 |
|
|
|||||
Reports that prominent American national security officials used a freely available encrypted messaging app, coupled with the rise of authoritarian policies around the world, have led to a surge in interest in encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp. These apps prevent anyone, including the government and the app companies themselves, from reading messages they intercept. The spotlight on encrypted apps is also a reminder of the complex debate pitting government interests against individual liberties. Governments desire to monitor everyday communications for law enforcement, national security, and sometimes darker purposes. On the other hand, citizens and businesses claim the right to enjoy private digital discussions in todays online world. The positions governments take often are framed as a war on encryption by technology policy experts and civil liberties advocates. As a cybersecurity researcher, Ive followed the debate for nearly 30 years and remain convinced that this is not a fight that governments can easily win. Understanding the “golden key” Traditionally, strong encryption capabilities were considered military technologies crucial to national security and not available to the public. However, in 1991, computer scientist Phil Zimmermann released a new type of encryption software called Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). It was free, open-source software available on the internet that anyone could download. PGP allowed people to exchange email and files securely, accessible only to those with the shared decryption key, in ways similar to highly secured government systems. Following an investigation into Zimmermann, the U.S. government came to realize that technology develops faster than law and began to explore remedies. It also began to understand that once something is placed on the internet, neither laws nor policy can control its global availability. Fearing that terrorists or criminals might use such technology to plan attacks, arrange financing, or recruit members, the Clinton administration advocated a system called the Clipper Chip, based on a concept of key escrow. The idea was to give a trusted third party access to the encryption system and the government could use that access when it demonstrated a law enforcement or national security need. Clipper was based on the idea of a golden key, namely, a way for those with good intentionsintelligence services, policeto access encrypted data while keeping people with bad intentionscriminals, terroristsout. Clipper Chip devices never gained traction outside the U.S. government, in part because its encryption algorithm was classified and couldnt be publicly peer-reviewed. However, in the years since, governments around the world have continued to embrace the golden key concept as they grapple with the constant stream of technology developments reshaping how people access and share information. Following Edward Snowdens disclosures about global surveillance of digital communications in 2013, Google and Apple took steps to make it virtually impossible for anyone but an authorized user to access data on a smartphone. Even a court order was ineffective, much to the chagrin of law enforcement. In Apples case, the companys approach to privacy and security was tested in 2016 when the company refused to build a mechanism to help the FBI break into an encrypted iPhone owned by a suspect in the San Bernardino terrorist attack. At its core, encryption is, fundamentally, very complicated math. And while the golden key concept continues to hold allure for governments, it is mathematically difficult to achieve with an acceptable degree of trust. And even if it was viable, implementing it in practice makes the internet less safe. Security experts agree that any backdoor access, even if hidden or controlled by a trusted entity, is vulnerable to hacking. Competing justifications and tech realities Governments around the world continue to wrestle with the proliferation of strong encryption in messaging tools, social media, and virtual private networks. For example, rather than embrace a technical golden key, a recent proposal in France would have provided the government the ability to add a hidden ghost participant to any encrypted chat for surveillance purposes. However, legislators removed this from the final proposal after civil liberties and cybersecurity experts warned that such an approach would undermine basic cybersecurity practices and trust in secure systems. In 2025, the U.K. government secretly ordered Apple to add a backdoor to its encryption services worldwide. Rather than comply, Apple removed the ability for its iPhone and iCloud customers in the U.K. to use its Advanced Data Protection encryption features. In this case, Apple chose to defend its users security in the face of government mandates, which ironically now means that users in the U.K. may be less secure. In the United States, provisions removed from the 2020 EARN IT bill would have forced companies to scan online messages and photos to guard against child exploitation by creating a golden-key-type hidden backdoor. Opponents viewed this as a stealth way of bypassing end-to-end encryption. The bill did not advance to a full vote when it was last reintroduced in the 2023-2024 legislative session. Opposing scanning for child sexual abuse material is a controversial concern when encryption is involved: Although Apple received significant public backlash over its plans to scan user devices for such material in ways that users claimed violated Apples privacy stance, victims of child abuse have sued the company for not better protecting children. Even privacy-centric Switzerland and the European Union are exploring ways of dealing with digital surveillance and privacy in an encrypted world. The laws of math and physics, not politics Governments usually claim that weakening encryption is necessary to fight crime and protect the nationand there is a valid concern there. However, when that argument fails to win the day, they often turn to claiming to need backdoors to protect children from exploitation. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is nearly impossible to create a backdoor to a communications product that is only accessible for certain purposes or under certain conditions. If a passageway exists, its only a matter of time before it is exploited for nefarious purposes. In other words, creating what is essentially a software vulnerability to help the good guys will inevitably end up helping the bad guys, too. Often overlooked in this debate is that if encryption is weakened to improve surveillance for governmental purposes, it will drive criminals and terrorists further underground. Using different or homegrown technologies, they will still be able to exchange information in ways that governments cant readily access. But everyone elses digital security will be needlessly diminished. This lack of online privacy and security is especially dangerous for journalists, activists, domestic violence survivors, and other at-risk communities around the world. Encryption obeys the laws of math and physics, not politics. Once invented, it cant be un-invented, even if it frustrates governments. Along those lines, if governments are struggling with strong encryption now, how will they contend with a world when everyone is using significantly more complex techniques like quantum cryptography? Governments remain in an unenviable position regarding strong encryption. Ironically, one of the countermeasures the government recommended in response to Chinas hacking of global telephone systems in the Salt Typhoon attacks was to use strong encryption in messaging apps such as Signal or iMessage. Reconciling that with their ongoing quest to weaken or restrict strong encryption for their own surveillance interests will be a difficult challenge to overcome. Richard Forno is a teaching professor of computer science and electrical engineering, and assistant director of the UMBC Cybersecurity Institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Since President Donald Trump excitedly announced that he would be accepting a US$400 million plane from the Qatari government to serve as the next Air Force One, even members of his own party have expressed alarm. Theres the price tag of refurbishing the plane with top-secret systems upward of $1 billion, according to some estimates. Then there are the conflicts of interest from accepting such a large present from a foreign nation what some say would be the most valuable gift ever given to the U.S. But it would also mark a striking departure from tradition. While theyre often variants of commercial planes, presidential planes have almost always been U.S. military aircraft, flown and maintained by the Air Force. The first White Houses in the sky Im an aviation historian who once worked in the United States Air Forces history program for three years, so Im well-acquainted with the history of presidential aircraft. Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to fly while in office. In January 1943, he boarded the Navy-owned, civilian-operated Boeing Dixie Clipper a sea plane for a trip to Casablanca to meet with Allied leaders. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the first presidential flight on a Dixie Clipper, a sea plane built by Boeing. [Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images] The security measures needed to safely transport the president especially during wartime spurred the creation of the first custom-built aircraft for presidential use, a heavily modified VC-54 Skymaster. Though officially named The Flying White House, the new presidential aircraft became better known by its nickname, the Sacred Cow. President Harry Truman used the Sacred Cow as his presidential aircraft through much of his first term in office. In late 1947, the U.S. Air Force ordered a second custom-built presidential aircraft, a modified DC-6, which Truman named the Independence. While in office, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman flew on a modified Douglas C-54, nicknamed the Sacred Cow. [Photo: Museum of Flight/CORBIS/Corbis/Getty Images] During Dwight D. Eisenhowers two terms, the president flew on two different planes operated by the Air Force: the Columbine II, which was a customized, military version of Lockheeds commercial airliner the Constellation, and the Columbine III, which was a Super Constellation. Embracing the jet age In the 1960s, the use of jet engine technology in U.S. commercial aircraft revolutionized air travel, allowing planes to fly higher, farther and faster. Jet travel became associated with the glamorous and the elegant lifestyles of the jet set crowd. So its fitting that President John F. Kennedy who was sometimes called the the first celebrity president was the first White House occupant to fly in a jet, the Boeing 707. Kennedys aircraft was also the first painted in the distinctive light blue-and-white scheme thats still used today. First lady Jacqueline Kennedy developed it with the help of industrial designer Raymond Loewy. It would go on to serve eight presidents before leaving the presidential fleet in 1990, when Boeing delivered the first of two modified Boeing 747s. These are the aircraft that continue to serve as the presidents primary plane. Boeing signed a contract to provide two new aircraft in 2017, during Trumps last term. In 2020, the company decided to refurbish two existing aircraft that were originally built for another customer. The refurbishment has been more cumbersome and expensive than building a new aircraft from scratch. But its the only option because Boeing closed its 747 assembly lie in late 2022. A nickname sticks On a trip to Florida, the crew of Columbine II first used Air Force One as the planes call sign to clearly distinguish the plane from other air traffic. While the public has associated the name Air Force One with the modified Boeing 707s and 747s and their distinctive colors, any plane with the president aboard will carry that call sign. They include several smaller aircraft, also operated by the Air Force, such as the North American T-39 Sabreliner used to transport Lyndon B. Johnson to his ranch in Texas and the Lockheed VC-140B JetStars, the fleet of backup planes used by several presidents, which Johnson jokingly called Air Force One Half. A cultural and political symbol Air Force One has long served as a symbol of the power and prestige of the presidency. It became an indelible part of U.S. history in November 1963, when Johnson took his oath of office from Air Force Ones cabin while Kennedys body lay in rest in the back of the aircraft. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as president aboard Air Force One following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. [Photo: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty Images] Air Force One carried President Richard M. Nixon to China and the Soviet Union for historic diplomatic missions. But it also famously flew him from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to his home state, California, after he resigned from office. On that day, the plane took off as Air Force One. But it landed as SAM 27000, the planes call sign used when the president wasnt on board. Trump has been compared to Nixon in more ways than one. And Trumps complaint that Arab leaders have bigger and more impressive airplanes than the current Air Force One is reminiscent of Nixons own concerns of being outclassed on the world stage. When president, Nixon strongly advocated for American supersonic transport a 270-passenger plane designed to be faster than the speed of sound that he hoped could be modified to serve as a new Air Force One. He feared the failure to develop supersonic transport would relegate the U.S. to second-tier status, as other world leaders particularly those from England, France and the USSR traversed the globe in sleeker, better performing aircraft. Trumps concerns about Air Force One seem less focused on safety and security and more on size and opulence. His longing for a palace in the sky is befitting for a president drawn to soaring skyscrapers, lavish parades and gold ornamentation. Janet Bednarek is a professor of history at the University of Dayton. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Anyone asking how to get to Sesame Street will have a new answer as of this morning: Just log on to Netflix. The industry leader in streaming, which topped 300 million global subscribers last December and reported revenue of $10.5 billion for the first quarter in 2025, just picked up Sesame Street ahead of its 56th season. Thats after HBO wound down its deal with the beloved childrens institution last December. Although financial details about Netflixs new arrangement are not yet publicly available, HBO reportedly paid $30$35 million annually for rights to the edutainment lodestar. Whatever price Netflix is paying to add the series to its robust slate of childrens programs, which includes Cocomelon, its likely a bargain, considering the intangibles. With this deal, Netflix created a lot more than just a new home for Big Bird, Cookie Monster and the rest of the gang; by allowing the embattled PBS network to freely air new episodes as they roll out, Netflix just elegantly orchestrated the feel-good corporate PR coup of the year. We are excited to announce that all new Sesame Street episodes are coming to @netflix worldwide along with library episodes, and new episodes will also release the same day on @PBS Stations and @PBSKIDS platforms in the US, preserving a 50+ year relationship.The support of pic.twitter.com/B76MxQzrpI— Sesame Street (@sesamestreet) May 19, 2025 Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that produces Sesame Street, has faced rough headwinds in recent months. After losing its lucrative contract with HBO last December, amid a pronounced reduction in childrens programming on the network, the fate of the show was uncertain. Making matters worse, Trump recently moved to cut federal funding to PBS, which has aired Sesame Street for over half a centuryand only did so after his administrations cuts to the U. S. Agency for International Development abruptly deprived Sesame Workshop of valuable grants. The venerable childrens show needed a champion, and into the void stepped the entertainment company whose branding is the color of Elmo. I strongly believe that our educational programming for children is one of the most important aspects of our service to the American people, and Sesame Street has been an integral part of that critical work for more than half a century, said Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, in a statement. Were proud to continue our partnership in the pursuit of having a profound impact on the lives of children for years to come. The new deal will involve a mild cosmetic overhaul. According to The Washington Post, Sesame Street had intended to start a new format of two 11-minute stories, along with a new five-minute animated segment called Tales from 123, but the show will now instead feature a single 11-minute story, followed by Tales from 123, and then some revived fan favorites such as Elmos World. The most profound change in the new deal, though, will have nothing to do with the content, but in how it’s delivered. When HBO began airing episodes of Sesame Street in 2016, the show continued to run on PBS, but new episodes only reached the public channel nine months later. This arrangement continued after 2020, when the show transitioned to HBO Max, and remained in place until HBO announced its intention to drop the show last December. In contrast, Netflixs deal ensures that new episodes will be available on PBS stations and PBS KIDS digital platforms the day theyre released, honoring the creators commitment to free, fun educational material for children. This unique public-private partnership will enable Sesame Workshop to bring our research-based curriculum to young children around the world with Netflixs global reach, while ensuring children in communities across the U.S. continue to have free access on public television to the Sesame Street they love, Sesame Workshop CEO Sherri Westin added in the announcement. What makes the deal such a savvy PR move is that its a win for the company on several levels. Not only does it provide a sharp contrast between Netflix and the once and future HBO Max, and what might be considered a subtle rebuke to this administrations attack on publicly funded channels, it also offers a counterpoint to some recent perceptions of Netflix. Over the past couple years, Netflix has made some moves that helped foster an image of the company as more profit-focused and less consumer-friendly. Between the crackdown on password-sharing, multiple price hikes, and sunsetting of the popular Basic ad-free plan, pushing users toward either higher-priced tiers or an ad-based option, the company seemed driven by a shrewd quest to leave no money on the table, no matter who got left behind. By ensuring that American families will be able to access new episodes of Sesame Street for free for the first time in a decade, however, Netflix has demonstrated it has more on its mind than the bottom line. Its the kind of message that resonates with would-be subscribers, and it should go a long way toward keeping the clouds away from Netflixs reputation for some time.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||