
Great, now there's 'responsible encryption' - sds111
https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/27/great-now-theres-responsible-encryption/
======
gregmac
How about the government agencies and administration leads in this area? They
can use "responsible encryption" for all their stuff, with access granted to
relevant oversight committees. If after several years nothing is compromised,
and no agency _ever_ encrypts anything "irresponsibly", then this discussion
about implementing these laws can start.

------
some999
Time to embrace, extend, and extinguish this terminology: the only responsible
encryption is an implementation which is built to be as secure as is known how
to design. Backdoors are known to be insecure and are irresponsible.

I wholeheartedly embrace responsible encryption: designs which are both secure
and easy to use.

------
rqs
Clearly they don't seems to know what is encryption.

Because there are only two types of encryptions: Ones that work, ones that
don't.

It's a none or everyone deal: Once an encrypt algorithm got cracked, everyone
can then access to the encrypted data.

"responsible encryption", ha! why don't call it "illusional encryption"

------
awalton
...no there isn't. It's just another boring retread of key escrow, and we
already vehemently discarded that terribly bad idea in the 90s.

But hey, as the world's about to destroy Net Neutrality and overturn Roe v
Wade, why not. Tis the season for terrible ideas and throwing away decades of
progress.

------
nickysielicki

        > If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers,
        > citizens should understand the consequences.  When police cannot access
        > evidence, crime cannot be solved.  Criminals cannot be stopped and
        > punished.  There is an alternative.  Responsible encryption can protect
        > privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate
        > law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval.
        > 
        > Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible
        > encryption if left to their own devices.  Competition will fuel a
        > mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more
        > impregnable.  That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities
        > to cause harm with impunity.  Sounding the alarm about the dark side of
        > technology is not popular.  Everyone who speaks candidly about “going
        > dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy.  
        > 
        > Some advocates are motivated by profit.  Others demonstrate sincere
        > concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about
        > preserving law enforcement capabilities.  Those of us who swear to
        > protect the rule of law have a different motivation.  We are obliged to
        > speak the truth.
        > 
        > The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and
        > enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity.
        > 
        > Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right
        > to sell warrant-proof encryption.  If our society chooses to let
        > businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court
        > orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.
    

I never thought about it like that. /s

~~~
djeikyb
will you remove the initial spaces before the angle bracket? makes it hell to
read on mobile

~~~
colejohnson66
Not OP, but:

> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers,
> citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access
> evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and punished.
> There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect privacy and
> promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate law enforcement
> needs supported by judicial approval.

> Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible
> encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a mindset
> that leads them to produce products that are more and more impregnable. That
> will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities to cause harm with
> impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of technology is not
> popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going dark” faces attacks by
> advocates of absolute privacy.

> Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere concern
> about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about preserving law
> enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to protect the rule of law
> have a different motivation. We are obliged to speak the truth.

> The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and
> enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity.

> Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right to
> sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let businesses sell
> technologies that shield evidence even from court orders, it should be a
> fully-informed decision.

------
willsr
I've been seeing the 'responsible encryption' meme popping up quite a bit
recently. Like this bloke, who thinks people that want working encryption are
extremists.
[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_ext...](http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171024_legal_controls_on_extreme_end_to_end_encryption_ee2ee/)

------
maxxxxx
Do they have any real proposals? It would be interesting to see what they want
to do. It sounds a little like "clean coal" which never materialized.

