Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption
Preamble
The Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are committed to personal rights and privacy, and support the role of encryption in protecting those rights.
Encryption is vital to the digital economy and a secure cyberspace, and to the protection of personal, commercial and government information. However, the increasing use and sophistication of certain encryption designs present challenges for nations in combatting serious crimes and threats to national and global security.
Many of the same means of encryption that are being used to protect personal, commercial and government information are also being used by criminals, including child sex offenders, terrorists and organized crime groups to frustrate investigations and avoid detection and prosecution.
Privacy laws must prevent arbitrary or unlawful interference, but privacy is not absolute. It is an established principle that appropriate government authorities should be able to seek access to otherwise private information when a court or independent authority has authorized such access based on established legal standards. The same principles have long permitted government authorities to search homes, vehicles, and personal effects with valid legal authority.
The increasing gap between the ability of law enforcement to lawfully access data and their ability to acquire and use the content of that data is a pressing international concern that requires urgent, sustained attention and informed discussion on the complexity of the issues and interests at stake. Otherwise, court decisions about legitimate access to data are increasingly rendered meaningless, threatening to undermine the systems of justice established in our democratic nations. Each of the Five Eyes jurisdictions will consider how best to implement the principles of this statement, including with the voluntary cooperation of industry partners.
Any response, be it legislative or otherwise, will adhere to requirements for proper authorization and oversight, and to the traditional requirements that access to information is underpinned by warrant or other legal process. We recognize that, in giving effect to these principles, governments may have need to engage with a range of stakeholders, consistent with their domestic environment and legal frameworks.
The Attorneys General and Interior Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand affirm the following principles in relation to encryption. 1. Mutual Responsibility Diminished access to the content of lawfully obtained data is not just an issue for Governments alone, but a mutual responsibility for all stakeholders. Providers of information and communications technology and services - carriers, device manufacturers or over-the-top service providers -– are subject to the law, which can include requirements to assist authorities to lawfully access data, including the content of communications. Safe and secure communities benefit citizens and the companies that operate within them.
We are always willing to work with technology providers in order to meet our public safety responsibilities and ensure the ability of citizens to protect their sensitive data. Law enforcement agencies in our countries need technology providers to assist with the execution of lawful orders. Currently there are some challenges arising from the increasing use and sophistication of encryption technology in relation to which further assistance is needed.
Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.
2. Rule of law and due process are paramount All governments should ensure that assistance requested from providers is underpinned by the rule of law and due process protections. The principle that access by authorities to the information of private citizens occurs only pursuant to the rule of law and due process is fundamental to maintaining the values of our democratic society in all circumstances – whether in their homes, personal effects, devices, or communications. Access to information, subject to this principle, is critical to the ability of governments to protect our citizens by investigating threats and prosecuting crimes. This lawful access should always be subject to oversight by independent authorities and/or subject to judicial review.
3. Freedom of choice for lawful access solutions The Governments of the Five Eyes encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services that they create or operate in our countries. Governments should not favor a particular technology; instead, providers may create customized solutions, tailored to their individual system architectures that are capable of meeting lawful access requirements. Such solutions can be a constructive approach to current challenges. Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions.
As technology evolves, it's ability to subvert the government improves. The government fights back by becoming more and more totalitarian and imposing more and more restrictions in order to maintain its grip on its subjects.
I've always said that encryption is a military weapon far too powerful to be left in the hands of mere citizens. It's simple math, but it can frustrate and defeat entire governments. They will outlaw strong encryption eventually. This article is just a warning: give us access or we'll make laws that allow us to jail you until you do, hack your systems or literally torture it out of you.
The future is government-approved tamper-proof computers running only government-signed software. There is nothing wrong with trusted computing and such; the problem has always been who owns the keys to the system, and the government will see to it that it's not you.
Benjamin Gutierrez
So they finally went for it.
Benjamin Jones
They've been pushing bills like this for 30+ years. PGP exists because of the fight over key escrow and export.
Christian Morales
Good. I hope they ban all encryption. I also hope that they ban computers. Only completely locked-down smartphones for us.
Coding should be illegal. You should need a special education and special licensing in order to code. Even plumbers need licenses and special training, and they play with literal shit.
I blame the nerds that fell for the business and money scams. Computing and business can only coexist for so long before one subjugates to the other.
This has happened with many other areas in the past. Take aviation for example. Only crazy adventurous people got on planes at first. Once businesses saw that they could make a profit from aviation everything changed. Look at the mess of FAA regulations we now have. No more adventure allowed. Want to make your own plane in your backyard? Hope you can meet all FAA regulations and that you are (((healthy))) enough to fly.
It's all about making the average person feel safe. It's all about making the investors feel safe.
There was a major attack on encryption during the 90's. We survived that round because the intertwinement of tech and business was still not so pervasive. Things are very different now. People "depend" on tech. And once something has the power to hurt industry the government will come down on it hard.
You think shit has been gay since the golden age of tech ended? You think it has been sucky ever since the internet got so commercial? You think facebook, google, amazon, etc are gay? Buddy, the gayness hasn't even fucking started yet.
Lucas Thompson
(((voluntary income tax)))
Brody Flores
(((Principles)))
(((The Attorneys General and Interior Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand affirm the following principles in relation to encryption.)))
(((1. Mutual Responsibility)))
(((Diminished access to the content of lawfully obtained data is not just an issue for Governments alone, but a mutual responsibility for all stakeholders.)))
(((Providers of information and communications technology and services - carriers, device manufacturers or over-the-top service providers -– are subject to the law, which can include requirements to assist authorities to lawfully access data, including the content of communications. Safe and secure communities benefit citizens and the companies that operate within them. )))
(((Hey. wait, I thought cooperation was going to be voluntary!?)))
(((We are always willing to work with technology providers in order to meet our public safety responsibilities and ensure the ability of citizens to protect their sensitive data. Law enforcement agencies in our countries need technology providers to assist with the execution of lawful orders. Currently there are some challenges arising from the increasing use and sophistication of encryption technology in relation to which further assistance is needed.)))
(((Well, if it stops the terrorists I suppose I understand)))
(((Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.)))
(((Yes. Locks should be for security, but no one needs Fort Knox level security in their home.)))
(((2. Rule of law and due process are paramount)))
(((All governments should ensure that assistance requested from providers is underpinned by the rule of law and due process protections.)))
(((The principle that access by authorities to the information of private citizens occurs only pursuant to the rule of law and due process is fundamental to maintaining the values of our democratic society in all circumstances – whether in their homes, personal effects, devices, or communications. Access to information, subject to this principle, is critical to the ability of governments to protect our citizens by investigating threats and prosecuting crimes. This lawful access should always be subject to oversight by independent authorities and/or subject to judicial review.)))
(((I gladly submit to my judicial overlords. They know what's best for me concerning how secure and private my data should be.)))
(((3. Freedom of choice for lawful access solutions)))
(((The Governments of the Five Eyes encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services that they create or operate in our countries. Governments should not favor a particular technology; instead, providers may create customized solutions, tailored to their individual system architectures that are capable of meeting lawful access requirements. Such solutions can be a constructive approach to current challenges.)))
(((Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions.)))
(((So I can still keep my iPhone? All my life is on that, as long as I don't have to change phones, I think this is ok.)))
With all the Talpiot exports, Israel literally gets access to the 5 eyes data, even before the cucked politicians offer it to them.
Oliver Lewis
BURN GNU/LINUX ISOS ON DVDS AND DROP THEM ALL OVER THE CITY. DOWNLOAD AND STORE ENCRYPTION SCHEMES, PRINT THEM OUT AND STORE THEM SAFELY. BUY AND PRESERVE NON-(((BOTNETTED))) HARDWARE. DO NOT TOUCH (((X86))) VIRUS AT ALL COSTS . WE /GNU+TERRORISM/ NOW.
Jeremiah Howard
I hope you used a proper text editor to do all that.
Nicholas King
RISC-V when?
Henry Butler
I HAVE BEEN WARNING YOU ALL ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS THE JEWS FUCKING WON THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO FIGHT THIS SHIT ANYMORE THE DEATH OF YOUR FREEDOM BEGINS MOW
Never. The kikes won.
Adam Lopez
...
Bentley Gomez
Official Zig Forums declaration of surrender fucking when? There is nothing any of us can do to fight this shit. We can't not throw in the fucking towel at this point.
Landon Ward
Hello fellow black pill user. It's over. We had a good run, didn't we. There's just no use resisting the forces against us anymore. I'm content with my futile existence, to such an extent that I'm actually decrypting all my files to make them more easily scannable by the authorities. I have nothing to hide as far as I know, and if I do have something bad on my computer, then I deserve to be punished for being careless.
Matthew Powell
MODS FUCKING STICKY THE KIKES FUCKING FINALLY DID IT WE FUCKING SURRENDER
At this point, this is the only option you can take. There will soon be no encryption they can't break. They won.
Nigger the whole thread is scared shitless. Soon there will be nothing that won't be botnet anymore. All the FOSS shilling and hype was for nothing. Literally all of these have been defeated by government intervention. Don't call it a samefag because you don't like what is being said.
Cameron Evans
No. Linux sends the wrong voltages to the chips, it can cause real damages.
Carson Gutierrez
Literally none of them have been defeated by government intervention, retard
Owen Howard
Just stop using normalfag tech, there will always be underground enthusiast shit no matter what they do. And it won't even be that underground, piracy is illegal yet there's tons of idiots that make use of it. The more effort that gets put into undermining the infrastructure behind the corporate internet, the more effort will be put into the free internet. Stuff like IPFS will become the successor to the glory of the pre-2007 internet, and those that defiled it will be contained in their corporate friendly government-approved safe space.
So there is nothing to fear, user, just don't be a retard and secure your privacy right now lest the comments you post here be used against you by your would-be corporate/government overlords.
John Bennett
who has observer status in the Five Eyes?
Jacob Hughes
Yep. Governments are cracking down harder than ever on privacy, and yet drug and cheese pizza markets are alive and well on the darkweb. Even if the powers that be exert control over 'the internet', they can't stop the less-than-mainstream channels. The free net will be the domain of nerds and autists once again.
There's a lot of high emotion in this thread. I don't think all of it is called for. This is not law. It's just a memo. There are many more hurdles to overcome before this kind of thing becomes law. And, in the US, even once it is law it is still subject to judicial review.
Ayden Foster
...
Levi King
After the way the Obama admin abused the FISA system, do you still have faith in that?
Lincoln Robinson
Shut it down! Nothing to see here! No need to act now!
Caleb Miller
If we had real moderation you would be banned.
Christian Murphy
Can I still wear gloves on my nightly burglarous rounds?
Jayden Jackson
Will do no good if computers that run unsigned code are illegal.
Alexander Roberts
It takes billion dollar fabs in order to make processors and those answer to the government. How can 'the underground' ever compete? Are we going to have to build Z80 computers in the future? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get my hands on aome 'underground' hardware... If it existed.
Daniel Foster
The post tells us 2 things. First, that encryption is effective. Second, that they're willing to use the machinery of the state to weaken encryption.
Isaiah Harris
Maybe there'll be a breakthrough in production that puts it back in the hands of the people. Like, cheap component assembly via nanobots or something.
Jaxon Roberts
This was probably spurred on by the rejection of Speck. Don't be fooled that they're fine with just one means of keeping control of you, though. They want as many as they can get.
People smuggle tons of drugs and guns across state borders every year. Why the same can't be done with some Chinese tech? They'll be more than happy to pull this off.
Assuming the chinese will be producing free computers to begin with. China is even more draconian than the 5 eyes. They will likely be similarly backdoored too.
Evan Ortiz
With no alternatives, free software replacements will be eventually developed. Even then, it would be backdoored only by chinks, and they (probably) won't give access to FVEY. Also it's worth considering that with such system getting implemented the demand for all-libre gear would rise significantly, so it will be made. However it would be quite expensive because of small batches (you don't produce billions of devices just for smuggling them illegally).
Joseph Murphy
Does this even matter? All they are after is the data corporations have on you anyways, which already sell these to other corporations and governments. I would rather not have my tax money spent on further bloating investor profit if the government can get the data anyways tbh. If you care about your privacy you have to never let the data get collected in the first place, which is almost exclusively done by proprietary software/hardware/services vendors. Thinking you can give your data to them but keep them out of spy agencies is delusional.
Brandon Rodriguez
So the best the combined intelligence services of five of the world's information superpowers can do is REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at online corporations? Boy, am I spooked.
Levi Smith
How does it feel to get fucking BTFO by facts, autist? Face it everyone here has already addmitted defeat and for good reason.
And they'll get all of them on a silver platter. Because the kikes always win. It's over. We fucking surrender.
Adam Phillips
Which is exactly why it will never happen
Asher Russell
No, you're a kike who says that to make people think that "everyone here" is surrendering when in reality it's all just a psyop
Brayden Garcia
...
Austin Brooks
This. All these autists saying that underground tech can even compare to what normalfag tech has to offer in terms of power are in denial. No matter what you do, you can never escape from the kikes ever again. It's over. We're fucking done.
Why even go and reinvent whole computer? Only attack vector they have is the network. If I put firewall between me and router, I decide what comes in and what goes out. Use fpgas then. It would essentially be impossible to tamper with something that does not execute software. What one should be doing is:
Internet ---> ISP modem ---> Proxy server running Windows 10 to make them believe you're just a normalfag, automated tasks using the PC like a normalfag would ---> firewall ---> Your actual PC running minimal linux, fetching pre-rendered web pages from the normalfag proxy
Only thing that is missing from this is a way to mask (((problematic))) traffic with normal traffic coming from the normalfag machine.
Carson Davis
Defeatist kikes should go first.
Liam Anderson
Perhaps living in the future isn't as good as now. Though that does expose why they want all homes to have smartspiesmeters installed.
Ryan Williams
Mystery government shill shut the fuck up. Just because a few people will follow your lemming like fakery doesn't mean the majority will, if you want to surrender feel free to shove a white flag attached to a sharpened stake up your ass to let the government know that you're doing your job to lead the false panic.
Tyler Lee
how can you have a firewall that filters out attacks exploiting vulnerabilities? if you already know all the vulns you can just fix them, and a firewall would be redundant and possibly more complex and unreliable (does cover all cases so the vuln can actually still be exploited)
Lincoln Sanchez
anyone that would know what to do with your dvd, and would actually be willing to install it, already has linux on their machine.
Bentley Adams
raping my little sister is illegal, but that never stopped me :)
Jeremiah Morris
What stopped you? The fact that she does not exist?
Hunter Wilson
I never said I was done. I said the authorities are making their move.
Your imaginary sister doesn't have a cryptographic vagina that only accepts dicks signed by her father.
Aaron Cooper
could this legit happen? I mean, people put chips under their skin and such, and theres some that experiment with modifying their bodies with computers, so it's not entirely out of the question.
Of course it could. Does nature want this to happen? No. Nature wants as many dicks in there as possible.
Leo Roberts
Apparently, australia is going to become a test bed for draconian legislation. They're seeing how much they can get away with.
Kevin Hall
Has this kind of posting ever worked on anyone? How does it feel to have so little control over others and yet keep trying as hard as you do? You're a waste of bandwidth, off yourself.
Alexander Walker
In the U.S. there is a bill introduced called the Secure Data Act of 2018 directly addressing this:
This looks very good. The law essentially stops the NSA from telling vendors to provide backdoors. It weakens the NSA's threat in the OP's article. Another good sign is how it doesn't qualify the "strength" of the introduced vulnerability using words such as "systemic". An order to push an update to surveil even 1 specific user would still be illegal. If they want access, they'll have to crack the security the old fashioned way or go through the proper channels.
The law has a few exceptions though, in section (c), which allows mandates authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Let's discuss the implications of this.
Also, the law covers any hardware, software or electronic product "that is made available to the general public" -- consumer hardware, it seems. It's possible that other categories aren't covered.
Here's the full text:
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY MANDATES.
(a) Agency Actions.—Except as provided in subsection (c), no agency may mandate or request 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.
(b) Court Orders.—Except as provided in subsection (c), no court may issue an order to compel a manufacturer, developer, or seller of covered products to 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 an agency.
(c) Exception.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to mandates, requests, or court orders authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(d) Definitions.—In this section—
(1) the term “agency” has the meaning given the term in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and
(2) the term “covered product” means any computer hardware, computer software, or electronic device that is made available to the general public.
Grayson Lee
No, the gayness is in full bloom for a long time already. What's coming is trannyness on steroids.
Parker Gray
How is this not corp lobbying at it's finest to maintain 'any agency' to have to pay for the information from google etc. I would imagine it is their most profitable product and 'any agency' is probably a top customer.
