Nothing at all.
However, when the nearly-unanimous response from the people he has solicited for help is “That’s mathematically impossible to do - the choices are between encryption that is secure against everyone, and encryption that is insecure against anyone determined to crack it,” the POTUS should say, “Cool, that’s what I wanted to know,” not, “Don’t be absolutists. Of course it’s possible. You just have to think harder.”
That sounds like a ridiculously pessimistic view of the future, considering that the encryption that your browser uses to connect to Google is “strong crypto the government cannot be given access to.”
Don’t trust Cory’s opinion? Let’s see what 14 people who the NYT calls “14 of the world’s pre-eminent cryptographers and computer scientists,” have to say.
“Such access will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation-states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend. […]The costs would be substantial, the damage to innovation severe and the consequences to economic growth hard to predict. The costs to the developed countries’ soft power and to our moral authority would also be considerable.”
Direct link to the report:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97690
Can you come up with any cryptographers arguing the opposite?
No, he has already been told, by pretty much everyone who knows the math, “Horses we can give you. Cloven hooves? Maybe. White hair? Quite possible. Given time and effort, maybe even the forehead horn we can do. But the only-likes-virgins thing? That’s magic, not science.”
Oh, you. I wasn’t suggesting he read Cryptonomicon because of the story. I was suggesting that he read it because it’s packed with details about what cryptography can and cannot do - and President Obama needs a refresher on that.
