U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption" | Jabar Post Indonesia

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption" | Jabar Post Indonesia/a> – This time JabarPost.Net will discuss about Attorney.

The following is U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption". And for those of you who want to find a similar explanation, you can search in the Attorney category

Read Also

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption" | Jabar Post Indonesia

On Security Now, Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson talk about the US Attourney General’s views on encryption.

Watch the full episode of Security Now:


For more products we recommend:

About us: is a technology podcasting network located in the San Francisco Bay Area with the #1 ranked technology podcast This Week in Tech hosted by Leo Laporte. Every week we produce over 30 hours of content on a variety of programs including Tech News Weekly, MacBreak Weekly, This Week in Google, Windows Weekly, Security Now, All About Android, and more.

Follow us:

That is the information About U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption" | Jabar Post Indonesia

Such are some brief explanations about U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr on "Warrant Proof Data Encryption".>

Show More

Related Articles


  1. I think that there should be absolutely NO requirement for accessing encrypted information. I think if they want such information they should have to do local physical survailence just as they do now. With a warrant they can search premeses, remotely read computer screens via electromagnetic output, log keystrokes on computers, mou t cameras, and other such invasive privacy defeating methods. WITH A WARRANT. If law enforcement agencies get backdoor access to encrypted content they could literally collect everyone's data about everything to the point of making Cambridge analytica look like an electronic roladex from the 90s. Police need survailence and intelegence gathering tools to prevent and solve crimes. By law they have received that power. There is no reason to weaken solid end to end encryption just because it costs more time and money to deploy effective physical survailence.

  2. Just make our data LESS secure. We are getting hacked way too often already. HANDS OFF my data. IF they want in someone's smart phone they should have to get a warrant and go to the phone carrier.

  3. Bill Barr is an idiot. You can't and will not put my data security at risk because your lazy and won't go about getting the data legally. This is the very reason encryption exists so only the people I want to have access to the data can. Its not up to you.

  4. The most dangerous form of oppression & threat to liberty & life is often citizens own governments. All that give up freedoms for safety shall receive none as they'll only lose everything by giving little by little till no freedom left.

  5. For once I could not disagree with Steve more. The Ghost Protocol is no different than mass data collection on civilians. Implementing it would be a greater crime than any of the crimes they seek to stop.

  6. doesnt apple just handle the public keys and encrypted data with imessage? that the keys and encryption process are managed on the users devices. ether way i disagree with you Steve. the ghost protocal is just an updated version of the clipper chip

  7. Trust the government to protect your data is an oxymoron. Look at the CIA. It gets hacked and we are all still feeling the pain of it.

    Look at the local governments. They get hit with ransomware so often its not news worthy anymore.

    The US government can not be trusted to hold you personal private information.

  8. I don't know who you people are but a general rule of thumb is if you want something ruined, destroyed or perverted beyond belief you give it government control. Never put a government stamp on it. Incidentally, you have a few leftist fools in your comments who have no idea what right and wrong is.

  9. I see this more as a dilemma between necessary protections for the large majority versus the invasion of non-essential personal data. How can we satisfy both masters?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *