No, he doesn't want the *legal* authority. If he did, he would continue to pester Congress to pass laws compelling compliance with the Agency's wishes, instead of making public speeches. But he knows that a law that forbids encryption that is inaccessible to the government would be a hard sell, as it would drive business away from the US to many overseas companies. It would also apply to all devices in all use cases, unless some sort of ITAR-like regulatory system is set up.
Instead, what he wants is for companies to *volunteer* to weaken their encryption in some way *for consumer products*. He would probably prefer that this be done secretly, so that the public believes that the encryption is secure when it isn't, but he would settle for society pressuring companies to do this "in the name of civic duty" or some such nonsense. This way, he can have his cake and eat it too: the government isn't compelling anyone to weaken their encryption, strong encryption is available for business to business (where they can compel that a non-encrypted backup be kept), but weak encryption is there anyway for individuals' devices.
Really, what he wants is to roll the clock back a few years. What he wants, without saying it outright, is for companies to stop offering Secure By Default services, i.e., default encryption of devices. He wants device encryption to be difficult to achieve and ultimately insecure. He also wants the use of device encryption to be considered an indication that the user is involved in suspicious activities ("why would he do something so difficult if he weren't doing something illegal"). And he wants companies to volunteer to do this so that, which is why he keeps yapping about it.
Re:
Instead, what he wants is for companies to *volunteer* to weaken their encryption in some way *for consumer products*. He would probably prefer that this be done secretly, so that the public believes that the encryption is secure when it isn't, but he would settle for society pressuring companies to do this "in the name of civic duty" or some such nonsense. This way, he can have his cake and eat it too: the government isn't compelling anyone to weaken their encryption, strong encryption is available for business to business (where they can compel that a non-encrypted backup be kept), but weak encryption is there anyway for individuals' devices.
Really, what he wants is to roll the clock back a few years. What he wants, without saying it outright, is for companies to stop offering Secure By Default services, i.e., default encryption of devices. He wants device encryption to be difficult to achieve and ultimately insecure. He also wants the use of device encryption to be considered an indication that the user is involved in suspicious activities ("why would he do something so difficult if he weren't doing something illegal"). And he wants companies to volunteer to do this so that, which is why he keeps yapping about it.
Re:
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by bluebearr.
Submit a story now.