Congressman with CS degree: Encryption back-doors are ‘technologically stupid’(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Congressman with CS degree: Encryption back-doors are ‘technologically stupid’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/30/congressman-with-computer-science-degree-encryption-back-doors-are-technologically-stupid/
16 comments
Woah! What!?
That is insane to me. Hermain Cain did his undergraduate in math and his masters in CS... and from good schools, no less.
I wish I would have known this in 2012, I wonder how it would have made me feel about him, when watching debates. I don't remember much about my opinion of him, but I can definitely say it never crossed my mind that he would have this background.
That is insane to me. Hermain Cain did his undergraduate in math and his masters in CS... and from good schools, no less.
I wish I would have known this in 2012, I wonder how it would have made me feel about him, when watching debates. I don't remember much about my opinion of him, but I can definitely say it never crossed my mind that he would have this background.
Yeah politics is crazy. It makes smart people seem stupid. When you're a politician, I think you just have to talk in a way that is imprecise and which appeals to base instincts, which makes you seem stupid.
But that is what works. Many politicians are brilliant polymaths and they all seem to have converged on the same behavior.
I guess if you were to design a computer to be a politician, it would end up in the same spot. Its job would be to appeal to people of different backgrounds, who are irrational in different ways. (And don't think that highly educated people in Silicon Valley aren't irrational in their own way.)
But that is what works. Many politicians are brilliant polymaths and they all seem to have converged on the same behavior.
I guess if you were to design a computer to be a politician, it would end up in the same spot. Its job would be to appeal to people of different backgrounds, who are irrational in different ways. (And don't think that highly educated people in Silicon Valley aren't irrational in their own way.)
The only thing I remembered was he was pro business and crazy. He wasn't very competant at debate and his 9-9-9 plan sounds like some weird food commercial.
That might explain the tax thing. It makes sense to me that programming sensibilities and a passion for simple tax code would be related.
To me the tax thing sounded like a deal you would get at a pizza restaurant.
Conley at one point argued that companies like Apple are protecting "those who rape, defraud, assault, or even kill" with their encryption policies.
Isn't this is sort of like saying laws are protecting those who rape, defraud, assault, or even kill?
Isn't this is sort of like saying laws are protecting those who rape, defraud, assault, or even kill?
I read this as a missed opportunity to say "gun manufacturers are aiding those who rape, defraud, assault, or even kill, with their manufacturing policies".
Well, the flip side is that we on the pro-gun side can make a solid case that guns also aid those who others try to rape, assault or even kill (but of course not defraud) by, for example, providing an equalizer to the physically weaker. E.g. I couldn't help but notice that the members of the mandatory class for my state's concealed carry permit where strongly weighted towards the older.
Encryption backdoors at best do nothing to help against private actors wishing physical harm on people, and the death toll of those killed by governments and government aided private actors (for the US, include KKK types including or aided by local law enforcement) suggests we don't want to give this sort of power to governments.
Encryption backdoors at best do nothing to help against private actors wishing physical harm on people, and the death toll of those killed by governments and government aided private actors (for the US, include KKK types including or aided by local law enforcement) suggests we don't want to give this sort of power to governments.
Round about the first crypto wars, in the days of "this T-shirt is a munition", people talked about trying to get crypto classified under the 2nd amendment, as it would then enjoy much stronger protection than the 1st amendment.
… and the xkcd: https://www.xkcd.com/504/
In the hearing video, Conley also gives a response of what is essentially "I'm not a technologist but... Murica!! RAH! RAH! we sent someone to the moon!" to the policy question of a Golden Key.
We could put so many more criminals behind bars if it weren't for those pesky 4th and 5th amendments.
Interesting framing with the CS degree. I guess sometimes I forget that congress decides on issues that it has no formal education in. But the bold preface "with CS degree" makes me question if we would accept an opinion on this matter from someone who studied, say: philosophy, economy or liberal arts. In that regard it feels a bit like an appeal to authority, or an editorial decision: "technologically stupid" is not a Bushism by a computer illiterate, but a legit criticism.
It's worth noting congressional staffers actually shape a lot of legislation. They come from diverse backgrounds, but as a rule are extremely intelligent folks.
Two of the smartest people I've ever met were congressional staffers.
Two of the smartest people I've ever met were congressional staffers.
Does anyone know if there is a PAC aligned around technology-savy candidates? Seems like something the EFF should be involved in.
Not many of those. Maybe Thomas Massie (R-KY)?
U.S. Representative Thomas Massie entered Congress in November 2012 after serving as Lewis County Judge Executive. He represents Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District which stretches across Northern Kentucky and 280 miles of the Ohio River.
U.S. Representative Massie attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. During school, he invented a technology that enabled people to interact with computers using their sense of touch, and leveraged that technology to found SensAble Technologies, Inc., which raised over $32 million of venture capital, created 70 jobs, and obtained 24 patents. The hardware and software he developed is now used to design automobiles, jewelry, shoes, dental prosthetics, and even reconstructive implants for wounded soldiers.
U.S. Representative Thomas Massie entered Congress in November 2012 after serving as Lewis County Judge Executive. He represents Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District which stretches across Northern Kentucky and 280 miles of the Ohio River.
U.S. Representative Massie attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. During school, he invented a technology that enabled people to interact with computers using their sense of touch, and leveraged that technology to found SensAble Technologies, Inc., which raised over $32 million of venture capital, created 70 jobs, and obtained 24 patents. The hardware and software he developed is now used to design automobiles, jewelry, shoes, dental prosthetics, and even reconstructive implants for wounded soldiers.
Near the end Congressman Hurd asks the revealing question: "What exactly is the FBI asking for?"
This is the classic programmer-and-requirements problem. Ms. Hess and Mr. Conley have very reasonable-sounding aims, but: they're impossible. That's all there is to it.
This is the classic programmer-and-requirements problem. Ms. Hess and Mr. Conley have very reasonable-sounding aims, but: they're impossible. That's all there is to it.
Please, it is CongressGNU Hurd.
Rep. Ted Lieu makes some great remarks (including the quoted lines), that are further along in the embedded video, starting here: https://youtu.be/KsAkMZRAQLk?t=1h16m18s
[paraphrase]"What we're saying today is the equivalent of saying 'We'll be able to get to the moon in ten years and NO ONE ELSE will get there EVER'."
- Vice Chair Farenthold, in video, on creating back doors that are accessible to the "good guys" and impenetrable to anyone else
- Vice Chair Farenthold, in video, on creating back doors that are accessible to the "good guys" and impenetrable to anyone else
It's really absurd that Mr. Conley prefaces his statement by saying "I'm probably the least technically proficient guy here" and then goes on to make the moon landing analogy. Maybe I have bad selective hearing, but when people say things like that at the beginning of their statement I usually just stop listening.
If one looks at the backdoor placed in Dual-EC - or in type of backdoor engineered into this SHA1 variant (https://malicioussha1.github.io/doc/malsha1_lv.pdf) - there are ways to provide a backdoor such that it is cryptographically hard to attack for anyone but the designer (NSA, etc).
The NSA has a term for these types of backdoors: NOBUS. Nobody But Us. Schneier calls this idea silly, but the principle is sound if there are cryptographic garuntees behind the backdoor (like above examples). Backdoors in code are less likely to be NOBUS.
The NSA has a term for these types of backdoors: NOBUS. Nobody But Us. Schneier calls this idea silly, but the principle is sound if there are cryptographic garuntees behind the backdoor (like above examples). Backdoors in code are less likely to be NOBUS.
I love the attitude some of speakers in the video show towards people with technical understanding. I guess when you are incompetent you always need to test people to see if they are lying.
How would you know?
Although the video is very entertaining. I do find it scary how technically inept most politicians are.
If politicians had a basic understanding of mutual exclusivity (such a basic concept in computing) and compound interest. The world would be a much better state.
If politicians had a basic understanding of mutual exclusivity (such a basic concept in computing) and compound interest. The world would be a much better state.
Is it not the case that the term "golden key" only became a term of mockery after that linked editorial used it? In any case, since said editorial does not appear to be using it satirically, it seems an odd thing to link in that context.
You don't need a backdoor since you can MitM either/both the user and Apple.
http://blog.quarkslab.com/imessage-privacy.html
http://blog.quarkslab.com/imessage-privacy.html
> Under such a proposal, no one person or agency would hold all of the pieces, an approach some experts speculate could make such a backdoor harder to compromise.
And implement.
And implement.
It was entertaining hearing all the analogies used to put these technological issues in perspective.
Made me laugh. This: “It’s impossible to build a back-door for just the good guys — if somebody at the Genius Bar could figure it out, so could the nefarious folks in a van down by the river"
Hopefully any encryption back door is not entrusted to somebody at the Genius Bar. Why is the hacker in a van and at a river... phishing trip?
Hopefully any encryption back door is not entrusted to somebody at the Genius Bar. Why is the hacker in a van and at a river... phishing trip?
I think the van bit refers to an old SNL skit https://youtube.com/watch?v=MfqIjqCbYUk
Perhaps the folks in a van down by the bay are more likely to be interested in surfboards?
... and the folks in a van in a suburban street are more likely to be doing government surveillance?
... and the folks in a van in a suburban street are more likely to be doing government surveillance?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain