Legislation Seeks to Bar N.S.A. Tactic in Web Encryption
By SCOTT SHANE and NICOLE PERLROTH
A congressman’s proposal would prohibit the National Security Agency
from installing “back doors” into encryption, the electronic scrambling
that protects e-mail and other communications.
- N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web
- The Public Editor: Times's Decision to Publish Documents
Ryan Collerd for The New York Times
Legislation proposed by
Representative Rush D. Holt Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, would eliminate
much of the escalation in the government’s spying powers undertaken
since 2001.
By SCOTT SHANE and NICOLE PERLROTH
Published: September 6, 2013
After disclosures about the National Security Agency’s stealth campaign
to counter Internet privacy protections, a congressman has proposed
legislation that would prohibit the agency from installing “back doors”
into encryption, the electronic scrambling that protects e-mail, online
transactions and other communications.
Related
-
N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web (September 6, 2013)
Representative Rush D. Holt Jr., a New Jersey Democrat who is also a
physicist, said on Friday he believed that the N.S.A. was overreaching
and could hurt American interests, including the reputations of American
companies whose products the agency may have altered or influenced.
“We pay them to spy,” Mr. Holt said. “But if in the process they degrade
the security of the encryption we all use, it’s a net national
disservice.”
Mr. Holt, whose Surveillance State Repeal Act would eliminate much of
the escalation in the government’s spying powers undertaken after the
2001 terrorist attacks, was responding to news reports about N.S.A.
documents showing that the agency has spent billions of dollars over the
last decade in an effort to defeat or bypass encryption. The reports,
by The New York Times, ProPublica and The Guardian, were posted online on Thursday.
The agency has encouraged or coerced companies to install back doors in
encryption software and hardware, worked to weaken international
standards for encryption and employed custom-built supercomputers to
break codes or find mathematical vulnerabilities to exploit, according
to the documents, disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A.
contractor.
The documents show that N.S.A. cryptographers have made major progress
in breaking the encryption in common use for everyday transactions on
the Web, like Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL, as well as the virtual
private networks, or VPNs, that many businesses use for confidential
communications among employees.
Intelligence officials say that many of their most important targets,
including terrorist groups, use the same Webmail and other Internet
services that many Americans use, so it is crucial to be able to
penetrate the encryption that protects them. In an intense competition
with other sophisticated cyberespionage services, including those of
China and Russia, the N.S.A. cannot rule large parts of the Internet off
limits, the officials argue.
A statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper
Jr., criticized the reports, saying that it was “not news” that the
N.S.A. works to break encryption, and that the articles would damage
American intelligence collection.
The reports, the statement said, “reveal specific and classified details
about how we conduct this critical intelligence activity.”
“Anything that yesterday’s disclosures add to the ongoing public
debate,” it continued, “is outweighed by the road map they give to our
adversaries about the specific techniques we are using to try to
intercept their communications in our attempts to keep America and our
allies safe and to provide our leaders with the information they need to
make difficult and critical national security decisions.”
But if intelligence officials felt a sense of betrayal by the
disclosures, Internet security experts felt a similar letdown — at the
N.S.A. actions.
“There’s widespread disappointment,” said Dan Kaminsky, a prominent
security researcher. “This has been the stuff of wild-eyed accusations
for years. A lot of people are heartbroken to find out it’s not just
wild-eyed accusations.”
Mr. Kaminsky said that there had been “a tremendous amount of good will
between the cryptographic community and N.S.A. that’s built been up,”
referring to experts on encryption. “That is gone,” he said.
Sascha Meinrath, the director of the Open Technology Institute, a
research group in Washington, said the reports were “a startling
indication that the U.S. has been a remarkably irresponsible steward of
the Internet,” which he said the N.S.A. was trying to turn into “a
massive platform for detailed, intrusive and unrestrained surveillance.”
Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, a civil liberties group in Washington, said the
quandary posed by the N.S.A.’s efforts against encryption began with its
dual role: eavesdropping on foreign communications while protecting
American communications.
“Invariably the two missions collide,” he said. “We don’t dispute that
their ability to capture foreign intelligence is quite important. The
question is whether their pursuit of that mission threatens to undermine
the security and privacy of Internet communications.”
Mr. Rotenberg is a veteran of what were known as the “crypto wars” of
the 1990s, when the N.S.A. proposed the Clipper Chip, a government back
door that would be built into every encryption program.
That proposal was defeated by a diverse coalition of technology
businesses and privacy advocates, including Mr. Rotenberg’s
organization. But the documents make clear that the N.S.A. never gave up
on the goal of being able to read everything and has made what memos
call “breakthroughs” in recent years in its efforts.
A complicating factor is the role of the major American Internet
companies, which have been the target of counterencryption efforts by
both the N.S.A. and its closely allied British counterpart, GCHQ. One
document describes “new access opportunities” in Google systems; the
company said on Thursday that it had not given the agencies access and
was aware of no breach of its security.
But the perception of an N.S.A. intrusion into the networks of major
Internet companies, whether surreptitious or with the companies’
cooperation, could hurt business, especially in international markets.
“What buyer is going to purchase a product that has been deliberately
made less secure?” asked Mr. Holt, the congressman. “Even if N.S.A. does
it with the purest motive, it can ruin the reputations of
billion-dollar companies.”
In addition, news that the N.S.A. is inserting vulnerabilities into
widely used technologies could put American lawmakers and technology
companies in a bind with regard to China.
Over the last two years, American lawmakers have accused two of China’s
largest telecommunications companies, Huawei Technologies and ZTE, of
doing something parallel to what the N.S.A. has done: planting back
doors into their equipment to allow for eavesdropping by the Chinese
government and military.
Both companies have denied collaborating with the Chinese government,
but the allegations have eliminated the companies’ hopes for significant
business growth in the United States. After an investigation last year,
the House Intelligence Committee concluded that government agencies should be barred from doing business with Huawei and ZTE, and that American companies should avoid buying their equipment.
Some foreign governments and companies have also said that they would
not rely on the Chinese companies’ equipment out of security concerns.
Last year, Australia barred Huawei from bidding on contracts in
Australia’s $38 billion national broadband network. And this year, as
part of its effort to acquire Sprint Nextel, SoftBank of Japan pledged
that it would not use Huawei equipment in Sprint’s cellphone network.
American companies could now find themselves in a similar predicament.
Companies like Google and Facebook have been moving to new encryption
systems that, in principle at least, would make government eavesdropping
more difficult. Google is in the process of redesigning its systems,
and it switched to a new encryption method in November 2011.
Facebook announced last month, amid N.S.A. eavesdropping disclosures,
that it, too, would transition to a novel encryption method, called
perfect forward secrecy, that makes eavesdropping far more difficult.
copy http://global.nytimes.com/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário