Technical people will say it’s too hard. My reaction to that is: Really? Too hard? Too hard for the people we have in this country to figure something out?

He is claiming: if all the smart people get together and try really hard, they can make back-doored encryption that all the smart people can’t break.

How does he know it stops there? Maybe if they try even harder, they’ll find a way to break it.

Don’t sell them short! They’re really smart!

I didn’t wish to annoy anyone, only to have my post go through.

What’s being asked for is most certainly possible- it also has the major ‘no f’n way’ caveats of introducing potentially fatal security flaws, and generally turning the entire concept of property ownership and human rights on it’s head (and numerous other things, but I digress). Yes, they could certainly have a backdoor that was ‘only for the good guys’, until either a human issue or a bug/exploit opened it much wider, and they could have something update-able that could fix that, until it couldn’t under some circumstance. It’s history that makes it clear that this wouldn’t work, not a rational theoretical measure of what’s technically possible. I’ll come back to this.

The central point I’ve tried to make is this could be rationally viewed in many ways as an massive improvement over what is currently going on.

Comey is not dumb- he wants people to be secure from everyone except the government, and he surely recognizes that what’s going on now is significantly hurting security far more then a mandated crypto backdoor would.

You don’t get to a position like Comey’s unless you are very intelligent, believe in authoritarianism, and have peoples best interest at heart under that context. ..maybe that’s a can of worms to say here- but I stand by the statement- road to hell paved with best intentions and all that. power grows and corrupts. all tyrants start out as (and usually believe they are) protectors. (not saying he is a tyrant… just a general observation- Plato’s actually)

Most people seam to have missed that a lot of tech has been going in this direction already anyway. Cellphones are a perfect example with how people seam to be (blissfully ignorant of or) quite fine with an a carrier controlled CPU and OS (the baseband) operating below the users OS, and having unrestricted access to network, ram, and user files. That’s a backdoor in all but name- watch what the blackhats can do with it on youtube. EFI/UEFI could (probably does in some cases) easily implement something similar.

Existing POC’s (proof of concepts) have shown hardware backdoors can be hidden directly in CPU architecture during manufacture- disguised to look like manufacturing errors. Additionally, POC chips have been made which will self destruct if subjected to requisite testing procedures for discovery of such. POC’s such as these cost a monumental amount to achieve- it’s doubtful the designs wouldn’t be put to use at whatever scale can be achieved. These manufacturing processes where conceived to control exported weapons platforms- not much of a stretch these days (from an authoritarian perspective) to include general purpose computers in that category. Implementation of such could be explained away as a means to protect IP on device design to stop counterfeiting.

Take a moment to search, and see how many examples (if any) of people physically disassembling processors to check for malfeasance you can find. The number of people with the equipment to do so, let along the requisite knowledge is extremely limited- factor in self destructing chips… See where I”m going with this?

People often make the valid point- that a software backdoor would be easily discoverable, defeatable, exploitable..etc…while ignoring the 800# hardware backdoor gorilla in the room.

It’s societal pressure that will keep something like this from happening (in the open)- not a technological barrier. Regardless of whether it happens in the open- it’s going to happen behind closed doors; it’s the long term path of least resistance, and there is little I can think of that would stop it- the current consolidation of power/control is too great. There are very few chip manufacturers, very few engineers in a position to oversee relevant areas.

I would honestly love to hear others contrasting thoughts on any of this though, really- please, change my very open mind- I’m begging you… at least help me feel more at ease with the people running this shit… That’s honestly most of the reason I make posts such as this.

So yes- a crypto backdoor is dumb idea, which would further totalitarian potential, and restrict autonomic democratic potential; It’s much less dumb then what’s currently going on, and what’s likely to go on in the future.

While most commentators here seam to be painting Comey in a little box labled ‘dumbass’ and dismissing out of hand that he might have anyone’s best interest at heart regardless of his belief structure; I feel a beguiled respect for a move that seams almost ethical, relative to the ocean of putrid shit the intel community has nearly drowned the very concept of a constitutionally bound government in. If he wants it, the 800# gorrilla is gonna have your ass whether you like it or not- is it not better to let people know?

Take me seriously- or better yet, show me exactly why I’m ignorant; I’d love to know that- I’d much rather be foolish and wrong then the bearer of such dismal perspective.

as every society that has been heavily monitored and controlled by a government has also bee extremely fragile. Let the government control over such a society slip by the smallest fraction, and it explode into chaos, as different faction fight to establish their flavor of autocracy over the remainder. The USSR exploded, the Middle east has not recovered from the collapse of the Caliphate, … need I go on.

I agree. The difficulty is, we’re already monitored and controlled far more then any civilization in history- and they’re doing a better job of it then ever before. That frailness exists non the less, and is a motivating factor for the surveillance state, and general increasing authoritarianism. The concentration of media ownership and obvious collusion that exists to push various (mostly) gov and corp friendly viewpoints, and minimize the unfriendly ones is so common it’s even been a major topic of popular news satire shows. For propaganda to work long term, people must not realize it’s propaganda- judging from polls measuring trust in news, they are remarkably successful at this, though it’s slipping somewhat. People are slowly becoming more wise to ‘think tanks’, spinmasters, pundents and the game and true cost of ‘exclusive access’, sources and what are essentially planted stories and framed spins taken at face value without question.

the point is that if you introduce backdoors for the government, anyone with the tech, the expertise, the motivation to do all sorts of unscrupulous things, will also be able to use these backdoors.

I do get that. This is absolutely correct; and not a fact I’ve tried to diminish. I’ve attempted to bring the context to light, that the way things are done now is more dangerous, more subject to abuse and even more unethical. The reality of how things would play out- where they to get this known back door, is that it’s not really a choice between one or the other- but the idea that it IS can be leveraged as a strong argument point regardless. Thus a backdoor can rationally be viewed and pushed for as the lessor of evils, and far more inline with the stated goals of the organization. That doesn’t make it right- and doesn’t mean I’m advocating for it.

The societal pressure exists because people like Comey – and you, evidently – either can’t see or refuse to see that the technological barrier exists. If a backdoor exists and someone can access and use that backdoor, there’s nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing.

You’re right- a backdoor could not conceivably be done without significant risk, and IF lack of risk is a requisite qualifier to whether it’s “possible”- then yes, it can then be considered “impossible”. However, there is NO technological barrier to implementing a backdoor- one which would conceivably be 1000x harder to abuse then what they use currently. Nothing is immune to compromise when it comes to tech- Even if there were perfect tech, we’d never have perfect humans to implement it… Expecting perfect is unrealistic; the best we can do is minimize the potential for compromise.

The current system relies on nothing but vulnerabilities that anyone can use- many many of them, so that when they lose one, they don’t lose access. There is little effort to stop security holes, because making people more secure is equivalent to them losing access. The incentive structure is fucked. At face value- what they’re suggesting would be far less complicated and far less prone to compromise then the existing system, it would also improve the hideous side effects that the current system has. At face value- It is the difference between a system that attempts to control who has access, and one which fervently ruins security for everyone, against everyone, to maintain access. Stating this does not mean I am advocating for such a solution- I only advocate for a wider viewpoint.

The solution I would advocate for is that people need to get much much more serious about security, and authority over their devices- We need to support companies and people that enable that security and authority; and boycott companies and technologies that enable the surveillance state. That means ditching google (use ixquick or startpage) and facebook, adobe, windows/mac- embrace open source software, open hardware, tech such as Tor, Tails, PGP, TOX, and Cryptostorm; hardware like gluglug thinkpads with coreboot, grsec foss linux or openbsd, and neo900 phones… (the only phone currently made that gives you genuine authority over the device) It’s a hard pill to swallow right now- but if market forces could sway to show that security, autonomous authority and technological freedom mean more to people then flashy features and the latest and greatest specs- soon things would change for the better.

And seriously, ethical? Constitutionally bound? Things like LOVEINT are precisely why people don’t trust the government with backdoors. Sure, you can argue that Comey’s hands might be tied. The problem is, the current people in power have proven that they’re not interested in the responsibility that comes with said power.

I may have worded things poorly and in excess, reaching for prose. The statement was:

I feel a beguiled respect for a move that seams almost ethical, relative to the ocean of putrid shit the intel community has nearly drowned the very concept of a constitutionally bound government in.

I can see how that’s hard to decipher, it’s an over-complicated sentence; it’s meant to be read as- not ethical, and not remotely constitutionally bound- also beguiled= conned into, or mislead.

The government has “backdoors” (air quotes to indicate functional equivalence) already, many of them; it’s kind of an open secret. Those backdoors are open to everyone who can find them, already. They shouldn’t have these- they should be working to close them and help us all be secure.

I don’t believe Comeys hands are tied- I believe he’s an authoritarian who believes the government needs to have ultimate power and control/authority over technology in order to fulfill their responsibility- Further I believe this stems not from any sort of malevolence, but from a genuine drive and desire to help and protect people by any means necessary.