NSA Director Michael Rogers put in an appearance at the New America Foundation's cybersecurity conference on Monday trying to make the case for backdoor (or whatever he'd rather call it -- see below). It was a poor choice of venue for his purposes, having too many (i.e. more than zero) people who actually understand the topic.
Rogers started by expressing perplexity over a basic reality:
"I'm perplexed. Most of the debate I've seen is, [encryption] is all or nothing," Rogers said.
Amazingly, he managed to go downhill from there.
For a more detailed illustration of Upton Sinclair's dictum "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", disentangle the Enigma plugboard wiring diagram. (Warning: Disconnect the orange wire first!)
Rogers proceeded to flail his way through an exchange with Alex Stamos, Chief Information Security Officer for Yahoo:
Stamos: So it sounds like you agree with Director Comey that we should be building defects into the encryption in our products so that the US government can decrypt....
Rogers: That would be your characterization. [laughter]
Already, he's resorting to the "well, the facts of the matter are just your opinion", and doesn't even serve up the word salad as entertainingly as Sarah Palin.
Stamos: No, I think Bruce Schneier and Ed Felton and all of the best public cryptographers in the world would agree that you can't really build backdoors in crypto. That it’s like drilling a hole in the windshield.
Rogers: I’ve got a lot of world-class cryptographers at the National Security Agency.
Stamos: I've talked to some of those folks and some of them agree too, but…
Rogers: Oh, we agree that we don't accept each others' premise. [laughter]
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Next comes the big meltdown, when Rogers is confronted with the obvious question of what to do when everybody else in the world starts demanding magical golden keys of their very own:
Stamos: So, if we’re going to build defects/backdoors or golden master keys for the US government, do you believe we should do so -- we have about 1.3 billion users around the world -- should we do for the Chinese government, the Russian government, the Saudi Arabian government, the Israeli government, the French government? Which of those countries should we give backdoors to?
Rogers: So, I'm not gonna… I mean, the way you framed the question isn't designed to elicit a response.
So, basically the Sarah Palin complaint about "gotcha" questions, translated from grade-school to high-school vocabulary.
Stamos: Well, do you believe we should build backdoors for other countries?
Rogers: My position is -- hey look, I think that we're lying that this isn't technically feasible.
If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, you must be
lying, and probably a dirty commie hippie jihad terrorist to boot!
Rogers: (continued) Now, it needs to be done within a framework. I'm the first to acknowledge that. You don’t want the FBI and you don't want the NSA unilaterally deciding, so, what are we going to access and what are we not going to access? That shouldn't be for us.
Well, yes, that's precisely the problem. We caught you doing that. We want you to quit doing that. Acknowledging the problem is a good first step, but not if it's in the context of attempting to squirm out of actually doing something about it.
Rogers: (continued) I just believe that this is achievable.
Because all those pointy-headed fancy-pants experts who keep saying otherwise are
lying! So there!
Rogers: (continued) We'll have to work our way through it.
As we shall shortly see, this phrase will become Rogers' magical mantra to make the bad man with his meanie logic and poopie-headed facts go away.
Rogers: (continued) And I'm the first to acknowledge there are international implications. I think we can work our way through this.
Thinking: "OK, that's two. How many times do I need to repeat it? I think it was three times for 'There's no place like home'... been a while since I saw that movie...."
Stamos: So you do believe then, that we should build those for other countries if they pass laws?
Rogers: I think we can work our way through this.
Thinking: "Apparently it takes more than three repetitions...."
Stamos: I’m sure the Chinese and Russians are going to have the same opinion.
Rogers: I said I think we can work through this.
Thinking: "He's still there? Damn. I give up. Five is right out...."
Stamos: Okay, nice to meet you. Thanks. [laughter]
A bit later,
Humpty Dumpty takes another fall off his wall:
Moderator: You're saying it's your position that in encryption programs, there should be a backdoor to allow, within a legal framework approved by the Congress or some civilian body, the ability to go in a backdoor?
Rogers: So "backdoor" is not the context I would use. When I hear the phrase "backdoor," I think, "well, this is kind of shady. Why would you want to go in the backdoor?
Rogers' apparent takeaway from the event: I haven't found the right magic words yet, but if I keep trying I'm bound to stumble upon them sooner or later!