More on Law Enforcement Backdoor Demands
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy convened an Encryption Working Group to attempt progress on the “going dark” debate. They have released their report: “Moving the Encryption Policy Conversation Forward.
The main contribution seems to be that attempts to backdoor devices like smartphones shouldn’t also backdoor communications systems:
Conclusion: There will be no single approach for requests for lawful access that can be applied to every technology or means of communication. More work is necessary, such as that initiated in this paper, to separate the debate into its component parts, examine risks and benefits in greater granularity, and seek better data to inform the debate. Based on our attempt to do this for one particular area, the working group believes that some forms of access to encrypted information, such as access to data at rest on mobile phones, should be further discussed. If we cannot have a constructive dialogue in that easiest of cases, then there is likely none to be had with respect to any of the other areas. Other forms of access to encrypted information, including encrypted data-in-motion, may not offer an achievable balance of risk vs. benefit, and as such are not worth pursuing and should not be the subject of policy changes, at least for now. We believe that to be productive, any approach must separate the issue into its component parts.
I don’t believe that backdoor access to encryption data at rest offers “an achievable balance of risk vs. benefit” either, but I agree that the two aspects should be treated independently.
EDITED TO ADD (9/12): This report does an important job moving the debate forward. It advises that policymakers break the issues into component parts. Instead of talking about restricting all encryption, it separates encrypted data at rest (storage) from encrypted data in motion (communication). It advises that policymakers pick the problems they have some chance of solving, and not demand systems that put everyone in danger. For example: no key escrow, and no use of software updates to break into devices).
Data in motion poses challenges that are not present for data at rest. For example, modern cryptographic protocols for data in motion use a separate “session key” for each message, unrelated to the private/public key pairs used to initiate communication, to preserve the message’s secrecy independent of other messages (consistent with a concept known as “forward secrecy”). While there are potential techniques for recording, escrowing, or otherwise allowing access to these session keys, by their nature, each would break forward secrecy and related concepts and would create a massive target for criminal and foreign intelligence adversaries. Any technical steps to simplify the collection or tracking of session keys, such as linking keys to other keys or storing keys after they are used, would represent a fundamental weakening of all the communications.
These are all big steps forward given who signed on to the report. Not just the usual suspects, but also Jim Baker—former general counsel of the FBI—and Chris Inglis: former deputy director of the NSA.
Clive Robinson • September 11, 2019 9:13 AM
Bruce,
The real statment everyone should take to heart is,
If we cannot have a constructive dialogue in that easiest of cases, then there is likely none to be had with respect to any of the other areas.
Nobody in the FBI or DoJ want’s a “constructive dialogue” at any point, they have no wish to listen to reason no matter how valid. Thus the conclusion of,
… then there is likely none to be had with respect to any of the other areas.
Holds. Thus the best thing to do is realise that there is only one way to deal with them. Firstly to not engage with them in any way secondly shout them down and show up their falsehoods at every oportunity.
As I’ve said before they will carry on arguing some trite argument because they know that at some point the eternal vigulance will blink, thus they will be able to slip something by. As they have no real skin in the game they will just keep arguing and pushing till they get what they want, and every citizen losses yet more freedoms for nothing.
The only way to stop this game is to make them have real personal skin in the game not just as an organisation put personally as individuals. Untill then they can only win or draw whilst the citizens can at best hope to draw, whilst losing in the long term.