News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors. Parent comment

Re:Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors by quaunaut on Friday October 09, 2015 @04:09PM (#10362954)
You think this stuff is just anti-terrorism? The whole reason I even MENTIONED the idea of a warrant is specifically for normal policework. It's the same as searching someone's house after a murder's taken place- just now, instead of reading their files, it's all in a secure place in their computer.

Having a reasonable way to read that stuff(WITHOUT USING A BACKDOOR. I don't want weaker crypto just for this- but businesses hosting this stuff always have their proprietary ways of handling things) is just a continuation of previous law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors by sloppycee on Friday October 09, 2015 @05:43PM (#10363447)
Why is it considered different from a physical safe? The government already has the ability and laws to compel citizens to provide access, why should it be any different with encryption?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors by cvwright on Friday October 09, 2015 @06:40PM (#10363669)
It shouldn't be any different. In fact there have been court cases in which individuals have been compelled to provide decryption keys for encrypted disks.

The difference here is that the government wants vastly more access in the digital world than they have in the analog world. It's like asking all safe makers to include a secret combination, unknown to the safe's owner, that can also be used to unlock the safe.

[ Parent | on HN ]