Difference between revisions of "Exceptional Access"

From MgmtWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Problems)
(Solutions)
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
==Solutions==
 
==Solutions==
 
+
*All governments make the case that they have the technology and security necessary to protect user's secrets. The fiasco with skip-jack blew the extreme version of that argument out of the water. Yet there are many cases where we have decided to give the government the discretion to decide when a "brake the glass" event has occurred and access needs to be granted. For example, [[FirstNet]] has been established as a response to the lack of communications among emergency responders at the 9-11 tragedy. The resultant network and coordination with local governments allows access to much of a user's medical history. Some [[Smart Phone]]s have lock-screen access to a user identity, automobile registration information typically request the primary driver to be registered, and other mechanisms allow the first responders to deal with medical access and contact information to give the assistance required.
 
+
*
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 15:17, 18 April 2019

Full Title or Meme

Good Public Key Cryptography is dependent on the absolute protection of the Private Key Component of the public/private key pair. But it turns out in most cases that are is good reason to allow Exceptional Access to data protected by the key.

Context

Ever since strong cryptographic encryption technologies were created, shortly after computers become common, there have been governmental agencies that have worried that their lack of access to private data, under the existing rule of law, was a threat to the security of the Common Good that they are charged with protecting.

Problems

  • After the spectacular failure of skip-jack, the industry has been able to keep most governments at bay in their attempt to gain access to user's secret information.
  • There are many reason why secret protections almost always need some sort of "brake the glass" mechanism to activate an alarum on solve a security problem.
  1. User health information is widely regarded as containing many secrets that users should be able to protect from release to anyone without their consent. However, if the user is laying comatose at the scene of some major trauma, such concerns take second place to protecting the user's life. The absence of user consent must not be a hindrance to the overriding interest in protection of life itself.
  2. Legitimate governmental secrets
  • As of early 2019 there was nearly universal belief that it was not possible to design a secret protection scheme with a "brake the glass" mechanism that would not be misused. “The answer is always, show me a proposal that doesn’t harm security,” says Dan Boneh, a celebrated cryptographer who teaches at Stanford. “How do we balance that against the legitimate need of security to unlock phones? I wish I could tell you.”[1]

Solutions

  • All governments make the case that they have the technology and security necessary to protect user's secrets. The fiasco with skip-jack blew the extreme version of that argument out of the water. Yet there are many cases where we have decided to give the government the discretion to decide when a "brake the glass" event has occurred and access needs to be granted. For example, FirstNet has been established as a response to the lack of communications among emergency responders at the 9-11 tragedy. The resultant network and coordination with local governments allows access to much of a user's medical history. Some Smart Phones have lock-screen access to a user identity, automobile registration information typically request the primary driver to be registered, and other mechanisms allow the first responders to deal with medical access and contact information to give the assistance required.

References

  1. Steven Levy, Cracking the Crypto War. (2019-04-18) Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crypto-war-clear-encryption/