Re What if Responsible Encryption Back-Doors Were Possible?

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: hbaker1 <hbaker1 () pipeline com>
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] What if Responsible Encryption Back-Doors Were Possible?
> Date: November 30, 2018 15:31:51 JST
> To: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>, cryptography () metzdowd com
> Reply-To: hbaker1 <hbaker1 () pipeline com>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
> > Sent: Nov 29, 2018 1:40 PM
> > To: cryptography () metzdowd com
> > Subject: [Cryptography] What if Responsible Encryption Back-Doors Were Possible?
> >
> > On the Lawfare blog, an interesting piece by Josh Benaloah here.
> >
> > https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-responsible-encryption-back-doors-were-possible
> >
> > If you are tempted to respond, please read the whole thing first.  In
> > particular, do not waste everyone's time by replying "but they're not!"
> > We know that.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
>
> I attended this "conference" and all of its sessions.
>
> The whole thing was a setup, IMHO.  I think that they were trying to gather possible arguments against backdoors so 
> that they could be prepared for future discussions with politicians.  They also wanted to tell these politicians that 
> there were *some* in the crypto community that thought we all really should leave our keys under the front door mat.
>
> A group of US ex-intel hangers-on, plus some brits, some aussies, and perhaps a kiwi; more or less the 5i's.  They 
> may also have invited some press.  Some of these folks flew on to Australia to wreak more havoc, as best I can gather.
>
> One result of this wannabe conference can apparently be found in the recent activity in Australia to mandate back 
> doors.  These folks apparently wanted to find one of the 5i govts to pass the first test law requiring these back 
> doors, and Australia must have volunteered.
>
> Magical thinking by all.
>
> BTW, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, no actual crypto people attended this conference, which was merely held at 
> the same *location*, so that some of the prestige of a Crypto Conference would rub off on this sham.
>
> The only reason I knew about this conference was that I ran into one of the participants while parking my car for 
> Crypto, and talked with him while walking over to the main venue.
>
> Apparently, I was the only one there who questioned this whole thing, and I asked about the "C" word (Constitution).  
> I simply said that some of us had pledged to uphold the Constitution, and the reason why *individuals* make such 
> pledges is that they are expected to understand the Constitution well enough to make their own assessment about 
> possible unconstitutional activities and refuse to engage in those activities. Recall that "simply following legal 
> orders" didn't absolve anyone at Nurenburg, so trusting these 5i's to interpret Constitutionality isn't going to be 
> much of a defense, either.
>
> BTW, the "Lawfare" blog is about as close as one can get to "the unclassified (apologist) voice of the Deep State" & 
> I suspect that Ben Wittes would consider this tag line to be high praise!
> _______________________________________________
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography () metzdowd com <mailto:cryptography () metzdowd com>
> http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography <http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20181130015016:2FFE8C40-F46C-11E8-BCD2-AFB6729CDD1C
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com