Wiretapping the Internet

This is the sort of thing that we get told will make my job easier.<p>Take from the horse mouth; complete crap.<p>Which is why you probably won't find anyone in the security or forensics business that thinks this is a good solution.<p>One of my trainers told me something to me when I first started working on LE cases. He pointed out that catching criminals can only be made so easy before it becomes detrimental. And that point is either when the tools can be used by anyone (i.e. not specialist investigators) or when the tools begin to facilitate crime.

If product x has a backdoor, this backdoor will also be used by bad people. It can also be cracked and there will always be product y without a backdoor. Don't the legislators see this? Or are criminals statistically really that lazy that they will still use mobile phones even though they are compromised.<p>According to "The Wire" they often even put extra layers of encryption security, anyway. Such behavior would make that legislation even more useless, as it would indeed only target the innocent that don't take extra precautions.

Conspiracy theory: Whoever is behind this doesn't really want every company to rewrite all their software with back doors.<p>Instead, a 'reasonable' request will be substituted after the initial uproar.

I particularly like his analogy:<p>"It's like the FBI demanding that no automobiles drive above 50 mph, so they can more easily pursue getaway cars. It might or might not work -- but, regardless, the cost to society of the resulting slowdown would be enormous."

This reminds me of the clipper chip episode back during the Clinton administration, except it's actually worse.

Sniffing the open Internet. Yes, that's feasible to a point (where there isn't more data sniffed than can be reasonably mined, or more data than can be reasonably sniffed).<p>Putting backdoors into products is commercial suicide for any crypto company to publicly acknowledge. If this goes through, then the simple way to view it is that any product supported by the US for export cannot be assured against having a backdoor.<p>In the UK, for the advanced crypto stuff, a government agency gives you key material. They have the keys, that way if anything sensitive goes missing they have the ability to attribute while recovering, but the crypto isn't exposed. For everyone in the commercial world well, you're on your own. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to wiretap phones, but people don't use phones as much anymore - they use IM, Facebook, etc. to hatch their devious plots.<p>Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication for the next 9/11 bombers? Or, for that matter, white collar criminals, bank robbers, etc.?<p>To me providing checks and balances on the governments ability to snoop on civilians lives shouldn't be a technology arms race. It should be based on an engaged citizenry that keeps watch on its elected officials, making sure they are acting within the law.