Blockchain technology is expected to provide humanity and freedom with the rise of blockchain technology Web 3.0, a truly decentralized Internet. Some people even think that Significant rise of decentralized finance (DeFi) Department has become an important sign of conceptualization From centralized service to decentralized service, Web 3.0 is its cornerstone.

and, Some even compare The invention of blockchain technology revolutionized the emergence of the Internet itself.Symbolically, the original source code of the World Wide Web developed by British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee is Will be auctioned June 23 at Sothebys Irreplaceable tokens, Or NFT. All three of them NFT, DeFi and Web 3.0 tangled together. But with the comparison between the Internet and the blockchain, a crucial concept has emerged: Without proper supervision In the field of encryption and blockchain, technological innovation will not be as successful as we have seen in the past 25 years. It will change the world as we know it.

It is now obvious that a Lack of regulation will hurt crypto innovation. With the significant growth in the field of decentralized technology, this field has begun to attract more and more attention from global regulators. Their goal is Stablecoin, Go to financial institution, NFT, Crypto assets, Smart contract, Non-custodial wallet, Central Bank Digital Currency and many more.At the same time, some experts such as Caitlin LongTake the founder and CEO of Avanti Financial as an example, see the beginning Crypto regulation crackdownAs a positive trend, this will only benefit innovators. Others have proposed The right way to supervise encryption.

On the other hand, current supervision is not suitable for encryption, and adjustments to newly emerging decentralized technologies may undermine the core value of decentralization. Let us return to where we started: centralized parties control the space. In order to become a regulated industry, is this the price we are willing to pay?

related: Decentralization and Centralization: Where is the future?Expert answers

In order to find the right balance, the encryption space needs deeper and closer working relationships, which will Including regulators and innovators. Only in conversation Crypto companies and regulators, Is it possible for the authorities and industry representatives to find the right way to supervise the emerging technology industry? Through smart supervision And the space that is expected to change our lives this promise was realized at the turn of the last century through appropriate Internet regulations.

In order to understand the opinions of the crypto and blockchain industry representatives on this regulatory dilemma, Cointelegraph contacted some of them and asked them for their opinions on the following issues: Will encryption lose its core value in the process of being regulated, or will regulation adapt to decentralized technology and its benefits to society?

Read the original here:
Will regulation adapt to encryption, or will encryption adapt to regulation?Expert answers - QNT

Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP (Getty Images)

Since at least the 1990s, federal officials have publicly worried that encrypted communications give aid to terrorists and criminals. More often than not they have, to some degree, been right.

In the early 2000s, Los Zetas, the infamous Mexican cartel, actually created their own military-grade encrypted radio network, which they used to mask the movements of their narco-trafficking supply chain. Around the same time, al Qaeda and other terrorist Mujahideen groups began using self-engineered encryption software in the hopes of avoiding the all-seeing eye of Americas national security state. Other criminal groups quickly followed suit and, today, the need for dark capabilities has given rise to companies that intentionally court and sell exclusively to underworld clientele. These firms, which allegedly go to great lengths to protect their customers, appear to have a short life span, however: In the last few years, a number of prominent encryption platforms and other technologies have been infiltrated and dismantled by law enforcementwith the most recent example occurring just a week ago.

Last Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Trojan Shield, a bold, over-the-top law enforcement operation. In it, the FBI used a high-level criminal informant to co-opt and then run an encrypted chat platform, called ANOM, designed specifically for transnational criminal organizations. Rather than infiltrate an existing platform, the feds had decided to create and operate their own. When drug traffickers and money launderers flocked to ANOM, the FBI and other authorities were waiting, ready to intercept and study all of the communications the crooks offered up. It was the honeypot to end all honeypotsa baited trap on a global scale.

Certainly, the short-term payoff from the operation has been overwhelming: all last week, governments throughout the world continued a parade of hundreds of arrests, with police holding press conferences and gleefully trotting out indictments related to the operation. Alleged biker gangs, Italian crime families, drug traffickers throughout the world were all ensnared. In the U.S., the Justice Department indicted 17 people allegedly involved in managing ANOM (despite the FBIs secret role), arresting a majority of them. The operation has also revealed a deluge of intelligence about the ways in which international criminal syndicates operate, which will doubtlessly help inform future investigations targeted against such groups.

And yet, one of the operations long-term goals, as stated by police, seems elusiveif not quixotic. We aim to shatter any confidence in the hardened encrypted device industry with our indictment and announcement that this platform was run by the FBI, said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman during a press conference last week. Similarly, Suzanne Turner, the special agent in charge of the FBIs San Diego Field Office, said that this should be considered a warning to criminals. [Those] who believe they are operating under an encrypted cloak of secrecy, your communications are not secure, Turner said. She later added that the operation would hopefully keep criminals guessing as to whether a platform was a legitimate business or one secretly run by the feds.

G/O Media may get a commission

Grossman and Turners statements mark a turning point in a decades-long effort by the U.S. government to undermine encrypted communication, which has proliferated into the mainstream in recent years, from Signal to iMessage, WhatsApp to Google Messages. If the cops cant break encrypted technologies, theyll break our confidence in them insteadeven if it means crossing the line themselves.

Encrypted messaging apps are pretty much untouchable by law enforcement, said James A. Lewis, a security professional with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a phone call. Lewis has studied the issue for years.

People used to speak by air-conditioners, or go for a walk in the park, he said, referencing Godfather-type scenarios, in which criminals would sneak around to avoid wiretapping. Now, he said, everybody, including the mafia, has a smartphone in their pocket. Thus, the temptation to rely on such easy methods of communication is strong. Its just a general shift to relying on messaging, he said. Criminals have moved with the rest of the population.

The companies that have preceded ANOMmany of which were infiltrated and dismantled by copsworked hard to conceal their activities, which were done in the service of criminal ecosystems centered around drug dealing and murder, government officials have argued. For instance, Phantom Secure, a now-defunct phone company that offered modified, encrypted Blackberry and Android devices, reportedly sold a majority of its services to Mexican drug cartels, which used the devices to communicate with underlings and strategize narcotics shipments. Two other platforms that were recently taken down by policeSky Global and EncroChatallegedly functioned in very much the same way.

Similarly, the devices used by the kind of groups ensnared in Trojan Shield are far different than your average civilian encrypted chat app like Signal or WhatsAppboth of which use end-to-end encryption, meaning only the sender and recipient have access to any conversations. Most often, they are modified phones that have had the GPS, mic, and camera capabilities disabled, and include a specialized encrypted chat app that functions on a closed loop with other devices specifically designed to communicate with each other. On top of this, the government claims companies that sell such devices will often offer covert protection to their customershelping to remotely wipe the contents of phones if they are confiscated by police. With all of these benefits, criminals have little incentive to give up these types of services because they are simply too useful to their operations.

A lot of the encryption is un-hackable, Lewis said. If you can get access to the device then your chances are better, but if you are just intercepting traffic, it can be exceptionally difficultmaybe even impossible [to hack it].

That unbridgeable impasse is partially why the FBI and other federal agencies have spent the last 30 years waging a slow-motion campaign against the use of encryption. During the first so-called Crypto Wars in the 1990s, national security politicos in the Clinton administration argued that the proliferation of encryption technologies worldwide would effectively create a force-field around corruption. Ever since then, federal officials have, in one way or another, aggressively pursued a workaround for the technology, often employing strategies that threatened civil liberties and treated Americans privacy as an afterthought.

This has gone through a number of different iterations. When the 90s lobbying to halt encryptions export didnt work, the feds quickly turned to a different strategy: lobbying the private sector to install backdoors in their encrypted networks so that the FBI could enjoy intimate access to Americans protected communications. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the Justice Department and the FBI went on a charm offensivetrying to explain to Congress and the American people why it really needed to do this. That campaign has lasted for years, with ongoing lobbying by the FBI director continuing to the present moment.

With Trojan Shield, it really seems like a whole new tactic in the governments ongoing battle against encryption, but one that is far more psychological than legal. Here, the bureau seems to be attempting to shake overall confidence in encrypted platformsinspiring doubt over whether those communications are really secure or just a giant honeypot with an FBI agent lingering in the rearview. In so doing, theyre basically trying to undermine a technology that serves as one of the few protections for everyday peoples privacy in a world intentionally designed to eviscerate it.

Jennifer Lynch, the surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that the recent operation was concerningadding that she doubted the FBI even had the legal authority in the U.S. to carry out Trojan Shield, which is probably why it was partnered with more than 100 countries, according to the DOJ.

We still dont know a lot about how this investigation occurred and how all of the data-sharing transpired among the different countries that were involved, Lynch said in a phone interview. What we do know, however, is concerning enough. The FBI said that they geo-fenced communications of Americans. That says to me that even the FBI doesnt believe they have legal authority under the Fourth Amendment or our federal wiretapping act to do what they did.

Extrapolating on that point, Lynch noted the bureaus partnership with Australia, which recently passed the TOLA Act. The law allows the Australian government to compel private companies and technologists to reengineer software and products so that they can be used to spy on users. Australias laws also allow for extensive wiretapping, ones that far outstrip the ones available in the U.S., Lynch said.

Basically, the FBI is laundering its surveillance through another country, she said.

Alternately, Lewis argues that the challenges posed by encryption force law enforcement to get creative with how they combat the increasing use of the technology by criminal groups.

You have to get a subpoena, you have to get the company to cooperate, said Lewis, explaining the current restrictions when police try to investigate malfeasance via encrypted chat platforms. The company wontin many caseshave access to the unencrypted data. Thats where something like this becomes attractive [to criminals].

Even with high-powered entities like the National Security Agency, the data they intercept wont necessarily be useful in traditional law enforcement investigations, he said. The NSA is not in the law enforcement business, he said. Theyre not collecting evidence. So even in the cases where they have intercepted traffic, it could not be used in court, said Lewis. So youve got technology problems and legal problems.

If the operation has seeded doubt about the security of the platforms for criminal use, then its done its job, he argues.

Its certainly planted a seed of doubt in their minds, he said, of the criminals. Uncertainty really helps. It means theyll want to do more face-to-face meetings or something else other than talk on the phone, which may make them easier to catch, he said.

Of course, the FBI plants seeds of doubt by chucking handfuls of the stuff at everyone within earshotits not just criminals who will fear that someones reading every text, its all of us. And for Lynch, thats an injustice.

I think that what the FBI did is highly suspect, she said, and I think that we should all be concerned about itbecause it makes us question the privacy and security of our communications.

Read more here:
How the FBI Is Trying to Break Encryption Without Actually Breaking Encryption - Gizmodo

Every Friday, The Verge publishes our flagship podcast, The Vergecast, where co-hosts Nilay Patel and Dieter Bohn discuss the week in tech news with the reporters and editors covering the biggest stories.

In this episode, the show is split into three sections. First, Nilay and Dieter talk to Verge senior editor Tom Warren about this week in Microsoft: leaks of the Windows 11 UI, announcements from E3 2021, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella doubling as the companys chairman.

In section two of the show, Verge politics reporter Makena Kelly returns to explain the continuing push by the US government to enact antitrust legislation on tech monopolies this week, five new bills were introduced and the Senate confirmed a new commissioner of the FTC.

In part 3, Verge managing editor Alex Cranz joins in to chat about this week in gadgets and Google the company is adding end-to-end encryption to their Messages app, Sonos officially announced their picture frame speaker, and Telsas Model S Plaid made its big debut.

You can listen to the full discussion here or in your preferred podcast player.

Here is the original post:
Vergecast: Windows 11 leaks, RCS encryption, and this week in antitrust - The Verge

OPINION: I do not like the Martin Niemller poem, written in the aftermath of the Holocaust, that begins: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist and ends Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

It is an impactful statement written by a good man forced to confront his own failings during a shockingly dark period of European history. It retains a contemporary resonance and is frequently cited as a justification to uphold the rights of the least palatable members of a community.

However, this isnt a statement of moral principle. It is an appeal to self-interest and is driven by pity and regret.

Were a passive people. Passionless and docile. Despite our self-image, we Kiwis are driven by a need to conform. It isn't an attractive trait and is on display every time we board an aircraft. Passengers duly attach face masks and air stewards diligently enforce these pointless rules.

READ MORE:* Meet the next Mr Big in the Australian criminal underworld: Hes known as Mr Blonde* Nephews of Australias most wanted man swept up in global app sting* What is Anom, and how did law enforcement use it to arrest hundreds in a global sting?* FBI-encrypted app hailed as a 'shining example' of collaboration between world cops for tricking gangs* Senior gang members arrested after global sting targeting organised crime* US Government steps up fight on Apple and Facebooks use of encryption

Most of what we uncritically accept is benign, but there is one that is deeply corrosive and has real and fatal consequences for both the lives of our poorest and most vulnerable but also for the very liberties that are an essential feature of a free society.

There was a story last week, about the success of Operation Trojan Shield.

This is a remarkable tale. The FBI established its own network of mobile phones, complete with handsets and encryption, and tricked the criminal underworld into adopting these devices in the mistaken belief that they were secure from the states prying eyes.

US Department of Justice

An image, released by the US Department of Justice, showing messages on the compromised encrypted app.

They were deceived. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies were listening and logging every call and text message. According to the recently released US indictment, there were 9500 of these units in circulation.

This latest huge bust, in a never-ending series of huge busts, is being touted as a coup in the War on Drugs, begun by Richard Nixon in 1971 and indeed it is. This is Graham Greene level skullduggery by the boys and girls in blue. Congratulations to all involved.

But... wait.

Lets stop and consider this. As a citizen of a free country it is my expectation that the state is not going to be listening to my communications without first convincing a judge that there is probable cause to be doing so.

Stuff

Damien Grant questions the legal basis of Operation Trojan Shield.

I accept that Apple and Amazon might be logging my keystrokes and snooping in on my conversations in order to sell me petfood and car insurance. Fine, but I can disconnect their services. Apple might be very powerful but it lacks the ability to lock me in a cage. Only a government can legally do this.

With great power should come great responsibility and, in a democracy, a large degree of restraint. What we have here are Western governments collaborating to establish a network with the specific purpose of listening into private conversations.

It isnt clear if a warrant was obtained before this data was gathered; the legal underpinnings of this operation remain murky and involve some third country that has yet to be identified. Even if one was secured in advance, we can be certain that 9500 individual warrants were not secured.

The police are delighted with themselves. Australian detective superintendent Des Appleby happily gloated: I think theyll be shocked to their core that theyve been stooged this badly. All their thoughts and plans, schemes, and theyre all in the hands of the police.

Indeed. Yet, was there any basis for this action other than a vague suspicion that if the police began listening to everything, they would get something? What of the thousands of people who used these phones for nothing more illicit than corporate security and dangerous liaisons?

An incomprehensible 27 million messages were captured and read during the three years this operation was running, and it was running in this country.

This is a violation of, at least, the expectation of Section 21 of our Bill of Rights: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

There is no caveat that dispenses with this right if there is a risk that some teenager might be getting high. Despite my Libertarian objections most readers will be fine with this, because: drugs. Drugs are bad and we have Paddy Gower to help us understand how bad.

We are untroubled by the abuse of state power because we crave the illusion of security and lack the imagination to consider an alternative. And because it is the prescribed view of our cultural elites.

It also helps that no fresh-faced boys from Kings or Christs College are usually caught in these dragnets. The scions of Epsom and Fendalton and their parents will be confident that such awfulness will not touch them. So long as those whose private conversations are being bugged, assets seized and lives destroyed by decades in prison look suitably foreign, were pretty relaxed.

Even if we dont think it makes any difference, we know that drugs have won the war on drugs, we confidently assume that our rights are safe. Most readers are probably correct.

I am not going to make an argument that we should protect the civil liberties of the worst outcasts of society because one day we may lose our own liberties. There is no morality or principle in that.

Niemller was a Lutheran pastor. He should have sought inspiration from a much older tradition when considering his and his countrymens failings. I am not a Christian, but there is a profound proverb from antiquity that rings as true today as it did two millennia ago:

And the King will answer and say to them, Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.

Damien Grant is a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers Union but not of any political party.

Originally posted here:
Drug bust was a huge coup - but the surveillance should trouble free citizens - Stuff.co.nz

John Leyden16 June 2021 at 13:46 UTC Updated: 16 June 2021 at 15:10 UTC

Cryptographic expertise not needed to enable computations on encrypted data, says tech giant

Google has released a set of coding utilities that allowfully homomorphic encryption (FHE) operations on encrypted data.

The open source collection of libraries and tools allow computational processes to be carried out on encrypted data without first having to decrypt it, offering security and privacy benefits as a result.

Homomorphic encryption and secure multi-party computation are known technologies. Googles release is largely focused on refining and making them suitable for wider deployment, rather than reinventing the basis for the technologies.

Catch up on the latest encryption-related security news and analysis

Our release focuses most on ease of use, cleanly abstracting the various layers of development between design (what the developer is actually trying to do) and implementation (what actually is performed), a Google spokesperson told The Daily Swig.

The transpiler offers a glimpse into all of these layers, allowing the combined expertise of the crypto, hardware, logical optimization and distributed computing communities to come together in one place.

The suite of tools is available on Github.

Use cases for homomorphic encryption range from spell checkers for an email, to updates from wearables, to medical record analysis to, further down the road, things like photo filters or genomic analysis, according to Google.

The more sensitive or identifying the use case might be, the more important it is that a developer is able to provide strong guarantees on data handling, the Google spokesperson added.

No special expertise in cryptography is required to make use of the search giants technology, which is geared towards overcoming a lack of crypto expertise amongst developers that has historically held back wider adoption of such tools.

DONT FORGET TO READComputer Fraud and Abuse Act: What the landmark Van Buren ruling means for security researchers

The trade-off for the privacy benefits of homomorphic encryption is that the mechanism can be more computationally intensive and slower than other methods an issue not immediately addressed in Googles release.

Performance remains a significant barrier (one we continue to work on) and so this wont be a drop-in replacement for all existing cloud services, the Google representative explained.

At the moment, this environment is aimed at well-scoped problems where data sensitivity is critical or where extra compute cost is worth the added privacy benefit.

Google's approach to fully homomorphic encryption in explained in more detail in a recent white paper (PDF).

Professor Alan Woodward, a computer scientist from the University of Surrey, said Googles FHE tools might be useful across a wide range of applications.

What Google appear to be doing is providing tools to enable FHE across a wide range of areas, he explained.

Bottom line is that anything where you want the dataset encrypted when in live use, not just encrypted at rest, then FHE could help.

RELATED GitHub changes policy to welcome security researchers

See the original post here:
Google open-sources tools to bring fully homomorphic encryption into the mainstream - The Daily Swig