President Obama Complains To China About Demanding Backdoors To Encryption... As His Administration Demands The Same Thing

from the irony dept

Back in January, we pointed out that just after US and EU law enforcement officials started freaking out about mobile encryption and demanding backdoors, that China was also saying that it wanted to require backdoors for itself in encrypted products. Now, President Obama claims he's upset about this, saying that he's spoken directly with China's President Xi Jinping about it:

In an interview with Reuters, Obama said he was concerned about Beijing's plans for a far-reaching counterterrorism law that would require technology firms to hand over encryption keys, the passcodes that help protect data, and install security "backdoors" in their systems to give Chinese authorities surveillance access.

"This is something that I’ve raised directly with President Xi," Obama said. "We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States."

This comes right after the US Trade Rep Michael Froman issued a statement criticizing China for doing the same damn thing that the US DOJ is arguing the US should be doing:

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman issued a statement on Thursday criticizing the banking rules, saying they "are not about security – they are about protectionism and favoring Chinese companies".

"The Administration is aggressively working to have China walk back from these troubling regulations," Froman said.

Those claims would sound a hell of a lot stronger if they weren't coming immediately after DOJ officials from Attorney General Eric Holder to FBI Director James Comey had more or less argued for the exact same thing.

Just last week, Yahoo's chief security officer Alex Stamos raised this exact issue with NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers, asking if Rogers thinks it's appropriate for tech companies to build backdoors for other countries if they build them for the US. Rogers ignored the question, just saying "I think we can work our way through this," which is not an answer. And now we're "working our way through this" by having to deal with other countries, such as China, leaping at this opportunity.

And the week before, President Obama himself claimed that he was all for strong encryption, but argued that there were tradeoffs worth discussing, and that some in his administration believed that demanding backdoors made sense to try to stop terrorist attacks. But it's tough to see how he can claim that it's okay to entertain those ideas on the one hand, while using the other hand to try to slap China for doing the exact same thing.

As security researcher Matthew Green rightly points out, "someday, US officials will look back and realize how much global damage they've enabled with their silly requests for key escrow." But that day is apparently not today. The administration keeps bleating on and on about how China is a massive cybersecurity "threat" out there, and then hands the country this massive gift by having a kneejerk reaction to better encryption that protects American citizens.

Filed Under: backdoors, china, encryption, eric holder, jim comey, michael froman, president obama, xi jinping
Companies: apple, google

Apple CEO Tim Cook Makes It Clear That He's Not At All Interested In Giving The Government Backdoors To iOS Encryption

from the good-for-him dept

On Friday morning, we noted that the CEOs of Google, Facebook and Yahoo had declined to appear at the President's cybersecurity summit at Stanford, but that Apple CEO Tim Cook was going. However, we pointed out that all signs suggested Cook was going to send a message that he wasn't going to give in and allow the government a backdoor to iOS encryption. Cook had recently noted that the government "would have to cart us out in a box" before Apple would add a backdoor. And, indeed, speaking right before President Obama's speech, Cook delivered a strong defense of encryption and privacy:

“We believe deeply that everyone has a right to privacy and security,” said Cook. “So much of our information now is digital: photos, medical information, financial transactions, our most private conversations. It comes with great benefits; it makes our lives better, easier and healthier. But at Apple, we have always known this also comes with a great responsibility. Hackers are doing everything they can to steal your data, so we’re using every tool at our disposal to build the most secure devices that we can.”

[....]

“People have trusted us with their most personal and private information and we must give them the best technology we can to secure it,” said Cook. “Sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire consequences. We live in a world where people are not treated equally. There are people who don’t feel free to practice their religion, express their opinion or love who they choose. Technology can mean the difference between life and death.”

[....]

“If we don’t do everything we can to protect privacy, we risk more than money,” said Cook. “We risk our way of life.”

It's great to see tech companies taking a stronger and stronger stand in protecting the privacy of their users and customers. Once again, thank Snowden for actually making this an issue that companies actually need to care about.

Filed Under: backdoors, cybersecurity, encryption, ios, mobile encryption, privacy, tim cook

UK Surveillance Consultation Suggests It Is End-Point Security, Not Encryption, That Cameron Wants To Subvert

from the Snowden-was-right,-again dept

A few weeks ago, we reported on David Cameron's apparent call to undermine all encryption in the UK. But as we noted then, it was not clear from his offhand remark what exactly he meant, or how he planned to implement the idea. A new consultation document on the legal framework of surveillance in the UK provides a clue, as spotted by The Guardian:

Britain's security services have acknowledged they have the worldwide capability to bypass the growing use of encryption by internet companies by attacking the computers themselves.

The Home Office release of the innocuously sounding "draft equipment interference code of practice" on Friday put into the public domain the rules and safeguards surrounding the use of computer hacking outside the UK by the security services for the first time.

The publication of the draft code follows David Cameron's speech last month in which he pledged to break into encryption and ensure there was no "safe space" for terrorists or serious criminals which could not be monitored online by the security services with a ministerial warrant, effectively spelling out how it might be done.

That certainly makes sense. As Edward Snowden said during an early Q&A:

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

The new consultation document from the UK's Home Office seems to confirm that GCHQ can also find ways around it. It is one of two draft "codes of practice" for the main UK law governing surveillance, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Although it's welcome that more details about the legislative framework are being provided, the way that is being done is problematic, as Carly Nyst, legal director of Privacy International, points out in the Guardian article:

"GCHQ cannot legitimise their unlawful activities simply by publishing codes of conduct with no legislative force. In particular, the use by intelligence agencies of hacking -- an incredibly invasive and intrusive form of surveillance -- cannot be snuck in by the back door through the introduction of a code of conduct that has undergone neither parliamentary nor judicial scrutiny. It is surely no mistake that this code of conduct comes only days before GCHQ is due to argue the lawfulness of its hacking activities in court."

It is also striking that the codes of conduct were released on the same day that the UK's secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that British intelligence services had broken the law, but that they were now in compliance because previously unknown policies had been made public. As Nyst speculates, it could be that the UK government is releasing more details of its spying in the form of these consultation documents in an attempt to head off future losses in the courts.

Whether or not that is the case, it certainly seems that the attempts by civil liberties groups to end or at least limit mass surveillance are already having an effect on the UK government, and forcing it to provide basic details of its hitherto completely-secret activities. That success is a strong incentive to continue fighting for more proportionality and meaningful oversight here.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: backdoors, david cameron, encryption, end point security, gchq, privacy, surveillance, uk

Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption

from the same-thing dept

Bob Litt, the General Counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), gave a speech on Wednesday trying to address the public's ongoing concerns about government surveillance. The speech is long, but it's well worth reading. There's a lot of "yes, we could have done a better job explaining ourselves, and we promise we're learning" kind of talk, but little of real substance. However, at the very end of the speech, he joins the ridiculous bandwagon of ignorant government and law enforcement attacking the idea of encryption the government can't crack. But, similar to the Washington Post's magical golden key (not a backdoor!) proposal, Litt has some wishful thinking about a magic key that only the government can use:

Encryption is a critical tool to protect privacy, to facilitate commerce, and to provide security, and the United States supports its use. At the same time, the increasing use of encryption that cannot be decrypted when we have the lawful authority to collect information risks allowing criminals, terrorists, hackers and other threats to escape detection. As President Obama recently said, “[i]f we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track someone that we’re confident is a terrorist …that’s a problem.” I’m not a cryptographer, but I am an optimist: I believe that if our businesses and academics put their mind to it, they will find a solution that does not compromise the integrity of encryption technology but that enables both encryption to protect privacy and decryption under lawful authority to protect national security.

I'm not sure how many times in how many different ways this needs to be explained, but what they're asking for is a fantasy. You cannot put a backdoor in encryption and create a magic rule that says "only the government can use this in lawful situations." That's just not how it works. At all. The very idea of decryption by a third party "compromises the integrity of the encryption technology," almost by definition.

Separately, Litt's reassurances elsewhere ring incredibly hollow. In trying to respond to concerns about so-called "incidental" collection of information under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (information that the NSA isn't allowed to collect, but does so anyway and then hangs onto it and makes it searchable by a variety of government agencies), he notes that they have "reaffirmed" that such data must be deleted if they're determined to have no foreign intelligence value, but then (no joke!) his own speech has an asterisk with a giant loophole. Here is the speech posted on the ODNI's own Tumblr page: It's like they're really not even trying to hide the massive loopholes they've built in. In case you're wondering, the loopholes buried in that asterisk include basically everything:

Under the new policy, in addition to any other limitations imposed by applicable law, including FISA, any communication to or from, or information about, a U.S. person acquired under Section 702 of FISA shall not be introduced as evidence against that U.S. person in any criminal proceeding except (1) with the prior approval of the Attorney General and (2) in (A) criminal proceedings related to national security (such as terrorism, proliferation, espionage, or cybersecurity) or (B) other prosecutions of crimes involving (i) death; (ii) kidnapping; (iii) substantial bodily harm; (iv) conduct that constitutes a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor as defined in 42 USC 16911; (v) incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure as defined in 42 USC 5195c(e); (vi) cybersecurity; (vii) transnational crimes; (or (vii) human trafficking.

Yes, some of the activities covered by this list are pretty bad. But it doesn't change the fact that the NSA isn't supposed to collect such information or retain it at all. Writing in all these exceptions is pretty damn broad, especially given the NSA and its "cute" interpretations of the law.

Filed Under: backdoors, bob litt, encryption, golden key, incidental collection, magic key, nsa, odni, section 702, surveillance

Nobody Saw This Coming: Now China Too Wants Company Encryption Keys And Backdoors In Hardware And Software

from the zone-of-lawlessness dept

A concerted campaign among officials on both sides of the Atlantic to attack strong encryption has intensified in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings. Most recently, we've had a leak of a document in which the EU's "Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator" recommended that Internet companies should be forced to hand over their crypto keys; and now Leslie Caldwell, an assistant attorney general at the US Justice Department, is reported by Vice.com to have made the following comment:

"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we’re prohibited from getting because of a company’s technological choices."

She said that she hopes Apple and Google will consider building in back doors that will allow the companies to decrypt the phones if they are physically mailed back to the manufacturer.

As Techdirt has noted before, this narrative plays right into the hands of repressive governments around the world, which can simply point to the West's argument, and say: "We agree." So it will not come as a huge surprise to readers of this site to learn that when it comes to demanding encryption keys and backdoors from computer companies, China now agrees:

The Chinese government has adopted new regulations requiring companies that sell computer equipment to Chinese banks to turn over secret source code, submit to invasive audits and build so-called back doors into hardware and software, according to a copy of the rules obtained by foreign technology companies that do billions of dollars' worth of business in China.

The New York Times article quoted above gives more details, drawing on a chart that lays out the new requirements for companies wishing to sell equipment to the Chinese banking sector:

For most computing and networking equipment, the chart says, source code must be turned over to Chinese officials. But many foreign companies would be unwilling to disclose code because of concerns about intellectual property, security and, in some cases, United States export law.

The chart also calls for companies that want to sell to banks to set up research and development centers in China, obtain permits for workers servicing technology equipment and build "ports" to allow Chinese officials to manage and monitor data processed by their hardware.

The draft antiterrorism law pushes even further, calling for companies to store all data related to Chinese users on servers in China, create methods for monitoring content for terror threats and provide keys to encryption to public security authorities.

Although there is a clear protectionist element to many of these, as well as a desire to take a look at Western source code, the boldest demands -- those for backdoors and encryption keys -- are identical to what the US and EU are implicitly calling for. And so, once again, there is no way for the West to claim the moral high ground here, which inevitably undermines any protestations it might make about China's decision to follow its example.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: backdoors, china, encryption, mobile encryption, surveillance

EU's 'Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator' Finally Says It: Force Internet Companies To Hand Over Their Crypto Keys

from the just-a-fig-leaf dept

Although calls to ban or backdoor encryption have been made in the past, David Cameron's rather vague threats against crypto clearly mark the start of a new, concerted campaign to weaken online privacy. Thanks to a leaked paper, written by the EU Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator and obtained by Statewatch, we now have a clear statement of what the European authorities really want here (pdf):

Since the Snowden revelations, internet and telecommunications companies have started to use often de-centralized encryption which increasingly makes lawful interception by the relevant national authorities technically difficult or even impossible. The Commission should be invited to explore rules obliging internet and telecommunications companies operating in the EU to provide under certain conditions as set out in the relevant national laws and in full compliance with fundamental rights access of the relevant national authorities to communications (i.e. share encryption keys).

The set-phrase "in full compliance with fundamental rights" is just a fig leaf: there is no real intention of complying with basic rights here. That this is a just a cynical exploitation of people's concerns in the wake of recent events is shown by the following paragraph from the beginning of the document:

Europe is facing an unprecedented, diverse and serious terrorist threat. The horrific attacks that took place in Paris between 7 and 9 January 2015 were followed by an unprecedented show of unity by millions of citizens in France and across Europe as well as a show of solidarity and political will by many EU and world leaders. In addition to action from the national governments, citizens are looking to the European Union to provide an ambitious response. Core European values have been attacked, in particular freedom of speech. The EU has to respond with meaningful action. Failure to do so could result in disillusionment of citizens with the EU.

Yes, the millions of European citizens who joined marches in support of liberty and freedom of speech would be bitterly disappointed if the EU didn't react by undermining those self-same core values. Nor is the idea to weaken all encryption in Europe the only deeply troubling proposal in the document. Here's another one:

Consideration should be given to a role for Europol in either flagging or facilitating the flagging of content which breaches the platforms’ own terms and conditions. These often go further than national legislation and can therefore help to reduce the amount of radicalising material available online.’ In this context, Europol's Check the Web project could be beefed up to allow for monitoring and analysis of social media communication on the internet.

That's a really great idea: get Europe's main law enforcement agency, Europol, spending its valuable time checking out if Internet users are breaching Facebook's terms and conditions, and generally spying on social networks. After all, that's much more important than doing other things like, oh, I don't know, actually trying to catch murderers and criminals....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, eu, mobile encryption, privacy

Did David Cameron Just Say He Wants To Undermine All Encryption In The UK?

from the not-thinking-it-through dept

Techdirt has recently reported on New York's top prosecutor calling for laws against strong encryption on smartphones. This is part of a larger move by the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to demonize this technology, as we noted before. In the wake of the murders in Paris, many of the same politicians and officials have lost no time in calling for more surveillance, again in both the US and Europe. One of those doing so is David Cameron, who said that, if re-elected in the UK general election in May, he would bring in an even more intrusive version of the Snooper's Charter -- one that sought access not just to everyone's metadata, but to the content of their messages too. This is how he phrased it:

The question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not.

Leaving aside the fact that Cameron seems to be saying that he wishes to make privacy impossible and/or illegal in the UK, one key question here is: how does he intend to do this? Neither the UK government nor the Conservative party offered any clarification about this election "promise," which has inevitably led to speculation. For example, The Independent newspaper wrote as follows:

David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp.

Apple's iMessage and FaceTime also encrypt their data, and could fall under the ban along with other encrypted chat apps like Telegram.

None of those programs was mentioned by Cameron in his speech. But many other news outlets have taken that speculation and reported it as if it were certain; others have interpreted his comments to mean that Cameron aims to ban or perhaps backdoor all strong encryption. It's quite possible that Cameron and his advisers have not thought this through, and simply assume there must be some clever way to give access to the content of encrypted services without undermining them. But as Techdirt has emphasized before, there is no "golden key" that can be used by just the authorities and no one else.

UK services and users can be forced by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to hand over whatever encryption keys they have. Most of the main online services come from US-based companies; some may choose to comply with UK warrants, but others probably won't. And then there is the extremely important class of open source encryption programs -- things like GnuPGP, OpenVPN and Tor: these don't always have companies that can be threatened with legal consequences. So what would Cameron do about those? Make their use illegal for all UK citizens? Even the increasingly-common HTTPS for general web servers is problematic: if they are located outside the UK, there is no way to force them to hand over their keys. So will Cameron forbid people from visiting millions of websites, just in case they allow some form of communication that can't be monitored?

Clearly, trying to implement this scheme will cause huge damage to the British public and to UK businesses, who will be more vulnerable to online attacks. It will also harm the UK economy, since startups with digital products or services will find users in other countries unwilling to use products that have been forced to insert backdoors for the UK intelligence services. And it will further harm the UK's already battered reputation as a civilized country, since Cameron's call to abolish all online privacy goes beyond even the worst oppressive regime (China must be delighted by his speech.)

However, there is a small consolation to be drawn from this extraordinarily stupid and dangerous call by Cameron. The fact that something so controversial is being proposed at all confirms one of the most important points made by Snowden: encryption works.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: backdoors, communications, david cameron, encryption, end-to-end encryption, mobile encryption, privacy, surveillance, uk

Verizon Offers Encrypted Calling With NSA Backdoor At No Additional Charge

from the trust-us,-we're-the-phone-company dept

As a string of whistle blowers like former AT&T employee Mark Klein have made clear abundantly clear, the line purportedly separating intelligence operations from the nation's incumbent phone companies was all-but obliterated long ago. As such, it's relatively amusing to see Verizon announce this week that the company is offering up a new encrypted wireless voice service named Voice Cypher. Voice Cypher, Verizon states, offers "end-to-end" encryption for voice calls on iOS, Android, or BlackBerry devices equipped with a special app made by Cellcrypt.

Verizon's marketing materials for the service feature young, hip, privacy-conscious users enjoying the "industry's most secure voice communication" platform:

Verizon says it's initially pitching the $45 per phone service to government agencies and corporations, but would ultimately love to offer it to consumers as a line item on your bill. Of course by "end-to-end encryption," Verizon means that the new $45 per phone service includes an embedded NSA backdoor free of charge. Apparently, in Verizon-land, "end-to-end encryption" means something entirely different than it does in the real world:

"Cellcrypt and Verizon both say that law enforcement agencies will be able to access communications that take place over Voice Cypher, so long as they're able to prove that there's a legitimate law enforcement reason for doing so. Seth Polansky, Cellcrypt's vice president for North America, disputes the idea that building technology to allow wiretapping is a security risk. "It's only creating a weakness for government agencies," he says. "Just because a government access option exists, it doesn't mean other companies can access it."

Just because we put a backdoor in a product, doesn't mean those backdoors will be abused, right guys? Right? Of course this is the same Verizon that has mocked Internet companies for "grandstanding" when it comes to their latest encryption push. But while those companies have refreshingly started competing over who can respect your privacy more, Verizon's making it clear that privacy is an afterthought, even when pitching privacy services. Perhaps someday Verizon can see fit to offer "end-to-end encryption" that actually is.

Filed Under: back doors, backdoors, encryption, end to end encryption, law enforcement, nsa, surveillance, voice cypher
Companies: cellcrypt, verizon

Ron Wyden Introduces Legislation Aimed At Preventing FBI-Mandated Backdoors In Cellphones And Computers

from the may-be-cited-as-'Up-Yours,-Comey-Act-of-2014' dept

The FBI had better start polishing up its "front door" pitch because Sen. Ron Wyden is pitching legislation that would prevent it from crafting its own backdoors.

The Secure Data Act will prohibit Federal agencies from requiring that private entities design or alter their commercial information technology products for the purpose of facilitating government surveillance.

Wyden's one-page summary of the bill [pdf link] notes that FBI Director James Comey's ongoing push to create some sort of "law enforcement only" security holes in Apple and Google's on-by-default encryption undermines the government's push for better personal and professional security as well as does further damage to the limited amount of trust remaining in the wake of the Snowden leaks and increasing evidence of law enforcement overreach.

U.S. government and independent experts have extensively documented the multi-billion dollar threat posed by constant cyberattacks from criminal organizations and foreign government-sponsored hackers. The U.S. government also urges private companies and individuals to protect sensitive personal and business data, including through the use of data security technologies such as encryption. The recent proposals from U.S. law enforcement officials to undercut the development and deployment of strong data security technologies by compelling companies to build backdoors in the security features of their products work against the overwhelming economic and national security interest in better data security.

Moreover, the decision of government officials to repeatedly misled the American public about domestic surveillance activities has resulted in an erosion of public trust. Requiring computer hardware and software companies to now create intentional gaps in their data security products to facilitate further government access to personal data will undermine the effort to restore trust in the U.S. digital economy.

Government-driven technology mandates to weaken data security for the purpose of aiding government investigations would compromise national security, economic security and personal privacy.

Here's the actual wording of the backdoor ban [pdf link], which has a couple of loopholes in it.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), no agency may mandate that a manufacturer, developer, or seller of covered products design or alter the security functions in its product or service to allow the surveillance of any user of such product or service, or to allow the physical search of such product, by any agency.

Subsection (b) presents the first loophole, naming the very act that Comey is pursuing to have amended in his agency's favor.

(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

Comey wants to alter CALEA or, failing that, get a few legislators to run some sort of encryption-targeting legislation up the Congressional flagpole for him. Wyden's bill won't thwart these efforts and it does leave the NSA free to continue with its pre-existing homebrewed backdoor efforts -- the kind that don't require mandates because they're performed off-site without the manufacturer's knowledge.

This still in early draft form and will likely be finessed as it heads towards becoming a finished product, hopefully addressing a few of these issues on the way. If nothing else, it sends yet another message to James Comey and like-minded law enforcement officials that there's a whole bunch of legislators waiting to thwart their pushes for instant, permanent access to the American public's cellphones.

Filed Under: backdoors, calea, encryption, james comey, ron wyden, wiretapping

NSA Chief Warns Of Pending Cyberattack... Which He Wants To Make Easier With Backdoors

from the ridiculous dept

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers has often seemed somewhat more reasonable than his predecessor, but he's still not above spewing FUD. The latest is that, last week, he pulled out the favorite of surveillance state supporters everywhere: the pending cyberpocalypse, in which hackers take down the economy. Prepare for the "dramatic cyberattack" that is inevitably on the way:

The director of the National Security Agency issued a warning Thursday about cyberthreats emerging from other countries against networks running critical U.S. infrastructure systems.

Adm. Michael Rogers said he expects a major cyberattack against the U.S. in the next decade. “It’s only a matter of the ‘when,’ not the ‘if,’ that we are going to see something dramatic,” he said.

Of course, as venture capitalist/entrepreneur Marc Andreessen pointed out in response, the best way to stop that from happening would be to not require that software have backdoors that can easily be hacked:

What would really help with this? Software without government-mandated backdoor security holes! http://t.co/ihRYvQbTIO

— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) November 21, 2014

"You must build bulletproof software systems that foreign state hackers can never penetrate!" "But leave deliberate backdoors open for us!"

— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) November 21, 2014

And, in some ways, it's even worse than that. Even as law enforcement, intelligence officials and clueless commentators keep pushing for less encryption and more backdoors, those in the actual security world know that the best way to keep things secure is with more encryption, not less. It means fewer security holes and backdoors, not more. And yet the NSA seems to be working actively against that.

Filed Under: admiral michael rogers, backdoors, cyberattack, marc andreessen, nsa