The encryption debate

[86Hawkeye]

Very interesting.

Former head of NSA says FBI Director is wrong about end-to-end encryption.

I think I agree with him.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/technology/nsa-michael-hayden-encryption/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

 

[moral_victory]

The FBI Director wants his molestation of the fourth to be as easy as possible.

 

[fredjr82]

I'm torn on this really. I can understand encryption to protect PII data from a consumer/business standpoint. Encryption layers can certainly help protect sensitive data that shouldn't be attainable to people that want nothing more than to exploit it.

However, allowing terrorists the ability to have "dark" conversations can cause security issues in the future and I can understand why the FBI feels the way they do.

All of that said, terrorists are going to find a way to communicate with each other regardless if you loosen up encryption standards or not. They can find ways around lose encryption standards in order to keep their communication "safe". The terrorists who shot up Paris and killed 135 people did so in clear text communication and they still were able to pull it off. Let's stop that first and then start looking at ways around encryption.

 

[KitingHigh]

The FBI Director wants his molestation of the fourth to be as easy as possible.

So does Hillary.

 

[moral_victory]

So does Hillary.

How I know it.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I'm torn on this really. I can understand encryption to protect PII data from a consumer/business standpoint. Encryption layers can certainly help protect sensitive data that shouldn't be attainable to people that want nothing more than to exploit it.

However, allowing terrorists the ability to have "dark" conversations can cause security issues in the future and I can understand why the FBI feels the way they do.

All of that said, terrorists are going to find a way to communicate with each other regardless if you loosen up encryption standards or not. They can find ways around lose encryption standards in order to keep their communication "safe". The terrorists who shot up Paris and killed 135 people did so in clear text communication and they still were able to pull it off. Let's stop that first and then start looking at ways around encryption.

I think his point about economic espionage, etc. outweighs the concerns of allowing terrorists to communicate securely.

Plus, I'm guessing the NSA will figure out a way to track the bad guys anyway

 

[fredjr82]

I think his point about economic espionage, etc. outweighs the concerns of allowing terrorists to communicate securely.

Plus, I'm guessing the NSA will figure out a way to track the bad guys anyway

Cyber terrorism is becoming as commonplace as physical terrorism. Who's to say that the next terrorist attack isn't in the form of economic espionage? You just never know in today's climate.