Just as law enforcement can pursue a number of different alternatives to mandating encryption backdoors, so too can privacy advocates take steps beyond encrypting their data to ensure their privacy.
Latest in going dark
The public debate over encryption and Going Dark insufficiently addresses the issue of child sexual exploitation.
In a recently released Brookings policy brief, I reccomend the next administration take an approach to “Going Dark” that strategically embraces lawful hacking as a possible alternative to legislation mandates.
The technology and investigative process around lawful hacking and vulnerabilities equities is not yet ripe for broad frameworks.
Civil society, law enforcement, the technology industry, economists, cryptographers, and other experts must reason through competing interests to arrive at a Going Dark solution that protects encryption, the digital economy, and the security of all Americans.
Susan Landau’s post suggesting agreement rather than disagreement between the Don’t Panic report and the
ODNI's letter seems to be more about a presumption of the report's content was than what was actually present. More critically, ODNI's response does not address the crucial issue in the encryption debate: is widespread use of secure—non backdoored, frontdoored, exceptional access—encryption technologies in our national-security interest?
We’ve distilled some of the general problems associated with exceptional access systems into a short list of warning signs to look out for in any new proposal.
The FBI is going dark, but the cause is not encryption; it is the Bureau's approach to investigations involving encryption and other types of anonymizing tools.
Today at 10 am, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing entitled "Deciphering the Debate Over Encryption: Industry and Law Enforcement Perspectives."