As Law To Backdoor Encryption Stalls, Congress Tries Backup Stupid Plan To Backdoor Encryption

from the bad-ideas-all-around dept

McCaul said the group would be given “a tight time frame” to develop “recommendations to the Congress as to what can be done to solve this urgent, and I think very challenging threat to our national security.”

Chairman McCaul on "going dark": "It’s ironic that Edward @Snowden really sort of created all this when he started using encryption." — Kaveh Waddell (@kavehewaddell) January 19, 2016 Other things Chairman McCaul thinks I created: famine, climate change, bieber. https://t.co/eJ8JWyDy1K — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 19, 2016

everyone significantly less safe

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Late last year, Senator Richard Burr, who is painfully wrong on encryption , announced that he and Senator Dianne Feinstein were working on new legislation that wouldbackdoors to encryption. Most people recognized that such a bill had little-to-no chance of actually passing Congress, as there are at least enough folks up on Capitol Hill who realize that such a law is incredibly stupid. Given that, it's little surprise that reporter Jenna McLaughlin from The Intercept is reporting that such legislation "has been delayed." But, fear not, foes of strong encryption, because there's always a plan B. Late last year, wenoted that Rep. Michael McCaul, the head of the House Homeland Security Committee, was going to propose legislation that would create a "commission" bringing tech companies and law enforcement together to work on a way to undermine encryption. While, at the very least, he noted concerns about backdooring encryption (and later noted how backdoors could weaken everyone's security ), it hasn't stopped him from moving forward with this commission, and making some fairly ridiculously ignorant statements about all of this.McCaul, together with Senator Mark Warner (whoknow better), has announced that they're moving forward with legislation to set up this commission , and still ridiculously claims that "going dark" is a real problem that needs to be "solved."But, as if to underline how little McCaul really seems to understand about the issue, during a press conference about this, he claimed that the "going dark debate" was started by Ed Snowden's use of encryption, leading to a rather sarcastic reply from Snowden himself:It's troubling that the guy who thinks Snowden started the debate on going dark is now apparently going to lead this commission to deal with the "problem" of going dark. Nor is the whole "tight timeline" particularly encouraging. Because the whole thing is based on a false premise that if we just "get smart people in the room," they'll figure out "a solution."But how many times does it need to be said before law enforcement and politicians understand the rather basic facts:. There is no way to build technology that says "only the pure of heart may use this technology, while ISIS may not." The second you try to do that, all you end up doing is opening upvulnerabilities that will put everyone at risk.Meanwhile, another report on this planned commission claims that it will "be tasked with developing a solution that doesn’t require a 'backdoor' into encrypted communications." That's obviouslythan being tasked with backdooring encryption... but what does that even mean? The whole setup of the discussion and the debate is falsely framed around the idea that strong encryption is a "problem" that needs to be "solved." Saying "but we don't mean backdoors," feels like a semantic game, such as James Comey's ridiculous attempt a few months back, where he insisted that the FBI wants "front doors" instead of backdoors.If Rep. McCaul and Sen Warner wereabout "Homeland Security," they'd both get on the bandwagonbecause that, and that alone, is the best way to protect computer security for Americans.

Filed Under: backdoors, commission, congress, dianne feinstein, ed snowden, encryption, going dark, mark warner, michael mccaul, richard burr