The problem as I see it is that tech is generally willing to support the means of providing secure communications, but they're not going to play favorites. The US government, on the other hand, wants the ability to break the encryption for whatever reasons (and I do mean whatever).
Secure encryption is not a sliding scale - it's either secure or it's not. If one government can get in, then it's only a matter of time before some other government less friendly can.
So, the act of fending off hackers and intruders (Chinese, Iranian, etc.) means you fend off all of them.
In most ways that matter, this is another Cold War and there are no friendlies.
So, while most people here seem to be against the US government's requests, the reality is (I think) that we recognize that real security means tech doesn't play favorites.
You're right, of course, but this is the kind of "Fox News" style attitude that is causing me such angst. No one in this article or in the White House is suggesting Silicon Valley build crypto software that lets the US, but not any other country, view the plaintext contents. Why bring it up like they are?
Some idiots in some isolated buildings in Virginia might be saying that, but the government employs 10 million or more people. This outreach is positive. That backdooring is the problem, not this outreach.
It's a complicated issue -- HN's tactic of acting like children and putting their collective fingers in their ears when adults try to solve the real problem is getting on my nerves.
I just expect more from folks who claim to be among the best and brightest of Silicon Valley -- these conspiracy-level comments that pervade every single submission about the US government and crypto/privacy kill any real conversations before they can get started.
"One proposal, by Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, is to develop a split-key system in which companies hold half and the government, or some outside agent, holds the other half of the key to unlock encrypted communications. The two would be put together only with approval of a court. But many computer security experts reject that idea, saying it would leave too much room for theft and would motivate other governments to require the same."
Their existing 'solution' is a huge part of the problem. Sorry, you'll get very little sympathy from most here, and no one is giving the US gov a back door (not willingly, anyway).
Which attitude are you talking about? I don't think there is one that generalizes.
Also, whose security are you talking about? The article spends quite some time presenting national security concerns, but the proposals to enhance that often harm the ability of individuals and companies to secure their data (which the seemingly adult experts quoted in the article do bring up).
