“Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment”
文章探讨了美国国家安全局(NSA)如何通过支付和技术压力促使科技公司使用存在漏洞的加密产品,并从第四修正案的角度分析了三种可能规避该修正案合理要求的法律理论:一是认为缺乏明确的搜索或扣押行为;二是基于私人搜索理论;三是基于第三方权利放弃原则。文章逐一反驳这些理论,最终得出结论:这些理论均无法免除第四修正案对合理性的要求。 2025-7-22 11:5:47 Author: www.schneier.com(查看原文) 阅读量:35 收藏

“Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment”

Law journal article that looks at the Dual_EC_PRNG backdoor from a US constitutional perspective:

Abstract: The National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly paid and pressured technology companies to trick their customers into using vulnerable encryption products. This Article examines whether any of three theories removed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that this be reasonable. The first is that a challenge to the encryption backdoor might fail for want of a search or seizure. The Article rejects this both because the Amendment reaches some vulnerabilities apart from the searches and seizures they enable and because the creation of this vulnerability was itself a search or seizure. The second is that the role of the technology companies might have brought this backdoor within the private-search doctrine. The Article criticizes the doctrine particularly its origins in Burdeau v. McDowelland argues that if it ever should apply, it should not here. The last is that the customers might have waived their Fourth Amendment rights under the third-party doctrine. The Article rejects this both because the customers were not on notice of the backdoor and because historical understandings of the Amendment would not have tolerated it. The Article concludes that none of these theories removed the Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted on July 22, 2025 at 7:05 AM1 Comments

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.


文章来源: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/07/encryption-backdoors-and-the-fourth-amendment.html
如有侵权请联系:admin#unsafe.sh