  That's pure tinfoil hat territory...;P

Here in Uncle Sam land photo ID and drivers license is the same. No drivers license you need a photo ID issued by the state you live in.  

Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Uvah, reply 26

Here in Uncle Sam land photo ID and drivers license is the same. No drivers license you need a photo ID issued by the state you live in.

Probably should clarify....Australia's Drivers Licences are photo-IDs.... that's why having one with you is always handy.

Can be problematic when your eyesight prevents you from getting a licence.....and it's thus harder to demonstrate who you are....just ask my missus...;)

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 27


Quoting Uvah,
reply 26

Here in Uncle Sam land photo ID and drivers license is the same. No drivers license you need a photo ID issued by the state you live in.



Probably should clarify....Australia's Drivers Licences are photo-IDs.... that's why having one with you is always handy.

Can be problematic when your eyesight prevents you from getting a licence.....and it's thus harder to demonstrate who you are....just ask my missus...;)

Same issue different cause for me.  Being that my legs are pretty much useless when I'm sitting in the drivers seat, and the Dep't of Transport blocked all my attempts for vehicle modifications, I am unable to get a drivers license here in Queensland.  Put bluntly, they're a bunch of bureaucratic pricks... cos the preferred expletive is not acceptable here.

:-"

It just seems that whatever I go in there for, they have a 'reason' to deny it to me... like the 18-Plus photo ID I've been trying to get for years now.  And when I go to my local MP for assistance, his minder at the front desk blocks my path and fobs me off with: "The Law is the law"

I have managed to get a form of photo ID by getting a passport photo attached to a statutory declaration and signed by a lawyer who identified mefrom the very documents the Transport Dep't rejected.... namely my expired passport, which clearly proves who I am, and several other gov't issued documents pertaining to me.  The lawyer pretty much said that the Transport Dep't is a bunch of pricks who are being unnecessarily difficult when I have more than ample proof of who I am.

Anyway, the ID I have is acceptable for the purposes I most need it, and the lawyer believes it should be more than enough to get the 18-Plus card.... and if they reject it this time I am to get them to call him... and he is the sort of bloke to rip 'em a new arsehole if they insist on being contrary.

 

 

Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Motor Reg/Transport Dept/Vicroads etc are just mindless followers of 'rules'....'ve ver only followink orderz'...

I had a run-in with Vicroads regarding vehicular access to a unit development I was doing...on a state-legislated road [not council managed].  They said I could not have a crossing giving access to the site.

Apart from the fact it already had a crossing I asked them 'what is the property title address of the land?'...to which they conceded Ballarat Road was its legal address... so I explained they cannot deny access or amenity to the property as that is governed by the Land/property title and they'd need an act of Govt to alter it.

They gave in....and I got my crossing...;p

Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 29

Motor Reg/Transport Dept/Vicroads etc are just mindless followers of 'rules'....'ve ver only followink orderz'...

I had a run-in with Vicroads regarding vehicular access to a unit development I was doing...on a state-legislated road [not council managed].  They said I could not have a crossing giving access to the site.

Apart from the fact it already had a crossing I asked them 'what is the property title address of the land?'...to which they conceded Ballarat Road was its legal address... so I explained they cannot deny access or amenity to the property as that is governed by the Land/property title and they'd need an act of Govt to alter it.

They gave in....and I got my crossing...;P

Your pricks are obviously not as mindlessly stubborn as our pricks... and some bureaucrat with half a brain [I'm being overly generous here] advised them to approve it. 

:annoyed:

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

A little tip. Buy backup services from Norwegian companies not american ones. Much stronger privacy laws in Scandinavia.