Continuing the US government’s menacing of strong end-to-end encryption, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told an audience at the US Naval Academy that encryption isn’t protected by the American Constitution.
在美国政府的威胁的强大的端到端的加密,副检察长Rod Rosenstein在美国海军官校,加密不是由美国宪法保护告诉观众。
In short, software writers and other nerds: the math behind modern cryptography is trumped by the Fourth Amendment, and in any case, there has never been an absolute right to privacy. This message came at the end of this wide-ranging speech on Tuesday, which repeated fixations heard in previous speeches.
总之,软件作者和其他书呆子:后现代密码学的数学是莫须有的第四修正案,并在任何情况下,没有绝对的隐私权。这个消息是在这种广泛的言论在星期二结束,这在以前的演讲听到重复固定。

He called for backdoors in April, and doubled down last week, then saying: “Our society has never had a system where evidence of criminal wrongdoing was totally impervious to detection.”
他呼吁后门在四月,和加倍的最后一周,然后说:“我们的社会从来没有一个系统的犯罪行为的证据是检测完全不可理喻。”
In this week’s speech, Rosenstein time-travelled from the American Revolutionary War to the tragic death of US student Otto Warmbier at the hands of North Korean authorities, before launching a volley into encryption.
在本周的演讲中,罗森斯坦专程从美国革命战争到美国在北朝鲜当局手中的学生Otto Warmbier的惨死,在加密发射截击。
Amid a rising backlash that’s uniting some tech giants and developers, academics, and civil libertarians, Rosenstein believes criminal investigators should be able to crack strong and so-called “warrant-proof” encrypted communications on demand without any legal headaches:
在一个增长的反弹,结合一些科技巨头、开发商、学者和公民自由主义者,罗森斯坦认为,侦查人员应当能够破解强和所谓的“授权证明”没有任何法律问题的加密通信的需求:
Encryption is a foundational element of data security and authentication. It is essential to the growth and flourishing of the digital economy, and we in law enforcement have no desire to undermine it.
加密是数据安全和认证的基本要素。数字经济的繁荣和发展是必不可少的,执法人员也不想破坏它。
But the advent of “warrant-proof” encryption is a serious problem. Under our Constitution, when crime is afoot, impartial judges are charged with balancing a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy against the interests of law enforcement. The law recognizes that legitimate law enforcement needs can outweigh personal privacy concerns.
但出现的“担保证明”加密是一个严重的问题。根据我们的宪法,当犯罪发生时,公正的法官负责平衡公民对隐私的合理预期,而不符合执法的利益。法律承认的合法执法的需要可以大于个人隐私问题。
Our society has never had a system where evidence of criminal wrongdoing was totally impervious to detection, especially when officers obtain a court-authorized warrant. But that is the world that technology companies are creating.
公司应该建立信息系统资产安全管理制度,编制资产清单,明确资产管理责任部门与人员,规范资产分配、使用、存储、维护和销毁等各种行为,定期对资产清单进行一致性检查并保留检查记录。
我们的社会从来没有一个系统证明犯罪行为的证据完全不受侦查人员的控制,特别是当警官获得法院授权的搜查令时。但这是技术公司创造的世界。
Those companies create jobs, design valuable products, and innovate in amazing ways. But there has never been a right to absolute privacy. Courts weigh privacy against other values, including the need to solve and prevent crimes. Under the Fourth Amendment, communications may be intercepted and locked devices may be opened if they are used to commit crimes, provided that the government demonstrates showing of probable cause.
这些公司创造就业机会,设计有价值的产品,并以惊人的方式进行创新。但从来没有一个绝对的隐私权。法院权衡隐私与其他价值,包括解决和预防犯罪的必要性。根据第四条修正案,通信可能被截获,如果被用来犯罪,则可以打开装置,只要政府表明了可能的原因。
Warrant-proof encryption defeats the constitutional balance by elevating privacy above public safety. Encrypted communications that cannot be intercepted and locked devices that cannot be opened are law-free zones that permit criminals and terrorists to operate without detection by police and without accountability by judges and juries.
保证认证加密通过提高隐私高于公共安全而破坏了宪法的平衡。无法截获和锁定无法打开的加密通信是无法律区,允许罪犯和恐怖分子在没有警察的监督下操作,而不受法官和陪审团的追究。
Readers will surely be aware that the famed Daniel Bernstein spent nine years establishing that cryptography is free speech in the US, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, a notion that would have to be overturned for Rosenstein to get his way, we presume.
读者一定会注意,著名niel Bernstein花了九年建立,密码是美国的言论自由,并因此受到第一修正案,认为要推翻罗森斯坦得到他的方式,我们认为。
The remainder of Rosenstein’s arguments will already be wearyingly familiar to followers of the debate: encryption can be rendered accessible to law enforcement bearing warrants without weakening it for everyone; and “going dark” renders criminals immune from justice.
罗森斯坦的论点,其余的将辩论的追随者套熟悉得令人厌烦:加密可以使执法轴承权证可以不削弱它的人;而“走出黑暗”使罪犯免于正义。
Rosenstein offered a list of what he called “responsible encryption” – in which messages are safeguarded from hackers and criminals yet accessible to authorized third parties – to prove his case, which we present so readers can dismember it in the comments.
罗森斯坦提出了一个名单,他所谓的“负责任的”加密的消息–防止黑客和不法分子但访问授权的第三方–证明自己的情况下,我们提出让读者可以将它的意见。
“Such encryption already exists,” the deputy AG claimed. “Examples include the central management of security keys and operating system updates; the scanning of content, like your emails, for advertising purposes; the simulcast of messages to multiple destinations at once; and key recovery when a user forgets the password to decrypt a laptop.”
“这样的加密技术已经存在,“副银声称。”例子包括安全密钥的更新和操作系统的中央管理;内容的扫描,如电子邮件,广告的目的;一旦消息发送到多个目的地的联播;和密钥恢复当用户忘记密码解密的笔记本电脑。”
He concluded with:
他得出结论:
There is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.
宪法没有规定出售权证证明加密。如果我们的社会选择让企业销售技术来屏蔽证据,即使是法院下达的命令,那也应该是一个完全知情的决定。
El Reg will get the ball rolling by saying content-scanning middle-boxes are known to be insecure. We await your comments with enthusiasm. ®
Security-Frontline-安全前线
EL将通过说内容扫描中间框是众所周知的不安全滚动。我们热忱期待您的评论。®
Sponsored:
赞助:
The Joy and Pain of Buying IT – Have Your Say
买它的欢乐和痛苦让你说
由于智能手机与平板电脑这类移动上网设备的强劲增长为网络犯罪提供了新机会,去年手机受到的安全威胁也在急速增长。

猜您喜欢

龙凤区法院强化制度建院 推进规范管理确保司法公正
员工信息安全意识红宝书
Cyber Security Law 网络安全法宣传视频系列001
视频-泪目!荷兰队官方视频告别罗本 再无橙衣小飞侠
SYBIAN CREDODONATIONS
针对企业员工的EHS知识启蒙培训