Obama On Encryption - Bad If He Can't Read Your Messages

[LAwLz]

 
Obama has publicly declared that he thinks encryption is a good thing, but only if the US government has a backdoor so they can read your messages.
This is similar to the statement David Cameron made earlier this week when he said he wanted to ban encrypted messaging services such as iMessage, Whatsapp and Snapchat for not allowing the government to read private messages.
 

If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem.

Said Obama in an interview. He went on to say that he believes the Silicon Valley tech companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft and so on) will agree with him because "they're patriots".

 

Obama said that while he agrees that there must be a way to keep digital information private, there must also be laws that if a court grants them the permission to wiretap someone then they have to be able to do so. Right now companies have no obligation to decrypt the information, or give the government a way to decrypt it.

The Wall Street Journal says that this is similar to a law the Clinton administration fought for during the 1990s, but lost.

 

 

Personal opinion:

I think this is a very bad idea. Even if he means well (although I think it's bullshit that you can fight terrorists by decrypting let's say snapchat messages), the inclusion of a backdoor undermines the entire concept of encryption. It's essentially like saying "yes you are allowed to lock the front door, but the backdoor has to be unlocked at all time in case we need to enter". As soon as someone finds out about the backdoor ti will be exploited and the consequences can be devastating.

 

 

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Source: Android Police

[ZestyJalapeno]

Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple can all read my messages already anyway. I could care less if the US Gov. (or in my case the UK Gov.) could too.

[Altecice]

Thats not what he said, this title is misleading to say the least. Quote the full paragraph.

[Dietrichw]

nice misinformation. He is saying that encryption is important but tech companies still need to follow court orders. He isn't saying that the Government should have access whenever it feels like it. He is treating this like your home. The U.S Government cannot walk into your home whenever they want to, they must get a court order to enter your home without permission.

[alexyy]

Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple can all read my messages already anyway. I could care less if the US Gov. (or in my case the UK Gov.) could too.

 

Have fun trying to use paypal without encryption 

[Sidiox]

I will agree with him on this, if there is firm evidence against someone, and I mean really firm evidence, not just a "oh he might be it, or not" then yes having access to his communication is important.

 

However a backdoor in any encryption for mass global surveillance is not something I agree with at all. 

 

The problem however is that if there is such a backdoor then they might do that mass surveillance, I don't think we can trust them with such access

[Jobbe03]

I mean... that's kinda bullshit. Either he's for it or not. 

"Oh yeah encryption is great, it just can't affect us..."

 

Say what you actually mean instead of trying to tip toe your way around the problem

[Kobrastachka]

nice misinformation. He is saying that encryption is important but tech companies still need to follow court orders. He isn't saying that the Government should have access whenever it feels like it.

If the government dont want access when ever they want, Why are the NSA building data storage centers to store are info.

[WelshDdraig]

All the tech giants already can read our messages if they want to. But they can't really do anything to use because to them, we are just customers to them, all they could really do is stop us using their services. But the governments? They will over abuse that power, oh wait, I know what this resulted in, The NSA and GCHQ that we know of today. History will repeat itself until it gets it right. We are going to be here for a long time.

 

Edit: Just saw someone calling this thread misleading, if it is, ignore my post and kindly don't flame at me.

[Dietrichw]

If the government dont want access when ever they want, Why are the NSA building data storage centers to store are info.

because the NSA isn't directly under his control, he can only influence the NSA. He is treating technology like your house. The Government must get a judge to approve access to your property without your consent, it has been that way since the beginning of the constitution.

[LAwLz]

nice misinformation. He is saying that encryption is important but tech companies still need to follow court orders. He isn't saying that the Government should have access whenever it feels like it. He is treating this like your home. The U.S Government cannot walk into your home whenever they want to, they must get a court order to enter your home without permission.

It is not misinformation. Read the post:

Obama said that while he agrees that there must be a way to keep digital information private, there must also be laws that if a court grants them the permission to wiretap someone then they have to be able to do so.

 

Right now there is no such law. Right now tech companies are following the court orders. Obama wants to change what court orders will be given. I have added a bit of extra info to clarify this.

[ilikemacandpc]

We weren;t arguing about wiretapping WITH court permission, we were agruing about wiretapping WITHOUT court permission, which is what the NSA has been doing for years. 

 

If a court and a jury of the people say that certain of your rights can be stripped, so be it. But I would like to have privacy if I am a regular, non crime committing or attempting to commit crimes citizen. 

[Poohy14]

"Obama has publicly declared that he thinks encryption is a good thing, but only if the US government has a backdoor so they can read your messages."

So what is the point of encryption then if it's crack able??

[Dietrichw]

It is not misinformation. Read the post:

 

Right now there is no such law. Right now tech companies are following the court orders. Obama wants to change what court orders will be given.

"there must also be laws saying that if a court grants them the permission to wiretap someone then they have to be able to do it." this means if a court approves a government order to wiretap or get information then they must do it. This is not a Backdoor. He is not asking for a backdoor. If police show up at your house in the U.S with a court order then you have to let them in, if police (government) show up at a tech company with a court order for information or access for certain information then they must comply. 

[Thorium19]

Having heard camerons comment earlier in the week, I can understand the necessity to have access, as if they believe you are a potential suspect of terrorist activities, then yes they need to know what you are saying over private networks so they can avoid a major incident.

However, As much as I don't mind that they need access to this data, not knowing if my messages are being read by some NSA or GCHQ flunkey is what annoys me. If you were informed of your data being searched due to suspicion, then I'm perfectly fine with it, as then to me it appears more like they have a warrant to search my property. If the police have a warrant you can't turn them away. If you're told your encrypted data is being searched by the NSA or GCHQ, you can't stop them, but at least you know it's being searched anyway.

[Victorious Secret]

"there must also be laws saying that if a court grants them the permission to wiretap someone then they have to be able to do it." this means if a court approves a government order to wiretap or get information then they must do it. This is not a Backdoor. He is not asking for a backdoor. If police show up at your house in the U.S with a court order then you have to let them in, if police (government) show up at a tech company with a court order for information or access for certain information then they must comply. 

 

OP was a tad sensationalist about this, cause Obama was not saying what he claims he was saying AT ALL.  

 

The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.

 

 

Straight from WSJ, he isn't demanding open backdoors for all. And lets be perfectly honest, do you think the Government really needs a backdoor to access anything? These are the guys who have agencies that make people disappear and reappear 2 years later in GitMo, the laws are there for the public facing operations. Black ops couldn't give less of a shit about what the laws about privacy are. 

He is being fairly reasonable. Keep your privacy, but if the COURTS declare a need to get at the information, that the relevant agencies and personnel are able to. 

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

"there must also be laws saying that if a court grants them the permission to wiretap someone then they have to be able to do it." this means if a court approves a government order to wiretap or get information then they must do it. This is not a Backdoor. He is not asking for a backdoor. If police show up at your house in the U.S with a court order then you have to let them in, if police (government) show up at a tech company with a court order for information or access for certain information then they must comply.

Yes, but if the data is encrypted end to end, then the company itself has no access to the data, which means that they wouldn't be able to comply, unless they have a backdoor which allows them to read the encrypted data.

[Victorious Secret]

Yes, but if the data is encrypted end to end, then the company itself has no access to the data, which means that they wouldn't be able to comply, unless they have a backdoor which allows them to read the encrypted data.

 

Don't think that "end to end" encryption means they can't still decrypt it. They can, they just flat out won't without a court order. I covered this a few months ago, many tech companies had taken this stance. The information is static to them, and they won't even try to tune the signal without a federal warranty telling them they need to. 

[Trik'Stari]

[LAwLz]

OP was a tad sensationalist about this, cause Obama was not saying what he claims he was saying AT ALL.

Straight from WSJ, he isn't demanding open backdoors for all. And lets be perfectly honest, do you think the Government really needs a backdoor to access anything? These are the guys who have agencies that make people disappear and reappear 2 years later in GitMo, the laws are there for the public facing operations. Black ops couldn't give less of a shit about what the laws about privacy are.

He is being fairly reasonable. Keep your privacy, but if the COURTS declare a need to get at the information, that the relevant agencies and personnel are able to.

I don't think I was sensationalistic the slightest. The problem here seems to be that people don't know the definition of a backdoor. A backdoor is any hidden method of bypassing a security mechanic (such as encryption). Being able to decrypt messages without the knowledge if the users is a prime example of a backdoor, and that is exactly what Obama says he wants. He wants a law that demands that companies implement backdoors into their systems so that if the government gets a warrant they will be able to decrypt messages.

 

 

 

Don't think that "end to end" encryption means they can't still decrypt it. They can, they just flat out won't without a court order. I covered this a few months ago, many tech companies had taken this stance. The information is static to them, and they won't even try to tune the signal without a federal warranty telling them they need to. 

If a company like Apple or Google has ways of accessing encrypted information then they are using a backdoor. This is not just about messaging services either. This is also about things like full disk encryption which Apple, Microsoft and Google all claim that their implementations of have no backdoors. In the case of Google we can also verify this because the source code is open source.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

Don't think that "end to end" encryption means they can't still decrypt it. They can, they just flat out won't without a court order. I covered this a few months ago, many tech companies had taken this stance. The information is static to them, and they won't even try to tune the signal without a federal warranty telling them they need to.

If they can decrypt end to end encryption, that encryption must have a backdoor. The meaning of "end to end" is that it gets encrypted on the device from which the message is sent and decrypted on the device where the message is being sent to. It doesn't get decrypted on the servers. If it is possible to decrypt it anywhere between the two devices, the decryption method is either insecure or has a backdoor in it.

Also, a lot of the larger companies are sharing information with the NSA without a court order.

[LAwLz]

If they can decrypt end to end encryption, that encryption must have a backdoor. The meaning of "end to end" is that it gets encrypted on the device from which the message is sent and decrypted on the device where the message is being sent to. It doesn't get decrypted on the servers. If it is possible to decrypt it anywhere between the two devices, the decryption method is either insecure or has a backdoor in it.

Also, a lot of the larger companies are sharing information with the NSA without a court order.

Exactly.

A backdoor is not just something a third party has access to. If Microsoft are able to decrypt a Bitlocker partition then the method they use to decrypt it is called a backdoor.

[Gr0egercesg]

Still a unanimous vote in favour of no, LTT should become congress.

[Victorious Secret]

Still a unanimous vote in favour of no, LTT should become congress.

 

It would be even more useless and slow than the current Congress, because being in Congress has nothing to do with knowledge and more to do with power and using that power. This forum is comprised of people who have no idea what real power is and what it actually takes to push things through the bureaucratic hell known as the US Federal Government. 

[Trik'Stari]

Still a unanimous vote in favour of no, LTT should become congress.

Maybe the part of congress that oversees the internet perhaps.