the military is not - as far as i'm aware - oppressing the citizens (posse comitatus etc)
If law enforcement is using military weapons not available to civilians, violating the 4th amendment and other civil rights, and enforcing order, a task for the military, rather than justice, a task for law enforcement, then law enforcement is military in disguise and violating the Posse Comitatus Act. Ask Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians what they think.
There is a reason the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights distinguished militia from select militia.
This kind of attack has a danger for the attacker and especially the certificate authority. Forging the certificate provides proof that the attacker did this and that the certificate authority is compromised unless they somehow get the private key associated with the public key that the certificate authority certified.
This is why governments do not routinely use this method of attack. It irrefutably destroys the certificate authority's credibility as a couple have discovered much to their woe.
Facebook of course could hand over their private key as well allowing the government to impersonate them undetected which is just another reason not to trust them.
This conflict should not be left unattended. Nineteen years ago, the National Academy of Sciences studied the encryption issue; technology has evolved rapidly since then.
The only thing that has changed is the ability to implement the algorithms economically; neither the math nor the politics has changed.
It would be wise to ask the academy to undertake a new study, with special focus on technical matters, and recommendations on how to reconcile the competing imperatives.
Why don't you, the Washington Post or some government agency, undertake a new study; then it can say whatever you want and we can avoid the whole argument about bias since we will already know neither of you can be trusted.
There is nothing to reconcile; pass the law that law enforcement wants and let's see the results.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dhess.
Psaki
Psaki literally said, "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: https *IS* end-to-end encryption
This kind of attack has a danger for the attacker and especially the certificate authority. Forging the certificate provides proof that the attacker did this and that the certificate authority is compromised unless they somehow get the private key associated with the public key that the certificate authority certified. This is why governments do not routinely use this method of attack. It irrefutably destroys the certificate authority's credibility as a couple have discovered much to their woe. Facebook of course could hand over their private key as well allowing the government to impersonate them undetected which is just another reason not to trust them.
Re:
They get paid for services and do not get Quested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillance_requests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio#Insider_trading,_fraud
Re:
That is exactly what I was thinking. I assume if you do that that you get into twice as much trouble.
Re: Re:
This exploit allows reading of protected memory and could for instance be combined with a rowhammer attack to effect privilege escalation.
The only thing that has changed is the ability to implement the algorithms economically; neither the math nor the politics has changed.
Why don't you, the Washington Post or some government agency, undertake a new study; then it can say whatever you want and we can avoid the whole argument about bias since we will already know neither of you can be trusted.
There is nothing to reconcile; pass the law that law enforcement wants and let's see the results.