Very telling answers on encryption from @NCSC's Ciaran Martin and @MikePBurgess at #AspenCyber that underscore how Five Eyes governments are trying to have it both ways and infuriating cryptography experts. (See next two tweets.)
1
5
3
14
Martin said "we need to take the heat out of the debate" but then seconds later said "most sensible and rational people would agree that there should" be holes in encryption that companies can exploit to decrypt data for the government.
1
1
4
Burgess called encryption "a damn good thing," criticized "breaking encryption, for any reason," and called backdoors "a stupid concept." But then he said there was "nothing wrong" with the idea that "law enforcement can have access to the tools they need."
2
1
8
You can't say you oppose backdoors and then say that law enforcement must be able to access encrypted data if the only way to make that data accessible is to design mechanisms that cryptographers consider backdoors. Call for whatever you want, but you have to be consistent.
3
1
15
Replying to @ericgeller
The largest problem with backdoors isn’t the potential domestic abuse, it’s the high probability that it will be exploited by foreign actors, of which lawmakers are a prime target. I am a big proponent that lawmakers should be the backdoor pilot group for a year, see how it goes.

Nov 8, 2018 · 7:44 PM UTC
1
1