[Cryptography] What if Responsible Encryption Back-Doors Were Possible?

[hbaker1]

-----Original Message-----
>From: John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
>Sent: Nov 29, 2018 1:40 PM
>To: cryptography at metzdowd.com
>Subject: [Cryptography] What if Responsible Encryption Back-Doors Were Possible?
>
>On the Lawfare blog, an interesting piece by Josh Benaloah here.
>
>https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-responsible-encryption-back-doors-were-possible
>
>If you are tempted to respond, please read the whole thing first.  In
>particular, do not waste everyone's time by replying "but they're not!"
>We know that.
>
>R's,
>John

I attended this "conference" and all of its sessions.

The whole thing was a setup, IMHO.  I think that they were trying to gather possible arguments against backdoors so that they could be prepared for future discussions with politicians.  They also wanted to tell these politicians that there were *some* in the crypto community that thought we all really should leave our keys under the front door mat.

A group of US ex-intel hangers-on, plus some brits, some aussies, and perhaps a kiwi; more or less the 5i's.  They may also have invited some press.  Some of these folks flew on to Australia to wreak more havoc, as best I can gather.

One result of this wannabe conference can apparently be found in the recent activity in Australia to mandate back doors.  These folks apparently wanted to find one of the 5i govts to pass the first test law requiring these back doors, and Australia must have volunteered.

Magical thinking by all.

BTW, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, no actual crypto people attended this conference, which was merely held at the same *location*, so that some of the prestige of a Crypto Conference would rub off on this sham.

The only reason I knew about this conference was that I ran into one of the participants while parking my car for Crypto, and talked with him while walking over to the main venue.

Apparently, I was the only one there who questioned this whole thing, and I asked about the "C" word (Constitution).  I simply said that some of us had pledged to uphold the Constitution, and the reason why *individuals* make such pledges is that they are expected to understand the Constitution well enough to make their own assessment about possible unconstitutional activities and refuse to engage in those activities.  Recall that "simply following legal orders" didn't absolve anyone at Nurenburg, so trusting these 5i's to interpret Constitutionality isn't going to be much of a defense, either.

BTW, the "Lawfare" blog is about as close as one can get to "the unclassified (apologist) voice of the Deep State" & I suspect that Ben Wittes would consider this tag line to be high praise!