<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Encryption backdoors via the back door in Industry News</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Encryption-backdoors-via-the-back-door/m-p/33650#M4124</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The latest salvo by government and law enforcement to &lt;A href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Crypto-Wars-Again-and-again-and-again-and-again/m-p/14344" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;require weakening of encryption&lt;/A&gt; comes via a law supposedly about the prevention of child abuse.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The &lt;A href="https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/03/13/earn-it-act-threatens-end-to-end-encryption/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;EARN It Act&lt;/A&gt; doesn't actually mention encryption: it talks about "lawful access."&amp;nbsp; But, make no mistake, it would put pressure on tech companies to weaken encryption or provide backdoors.&amp;nbsp; If they don't, they would be denied the current protection of simply being the carrier of postings: if that is removed, the companies can be sued for anything any of their users post.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But how can we object to protection from child abuse?&amp;nbsp; Well, although child abuse is being used as a selling point of the bill, it actually doesn't do anything to protect against it ...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:28:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-10-09T09:28:20Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Encryption backdoors via the back door</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Encryption-backdoors-via-the-back-door/m-p/33650#M4124</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The latest salvo by government and law enforcement to &lt;A href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Crypto-Wars-Again-and-again-and-again-and-again/m-p/14344" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;require weakening of encryption&lt;/A&gt; comes via a law supposedly about the prevention of child abuse.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The &lt;A href="https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/03/13/earn-it-act-threatens-end-to-end-encryption/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;EARN It Act&lt;/A&gt; doesn't actually mention encryption: it talks about "lawful access."&amp;nbsp; But, make no mistake, it would put pressure on tech companies to weaken encryption or provide backdoors.&amp;nbsp; If they don't, they would be denied the current protection of simply being the carrier of postings: if that is removed, the companies can be sued for anything any of their users post.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But how can we object to protection from child abuse?&amp;nbsp; Well, although child abuse is being used as a selling point of the bill, it actually doesn't do anything to protect against it ...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:28:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Encryption-backdoors-via-the-back-door/m-p/33650#M4124</guid>
      <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-10-09T09:28:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

