US Intelligence Agencies Angry At France Over Three Strikes; Worried It Will Drive Encryption Usage
from the strange-bedfellows dept
You may recall that, in the fight over the Digital Economy Act in the UK, those who were against the three strikes proposal had an unexpected ally: law enforcement. They were specifically worried that a three strikes plan would lead to more people using encryption, which would make it harder to spy on everyone.It looks like the same thing happened in France. With Hadopi now underway and sending out its first warning letters, the news is leaking out that US intelligence agencies, like the NSA, "yelled" at the French government over the plan, for the same reason. They know that a three strikes law will only increase encryption usage, making it more difficult to spy on people. For a group that wants to wiretap the internet, that's a problem:
US intelligence agencies are concerned that it will only encourage file-sharers and others to arm themselves with the same encryption tools used by criminal networks, making their job of detecting threats and illegal activity that much harder as the use of such tools goes mainstream.Some are saying this is why we've never seen any real progress on three strikes laws in the US. Even as the Justice Department and the entertainment industry have a pretty cozy relationship these days, the law enforcement folks recognize that greater encryption makes it more difficult to spy on everyone.
During a recent cryptography symposium in France they made their concerns known to their French counterparts, taking the time to "yell" at their French counterparts about Hadopi during a coffee break and make it clear that they are not happy.
They think it's wrong to pass legislation to fight the simple, though illegal, exchange of movies and music because it means file-sharers will simply equip themselves with strong encryption tools to avoid detection, and make both the copyright holders and the govt losers in the end.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: encryption, france, intelligence agencies, three strikes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Somewhat different I think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somewhat different I think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No doubt
Encryption is not a problem,just outlaw it - anyone using encryption is a criminal, after all, if you have nothing to hide - why encrypt?
So, problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No doubt
I believe you're paraphrasing a very old and debunked argument. Only a totalitarian state with reason to fear its citizens would have any need for such a machination.
(or my sarcasm detector failed.)
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No doubt
P.S. - I was unfamiliar with that quote.Seems true enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
WHAT!!??? There's a fucking law of the internetz now!!?? Holy goddamn poop sandwich!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No doubt
The evil hackers would love it. A lot of today's use of encryption is explicitly to deter them. Wireless encryption, SSL/TLS/HTTPS, SSH, and many others, all created to protect against evil hackers.
In fact, we do not use encryption enough today. Since most http traffic is not yet encrypted, some evil hackers write malware which hijacks http traffic from other machines on the same network, and injects evil browser exploits into the web pages returned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No doubt
Besides, your mobile phone calls are encrypted. You'd become an instant criminal if you do use it (with your proposed legislation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm evil
while he probably did, even a 10% increase in traffic would mean a significant decrease in the effectiveness of monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think encryption will make a marked difference
Its not exactly the same thing, but does anyone remember the capabilities of the pre-ban Steganos Security Suite? As I understand things, NSA couldn't crack it so the software is banned in the US without some sort of key that NSA can use to see exactly what's in a file.
Consider an adaptation of Newton's Third Law; To every security measure taken, there is always an equal and opposite measure will be fabricated. Without a lock, who would have created a pick, or better yet; the bolt cutters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
SSL can be subverted if you have access to the authority issuer of that key which is easy for the U.S. government because almost all the big ones are in the U.S. so in theory one could send fake updates and say they are the original company.
But that would be bad for sales if it ever got out in the public, who would buy any piece of American software knowing they could get something nasty from another government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you gen your own keys it will take a huge amount of resources to crack the encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.softpedia.com/news/British-Teenager-Jailed-over-Refusal-to-Reveal-Computer-Passwo rd-159722.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone remember back when NSA surveillance wasn't admitted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
key:techdirt
Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
Charset: utf-8
qANQR1DDDQQJAwL1W4e5xFItBKDSjgEvMYcFg5MwokaorYNjcYc9S8R0gNC2LJ+E
B1t3bcxyaxjV1gsyy9/+eYOvP mdSQypCMVUAo00wyEFZ2rcsNu4b6AhxTVvk70DW
LQAEQ+bT3Bj2Xf9xi9e7zcx6D2fZ6HhDv0s0YNVg/peTdj2hLprTAJ/EoKZ yK06T
SQxsB1RCh13RKyTsl0+WL4R3DC4=
=O3hP
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: key:techdirt
Where can I find your luggage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: key:techdirt
More than likely thats his public key. Using asymmetric key encryption, anyone can encrypt messages using the public key, but only the holder of the paired private key can decrypt the message.
I hope that helps ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]