Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 03:10 AM Dec 2015

FBI Unable to Access Messages Sent by Gunman Before Garland Prophet Muhammad Shooting

Source: NBC News

FBI Director James Comey says investigators are still unable to access more than 100 messages exchanged by one of the gunmen in last May's shooting outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland.

--clip
"That morning before one of those terrorists left to try and commit mass murder he exchanged 109 messages with an overseas terrorist. We have no idea what he said because those messages were encrypted," said Comey.

Those encrypted messages were exchanged on what's called the "dark web" and have become a major roadblock for the FBI as the agency works to track terrorists.

--clip
On Wednesday, Comey said the Garland attack messages prove this issue must be fixed.

Read more: http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/FBI-Investigators--361256341.html



hmmm, how do they know there are "100 messages" then?

Also see: Feinstein Vows To Offer Bill To Pierce Encryption

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141284971
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Hyper_Eye

(675 posts)
2. How do they propose to enforce such a law anyway?
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 03:35 AM
Dec 2015

Are they going to somehow erase all of the existing open-source encryption code and algorithms? It's too late to kill encryption! All it will do is place a huge burden on American businesses that have to make their systems compliant. It's a really stupid idea and it solves absolutely nothing.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
3. All they need are the keys.
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 03:41 AM
Dec 2015
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT
STOA

DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND RISK OF ABUSE OF ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Vol 5/5
The perception of economic risks arising from the potential vulnerability of electronic commercial media to interception

Working document for the STOA Panel

Luxembourg, October 1999 PE 168.184/Vol 5/5

From 1994 onwards, Washington began to woo private companies to develop an encryption system that would provide access to keys by government agencies. Under the proposals - variously known as `key escrow', `key recovery' or `trusted third parties' - the keys would be held by a corporation, not a government agency, and would be designed by the private sector, not the NSA. The systems, however, still entailed the assumption of guaranteed access to the intelligence community and so proved as controversial as the Clipper Chip. The government used export incentives to encourage companies to adopt key escrow products: they could export stronger encryption, but only if they ensured that intelligence agencies had access to the keys.

Under US law, computer software and hardware cannot be exported if it contains encryption that the NSA cannot break. The regulations stymie the availability of encryption in the USA because companies are reluctant to develop two separate product lines - one, with strong encryption, for domestic use and another, with weak encryption, for the international market. Several cases are pending in the US courts on the constitutionality of export controls; a federal court recently ruled that they violate free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The FBI has not let up on efforts to ban products on which it cannot eavesdrop. In mid-1997, it introduced legislation to mandate that key-recovery systems be built into all computer systems. The amendment was adopted by several congressional Committees but the Senate preferred a weaker variant. A concerted campaign by computer, telephone and privacy groups finally stopped the proposal; it now appears that no legislation will be enacted in the current Congress.

While the key escrow approach was being pushed in the USA, Washington had approached foreign organisations and states. The lynchpin for the campaign was David Aaron, US ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who visited dozens of countries in what one analyst derided as a programme of `laundering failed US policy through international bodies to give it greater acceptance'.

ret5hd

(20,502 posts)
6. The existing open source encryption available to everyone in the world (PGP, etc)...
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 07:50 AM
Dec 2015

is strong and does not require key escrow.

It's too late. Until true quantum computing is a reality the people of the world have what is essentially unbreakable encryption.

unc70

(6,115 posts)
10. Quantum Computer announced by Google
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 08:24 AM
Dec 2015

Google just announced a working quantum computer. (Yesterday?)

Can only guess the status of the NSA projects; they will not be announced publicly for as long as possible. Being able to break PGP will be guarded like the work of Bletchley Park during WWII.

Remember PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy.

Oneironaut

(5,509 posts)
8. Why would terrorists use Government approved encryption?
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 07:53 AM
Dec 2015

They're already breaking the law. Why would they care?

That's like saying, "If we made Japan's radio code words illegal during WWII, they would have had to use normal words that we could understand." All that this would accomplish is giving the U.S. government access to business-made software that terrorists probably wouldn't even use.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
12. Your last sentence is the answer.
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:08 PM
Dec 2015

This isn't about protecting people from terrorism. This is about economic/political sabotage, and monitoring/managing public opinion.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
4. If there is an attack : "See, we need to read all of your stuff". If there isn't an attack : "See,
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 06:35 AM
Dec 2015

that's because we read all of your stuff".

They have lost all credibility. I am sick of listening to these assholes who say anything to protect their taxpayer funded empire.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
5. The encryption hides the content
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 06:40 AM
Dec 2015

The encryption hides the content of the data, not the number of messages sent.

cstanleytech

(26,303 posts)
9. Let me guess they want to "fix" it in a way that would probably actually end up weakening it
Thu Dec 10, 2015, 08:23 AM
Dec 2015

to the point that its utterly useless to protect a persons privacy..............brilliant!!!!

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»FBI Unable to Access Mess...