
Why the fear over ubiquitous data encryption is overblown - ryanmonroe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-need-for-ubiquitous-data-encryption/2015/07/28/3d145952-324e-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html
======
ams6110
_This could lead to a perverse outcome in which law-abiding organizations and
individuals lack protected communications but malicious actors have them._

That's it in a nutshell. The tools are out there. You can't put the genie back
in the bottle.

~~~
userbinator
"If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption."

~~~
scintill76
Since this is usually said about guns, it reminds me of
[https://xkcd.com/504/](https://xkcd.com/504/)

~~~
animefan
The supreme court's definition of "arms" is not something that can be changed
by passing a law. Just like you couldn't hack the second amendment by defining
arms to be muskets.

~~~
feld
I don't understand what you're saying. Did you miss the entire reference that
XKCD strip was about? You do know that we had to fight to remove encryption as
being classified as a weapon and instead protected as free speech, right?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States)

~~~
jakeogh
We shouldn't have had to argue that. If it's either speech or an arm (and it's
both), it's inalienable.

------
guard-of-terra
They also can't get in my head even with "lawfully authorized access", nor can
they intercept snail mail after it was delivered, read and burned.

What makes them think they're entitled to my digital communications and data?

~~~
davidgerard
Because they think they can.

~~~
guard-of-terra
This is the war they'll surely lose, but in process they will destroy a lot of
lives and careers, including their own. They might also weaken the position of
their country in the world (as export restrictions on crypto surely did for
the US) What makes them start it?

~~~
anon4
Because they think it will be different for them.

------
noir_lord
Shrugs, when the US Gov can keep it's highly sensitive OPM database from been
stolen and can go breach-free for more than 15 minutes then I might believe
they might be able to keep the third party keys secure.

However I still then don't think they should have the key anyway.

------
icanhackit
Putting the contents of the article aside - it's an important topic but most
of us are on the same page: Given the Washington Post is owned by Nash
Holdings LLC/Jeff Bezos, would it be fair to presume that Jeff realizes the
success of Amazon's web services internationally is important and strong
security plays a big part in whether the division will be supported by tech
businesses internationally? Or do you think Jeff believes encryption is
important on a moral basis?

Alternate but less interesting considerations: Jeff had nothing to do with the
article or Jeff prefers the government stays out of his business.

~~~
snowwrestler
Jeff Bezos undoubtedly had nothing to do with this op-ed. He's a busy guy with
Amazon, and has made it clear that he will stay out of the editorial decision-
making at the post.

In addition, the authors of this piece are not folks who Bezos could push
around even if he wanted to. The only way they would write this piece is
because they wanted to.

Politically, this piece is a big deal. These are "national security
establishment" type folks, directly disagreeing with their successors in
government today.

~~~
bediger4000
I agree with your assessment that this piece is a big deal, politically.

I disagree with your "undoubtedly". I think there's a fair to middling chance
Bezos did some meddling in the editorial process - made a few phone calls,
dropped some hints, bent the ears of an editor or two. Newspapers always
protest that financial interests don't interfere with their reporting, but
time and again, we find out otherwise.

------
natch
Glad to see someone in Washington speak some sense.

But wow what a disturbingly weak "The Post's View" editorial it has in the
related links:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed-
on...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed-on-
smartphone-
encryption/2014/10/03/96680bf8-4a77-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html)

It argues that people concerned about privacy "can rest assured" because keys
will be protected by due process. Where to even begin, right?

This editorial (talking about my link, not the OP link) has undermined my
respect for the Washington Post. Is this really still their view?

------
alistproducer2
If the plebs want to hand over the keys, go right ahead. Those of us in the
know will always be able to encrypt so whatever.

