Tech goliaths stand firm against demands for weaker encryption after Paris terror attacks Tech giants claim they are standing firm in their refusal to allow government agencies to backdoor their cryptography – or to weaken encryption in their products. The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), which bills itself as the "global voice of the tech sector" and contains such giants as Apple, Google, and …
> If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents – whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airline – that is a big problem.
What a f*cking moron.
Why are these people running our countries?
In what way, exactly, does strong encryption allow people to behead children? In what way does weak encryption prevent it?
The logical disconnect between the ears of these people beggars belief.
>If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to >strike innocents – whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an >airline – that is a big problem.
That could equally apply to every single gun, bomb, drone and nuclear warhead the US ever produced.
Maybe if we just banned all weapons, then the bad guys wouldn't be able to use them against us?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 'merkins have an extremely vocal redneck contingent defending their constitutional right to bear arms in case the old English Queen should decide to invade. Why single out encryption? Guns are the real problem.
Rather than banning weapons, how about the US stop funding and selling said weapons to radical militant groups in foreign parts to act as their proxy in directing the world to a place where we are all effectively slaves? That would be a good place to start re-building confidence.
"Why are these people running our countries?"
Because the average voter doesn't understand / couldn't care less who represents him / her?
Most voters seem to vote for the party affiliation rather than the expressed political views of their candidates. Few bother to check what their political representatives get up to, unless it's some sordid sexual misadventure, or financial chicanery.
It's Friday, I have a report to finish and I'm in a grumpy old git mood. I also need alcohol.
Unfortunately, she's not being a moron. She's actually being very clever. By using such sickening language she's getting the general public who listen to her (most of whom aren't as cognisant of the fact that encryption is the cornerstone of the modern commercial internet and that they almost certainly use encryption themselves on a daily basis) to think with their hearts instead of their brains. She's also implanting a narrative in their heads that encryption is somehow inherently evil and immoral and something that only bad people would ever dream of using.
And the real tragedy is that it's working.
Just look at a typical comments section on the Daily Mail related to security, hacking, encryption etc and you'll find at least a third of the commenters are repeating the hold "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" canard, completely ignorant of how much of their own personal data needs to be protected from prying eyes for their own good.
Any politician who sinks to the level of exploiting these tragic events to justify eroding civil liberties is every bit as vile as the terrorists they claim to oppose.
The world these megalomaniac bastards want to create is exactly what the terrorists want them to create. So there is no ethical difference between a terrorist and a politician who exploits terrorist acts to create a culture of fear.
The matter has been settled effectively for years, except in those countries that regulate the types of encryption that their citizens may use and perhaps the conditions under which they may use them. If additional governments similarly constrain the type and use of encryption it will, at the most, give them one more tool to use to prosecute criminals, and occasionally their law abiding citizens. Criminals engaged in activities with punishments more severe than that for unauthorized encryption will rationally choose to encrypt as they see fit. The authorities will be further behind than now owing to being distracted by the casual or principled violators of the encryption regulations who are not otherwise criminals. The whole exercise is pointless and wasteful.
This keeps returning because politicians are usually too stupid or lazy to pay attention to history or science.
Could you imagine what it would be like to live in a world where politicians did pay attention to history and science? They might be paying attention to accounting math too, and wouldn't lose 2,000 data centers under the couch. No, they just might make 1984 look like a children's primer.
ukgov: I say old chap, we can't understand what your user is up to, have a look at this plz.
apple: we can't decrypt the message, no have the key, soz
ukgov: [proffers cup of tea and a bun] kindly ensure yr product keeps a record of the users key.
apple: we'll pass on that, ta.
ukgov: we're going to publish your browsing history and put you in s holdall in a bath next to a wardrobe of women's clothes..
apple: OK OK, but don't tell anyone
and what kind of threat is that? if every one knows in the panoptican what we are all doing such things cease to be threats - given austerity there won't even be enough jails to stick the non-cpmpliant
mines the green stapless bias cut chiffon number with silver accents - the wife forgot she had it
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
