back to article Tech goliaths stand firm against demands for weaker encryption after Paris terror attacks

Tech giants claim they are standing firm in their refusal to allow government agencies to backdoor their cryptography – or to weaken encryption in their products. The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), which bills itself as the "global voice of the tech sector" and contains such giants as Apple, Google, and …

  1. W Donelson

    How come I never hear...

    .. any of these Security Dunces talking about the commercially available encryption software that's been around for 30 years?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: How come I never hear...

      Or how come we never hear one of them stating "I don't use encryption, my online world is an open book"? Oh wait.... this doesn't apply to them.. Nevermind.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: How come I never hear...

      "commercially available encryption software"

      Or the open source encryption that's been available for nearly as long.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents – whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airline – that is a big problem.

    What a f*cking moron.

    Why are these people running our countries?

    In what way, exactly, does strong encryption allow people to behead children? In what way does weak encryption prevent it?

    The logical disconnect between the ears of these people beggars belief.

    1. Pomgolian
      WTF?

      Asphinctersezwat

      >If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to >strike innocents – whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an >airline – that is a big problem.

      That could equally apply to every single gun, bomb, drone and nuclear warhead the US ever produced.

      Maybe if we just banned all weapons, then the bad guys wouldn't be able to use them against us?

      Correct me if I'm wrong but the 'merkins have an extremely vocal redneck contingent defending their constitutional right to bear arms in case the old English Queen should decide to invade. Why single out encryption? Guns are the real problem.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Asphinctersezwat

        Maybe if we just banned all weapons, then the bad guys wouldn't be able to use them against us?

        And how well would that have worked out on September 11, 2001?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Asphinctersezwat

          That's why we need the right to bear surface to air missiles.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Happy

            Re: Asphinctersezwat

            And the god given right to Arm Bears!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Asphinctersezwat

        Shame they can't catch those Politics who go around sodomising little boys in plain sight.

        Notice the Fearful Asymmetry where they want to know everything about you but try to hide everything about their own private lives.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon
          FAIL

          Re: Asphinctersezwat

          Rather than banning weapons, how about the US stop funding and selling said weapons to radical militant groups in foreign parts to act as their proxy in directing the world to a place where we are all effectively slaves? That would be a good place to start re-building confidence.

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      "Why are these people running our countries?"

      Because we let them. Discuss...

    3. Tony S
      Pint

      @skelband

      "Why are these people running our countries?"

      Because the average voter doesn't understand / couldn't care less who represents him / her?

      Most voters seem to vote for the party affiliation rather than the expressed political views of their candidates. Few bother to check what their political representatives get up to, unless it's some sordid sexual misadventure, or financial chicanery.

      It's Friday, I have a report to finish and I'm in a grumpy old git mood. I also need alcohol.

    4. PassiveSmoking

      Unfortunately, she's not being a moron. She's actually being very clever. By using such sickening language she's getting the general public who listen to her (most of whom aren't as cognisant of the fact that encryption is the cornerstone of the modern commercial internet and that they almost certainly use encryption themselves on a daily basis) to think with their hearts instead of their brains. She's also implanting a narrative in their heads that encryption is somehow inherently evil and immoral and something that only bad people would ever dream of using.

      And the real tragedy is that it's working.

      Just look at a typical comments section on the Daily Mail related to security, hacking, encryption etc and you'll find at least a third of the commenters are repeating the hold "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" canard, completely ignorant of how much of their own personal data needs to be protected from prying eyes for their own good.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"

        They also don't see this as a rallying cry for a totalitarian government where we are all slaves. You can't fix stupid.

  3. Steven Roper

    Scum

    Any politician who sinks to the level of exploiting these tragic events to justify eroding civil liberties is every bit as vile as the terrorists they claim to oppose.

    The world these megalomaniac bastards want to create is exactly what the terrorists want them to create. So there is no ethical difference between a terrorist and a politician who exploits terrorist acts to create a culture of fear.

  4. tom dial Silver badge

    Why does this keep returning?

    The matter has been settled effectively for years, except in those countries that regulate the types of encryption that their citizens may use and perhaps the conditions under which they may use them. If additional governments similarly constrain the type and use of encryption it will, at the most, give them one more tool to use to prosecute criminals, and occasionally their law abiding citizens. Criminals engaged in activities with punishments more severe than that for unauthorized encryption will rationally choose to encrypt as they see fit. The authorities will be further behind than now owing to being distracted by the casual or principled violators of the encryption regulations who are not otherwise criminals. The whole exercise is pointless and wasteful.

    1. Brian Miller

      Re: Why does this keep returning?

      This keeps returning because politicians are usually too stupid or lazy to pay attention to history or science.

      Could you imagine what it would be like to live in a world where politicians did pay attention to history and science? They might be paying attention to accounting math too, and wouldn't lose 2,000 data centers under the couch. No, they just might make 1984 look like a children's primer.

  5. cantankerous swineherd

    uk gov all over this

    ukgov: I say old chap, we can't understand what your user is up to, have a look at this plz.

    apple: we can't decrypt the message, no have the key, soz

    ukgov: [proffers cup of tea and a bun] kindly ensure yr product keeps a record of the users key.

    apple: we'll pass on that, ta.

    ukgov: we're going to publish your browsing history and put you in s holdall in a bath next to a wardrobe of women's clothes..

    apple: OK OK, but don't tell anyone

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Re: uk gov all over this

      and what kind of threat is that? if every one knows in the panoptican what we are all doing such things cease to be threats - given austerity there won't even be enough jails to stick the non-cpmpliant

      mines the green stapless bias cut chiffon number with silver accents - the wife forgot she had it

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: uk gov all over this

        "and what kind of threat is that?"

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

    2. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: uk gov all over this

      Upvote for the Gareth Williams reference (& topically a strong influence on current "English Spy" TV series)

  6. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    But... but...

    ... because Terrorists and Children and Drugs, m'kay?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Angel

      Re: But... but...

      - it will let the politicos know where to get such things

      1. A Nonny Moose
        Devil

        Re: But... but...

        "- it will let the politicos know who's competing against them"

        FTFY

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like