0
There is gulf between how people believe law to work (from watching TV shows like
Law and Order) and how law actually works. You lawyer people know what I'm talking about. It's laughable.
The same is true of cyber: there's a gulf between how people think it works and how it actually works.
This
Lawfare blogpost thinks it's come up with a clever method to get their way in the crypto-backdoor debate, by making carriers like AT&T responsible only for the
what ("deliver interpretable signal in response to lawful wiretap order") without defining the
how (crypto backdoors, etc.). This pressure would come in the form of removing current liability protections they now enjoy for not being responsible for what customers transmit across their network. Or as the post paraphrases the proposal:
Don’t expect us to protect you from liability for third-party conduct if you actively design your systems to frustrate government efforts to monitor that third-party conduct.
The post is proud of its own smarts, as if they've figured out how to outwit mathematicians and
redefine pi (π). But their solution is nonsense, based on a hopelessly naive understanding of how the Internet works. It appears all
Continue reading