Proposal bans data centers/ISPs from allowing non-backdoor encryption?

F

flysarescary

New member
Sep 15, 2008
713
17
0
The future is server providers and ISPs banning all non-backdoor encryption and VPNs without a backdoor. They find out you're using Truecrypt or THE non-patched crypto linux libraries they disconnect you and delete your data.

Basically they just proposed to ban all non-backdoor encryption on threat of disconnection from the internet for the offender at this point and probably future criminal violations for circumvention.

Make it a crime with 5-10 years in around 2020 and add the copyright violations part of this and you have yourself some nice criminalized DRM. Nice society

A group of primates came into my house today and told me I cant encrypt things. We came from the jungle.
 


Good afternoon my relations. Today is not such a great day. In the United States the Obama administration is actively seeking a new law to legally mandate the forced introduction of insecure back doors and support for mass surveillance into all communication systems. Specifically targeted are Internet VoIP and messaging systems.

Speaking on behalf of the GNU Telephony project, we do intend to openly defy such a law should it actually come to pass, so I want to be very clear on this statement. It is not simply that we will choose to publicly defy the imposition of such an illegitimate law, but that we will explicitly continue to publicly develop and distribute free software (that is software that offers the freedom to use, inspect, and modify) enabling secure peer-to-peer communication privacy through encryption that is made available directly to anyone worldwide. Clearly such software is especially needed in those places, such as in the United States, where basic human freedoms and dignity seem most threatened.

In the United States the 4th amendment did not come about simply because it was impractical to directly spy on everyone on such a large scale. Nor does it end simply because it may now be technically feasible to do so. Communication privacy furthermore is essential to the normal functioning of free societies, whether speaking of whistle-blowers, journalists who have to protect their sources, human rights and peace activists engaging in legitimate political dissent, workers engaged in union organizing, or lawyers who must protect the confidentiality of their privileged communications with clients.
However, to fully appreciate the effect of such surveillance on human societies, imagine being among several hundred million people who wake up each day having to prove they are not a “terrorist” by whatever arbitrary means the government has decided to both define the terms of such a crime and whatever arbitrary methods unknown to you that they might choose to define you as such, and where even your prosecution is carried out under the immunity of “state secrets” that all police states use to abuse of their own citizens. Such a society is one who’s very foundation is built on the premise of everyone being guilty until proven innocent and where due process does not exist. It is the imposition of such a illegitimate society that we choose to openly oppose, and to do so in this manner.

David Alexander Sugar
Chief Facilitator
GNU Telephony
 
I obviously read the article. What dont you get? They will eventually classify data centers and ISPs as service providers and require that all encryption is compliant. Dont you think? The wording in the legislature probably implies this. Circumventing this by having your own encryption would get you disconnected.

You can see where this is leading to in around 10-20 years.
 
flysarescary said:
I obviously read the article. What dont you get? They will eventually classify data centers and ISPs as service providers and require that all encryption is compliant. Dont you think? The wording in the legislature probably implies this
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

I just read it... It clearly states that they want to make it so communication providers that already fall under the current laws have to make it easier for authorities when a wiretap warrant is issued.

Currently there are companies that provide services (and fall under the current law) and also allow for encryption of their services. Then a wiretap order comes in and the authorities are unable to decrypt the data fast enough (sometimes taking months). This proposal states that they want these current companies to be able to decrypt their own encryption (some companies can't do this at all) or do it faster.

Basically, wiretap orders come in, the feds then do the wiretap and all they get is encrypted data. Then it takes them a long time (sometimes months and sometimes never) to simply decrypt the data that they were trying to get. In short, they are behind the times.

Now if you think wiretaps are bullshit in the first place (and I do), that's one thing. But screaming that the sky is falling because of this is a totally different thing all together.
 
Internet service providers will be subject to this and be forced to ban all non compliant encrypted traffic. For encryption from third parties they will provide compliant executables or APIs. If you circumvent, say bye bye to your civil right of internet access. Just wait a little. Right about when they spend a few trillions dollars on pointless domestic drones and grenade launchers for the cops

Is there anything that makes it more obvious that there is only one party.

Say hello to the global war on encryption. How many years in prison will be served?

I believed, and continue to believe, that the arguments against widely available cryptography, while certainly advanced by people of good will, did not hold up against the cold light of reason and were inconsistent with the most basic American values.

Matt Blaze
​
 
subigo;1007054 Basically said:
Isn't this the point of encryption? Allowing a backdoor defeats the purpose, and also creates a new security hole for 3rd parties to potentially hijack. There's no longer a purpose to encryption with this.
Click to expand...
 
flysarescary said:
Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws

When you elect a bunch of incompetent jungle dwelling primates to run your government they will fuck your soul in the ass all day
Click to expand...

That's from 2001...

And it's lovely that you guys are getting your panties in a bunch over this... but do you really think you're not being spied on already? Come on.... this is just a legal front-end update for something that is already legal. It's already been proven that the Government uses warrantless surveillance. So the tipping point was reached long ago... start worrying about that instead of these meaningless proposals.
 
papajohn56 said:
Isn't this the point of encryption? Allowing a backdoor defeats the purpose, and also creates a new security hole for 3rd parties to potentially hijack. There's no longer a purpose to encryption with this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is totally the point of encryption. But that doesn't change the fact that it's already the law for most companies to have some means of decrypting what they encrypt.

There will always be a third-party out there somewhere who provides real encryption if you need it. Passing new laws will stop that as much as it has stopped downloads of mp3's and movies.
 
another pointless move - just like the online gambling ban.

Basically all this does is move encryption providers away from the US. "criminals" will continue to encrypt their data and communication with open source software like GnuPG.
 
How are you supposed to provide a door for p2p traffic anyways? If it's truly p2p? Then it means such services are no longer gonna be p2p, and will have to pass traffic thru a centralized server.
 
NVM FOR THE MOST PART GUYS

Check this out:

http://www.askcalea.net/calea/103.html

(3) ENCRYPTION- A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

The current moves by the administration are to make sure that services are capable of providing data to gov, which is kind of a bitch for start ups but whatever. It's not a violation of speech atleast.
 
moltar said:
How are you supposed to provide a door for p2p traffic anyways? If it's truly p2p? Then it means such services are no longer gonna be p2p, and will have to pass traffic thru a centralized server.
Click to expand...

p2p isn't just systems with no central infrastructure.. Services like Skype, VOIP, AIM, etc... are all p2p as well, they just use a centralized server-based service model, which is what this proposal would most likely target.
 
I wonder how much this will affect RIM/Blackberry who already has a history of being too 'encrypted' because they don't allow some kind of backdoor to the governments of the regions they operate within. (least til recently when they started giving into specific demands of say United Arabs Emirates etc. they may end up having to do the same for the US)

Far as needing a backdoor for encryption, its as someone else said that would defeat the purpose and potentially create a major security hole since I wouldn't trust the government nor ISP to keep that information under wraps, at that point why even bother.

Far as someone mentioning truecrypt... thats drive encryption not communication encryption.

Now I'm hoping of course if it does pass it only applies to encryption provided by the internet service or traffic providers, as it would be utterly ridiculous to have my ISP or hosting provider shut down a server or my connection just because I didn't provide a backdoor to some SSL/SSH communication.
 
kblessinggr said:
I wonder how much this will affect RIM/Blackberry who already has a history of being too 'encrypted' because they don't allow some kind of backdoor to the governments of the regions they operate within. (least til recently when they started giving into specific demands of say United Arabs Emirates etc. they may end up having to do the same for the US)

Far as needing a backdoor for encryption, its as someone else said that would defeat the purpose and potentially create a major security hole since I wouldn't trust the government nor ISP to keep that information under wraps, at that point why even bother.

Far as someone mentioning truecrypt... thats drive encryption not communication encryption.

Now I'm hoping of course if it does pass it only applies to encryption provided by the internet service or traffic providers, as it would be utterly ridiculous to have my ISP or hosting provider shut down a server or my connection just because I didn't provide a backdoor to some SSL/SSH communication.
Click to expand...


Why would it be completely ridiculous? That's the end goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom