PDA

View Full Version : How the U.S. Will Criminalize Quantum Cryptography


EAGLE EYE
11-18-2010, 01:18 AM
How the U.S. Will Criminalize Quantum Cryptography

Posted by Michael_Byrne (http://www.motherboard.tv/profiles/michael_byrne) on Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010
http://assets.motherboard.tv/post_images/assets/000/007/326/broken_lock_1_large.jpg?1290035071

Next (http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/11/17/how-the-u-s-will-criminalize-quantum-cryptography#)
Prev (http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/11/17/how-the-u-s-will-criminalize-quantum-cryptography#)




The Feds are poking Facebook and Google harder than ever. And the fallout may extend way into the communication future and quantum cryptography.
Yesterday FBI Director Robert Mueller III and General Counsel Valerie Caproni met with leaders from Facebook and Google to talk about how they can more easily burrow into your accounts. No word on how they replied yet (the news appeared in the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/17/google_facebook_wiretapping/)) but from the FBIís point of view, the general concern is that their old methods of wiretapping are becoming obsolete in the face of VOiP tech like Google Talk and Skype, which take place over encrypted communication channels rather than much cruder landline telephone tech.


So, what they want is some way, provided by the companies, that they can unencrypt those channels and, aided by their dynamite sense (http://motherboard.tv/2010/10/18/tracking-yourself-so-big-brother-doesn-t-have-to--2) of finding out who the bad guys are, proceed like they could back in the Dragnet days. This has to do with the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/9/27/the-government-wants-easier-access-to-your-inbox--2), a law in process that forces phone and broadband providers to ďhave the means to make sure they can immediately comply with court wiretap orders.Ē The FBI wants to extend that to all communication service providers, which includes Skype et al.
Under the proposal, developers of email, instant-messaging and voice-over-internet-protocol applications would be forced to redesign their services so their contents can be intercepted by law enforcement agents. The Commerce Department and State Department have questioned whether such a requirement would stifle innovation and put US companies at a disadvantage. They have also have concerns that the capabilities could be abused by rogue regimes to spy on US citizens.
Understand that what the FBI is asking these companies to do is do their snooping for them. Encryption isnít something that started with VOiP or internet networks. Itís long been a form of passing a secret message, coding something so that itís only readable to the receiver.
To put it even more bluntly: the FBI wants to make passing secret messages illegal, for anyone (more later). Encryption is an active cloaking process. It differs from, say, a phone landline that was never really meant to be communications safe channel. (Think of listening in to your older sisterís phone conversations as a kid, or whatever.)


It was however protected legally from unwarranted eavesdropping. Now, weíre taking an already protected channel and saying that no, thatís not OK. So, the question: what does it mean for encrypted communication in the U.S. if it can no longer exist without a third-party key at the ready? Just in case. Am I going too far in saying that this is/would be a de facto criminalization of true encryption technology?


There is a final point here, and Iím surprised it hasnít been brought up: quantum cryptography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography). The beauty of true quantum encryption is that it is impossible to intercept a message without changing the message and, thus, alerting the receiving party that something is amiss. This is not at all something that can be worked around. Itís true that a quantum system has been ďhacked (http://motherboard.tv/2010/8/30/beating-quantum-meet-the-next-generation-of-hackers)Ē in a demonstration-type environment. But, by the time quantum encryption goes live, itís safe to say that exploits like that will be worked out.


So, let me rephrase my question above. If Google offered in ten or so years a VOqC (Voice Over Quantum Channel) service, will it be de facto outlawed? Google canít provide the FBI with a key to decrypt it, so, logically, it would seem that Google could not proceed with its service. Thoughts?


Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv.

beautifulrock
11-18-2010, 01:27 AM
SETEC ASTRONOMY

mmhmmmm

3rd3y3
11-18-2010, 10:22 AM
George Orwell.

V4D3R
11-21-2010, 01:44 PM
Parasites.

Imagine all the webcam cyber sex these fucks sit there and watch...

DeeBlock
11-21-2010, 02:06 PM
Is that where your mind is at?

Funny how a persons words give away their perspective.

V4D3R
11-21-2010, 02:14 PM
My mind is many places besides thinking about where others peoples heads is at.
People have cyber sex on IM rampantly these days in case you didnt know. That means its kind of like having the FBI in your bedroom recording you have sex....you feel me?

this is the kind of invasion of privacy thats going to happen.

^^Now dont even try to hop on my dick anymore on this website.

DeeBlock
11-21-2010, 02:35 PM
Parasites.

Imagine all the webcam cyber sex these fucks sit there and watch...



...That means its kind of like having the FBI in your bedroom recording you have sex....you feel me?

this is the kind of invasion of privacy thats going to happen.

The second quote is totally different than what you said in the first one.

hehe

V4D3R
11-21-2010, 02:38 PM
The second quote is totally different than what you said in the first one.

hehe

Not really. Its the same scenario worded differently. You work for the FBI? Do you resemble that remark?

DeeBlock
11-21-2010, 02:42 PM
The first quote is literal, the second is figurative.

Whatever though. I just thought it was a strange thing for you to bring up.