US Wants Upper Hand In Battling High-Tech Bad Guys 81
coondoggie writes "The US Department of Justice this week said it was looking to boost the research and development of technology that could significantly bolster new forensic tools for digital evidence gathering. The DoJ's research and development arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) said it was particularly interested in tools targeting forensics for mobile cellular devices; cloud computing environments; VoIP communication and vehicle computer systems."
Oh, no, they won't misuse this (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, let's just keep giving the government more and more power.
There's a fundamental reason why tax cuts are good: starve the beast.
Keep illegal stuff off the grid. (Score:5, Interesting)
As more and more surveillence becomes adapted online less and less recources are put IRL. The smart criminals can even use this survaillence to their advantage. Some stuff you can do:
Let a friend take your phone somewhere while you bust in or do some other crime.
Plaster all kinds of activities on social sites that would make it impossible to do something illegal, while you are doing those crimes.
Send messages where you arrange a fake meeting.
Most important of all, never mention anything illegal while online, ever, anywhere. No matter what encryption you have its more or less useless if someone has access to your cell/comp/accounts. The sad in all this is that its crappy criminals that gets busted while the smart ones have the time of their life. Im also worried about it being misused for personal gain. If history is anything to go by, countless of innocent lives have already been ruined because someone with access to these informations used them for personal gain.
More transparency is good (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends on who has control over access to the devices / clouds. Just make sure the evidence can only be collected with a subpoena related to a criminal investigation. No crime, no access.
For me, it'd be great if my device logs were admissible as evidence supporting my innocence. But in politics and law, it seems to depend more on the lawyer's ability to cast doubt on data and bring it down to who can make the more effective delivery of "truthiness". Which is why I avoid both of those fields like the plague.
Re:Translation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tautology is.
Re:Keep illegal stuff off the grid. (Score:5, Interesting)
The vast majority of criminals (not terrorists) are stupid. The clever ones have worked out that crime doesn't pay. If you are clever enough to do all the things you say, which avoid you getting caught, you are also clever enough to make as much money legally as you would illegally, and you don't have the risk of prison
two kinds of sociopaths: those the end up on one side of law enforcement and those that end up on the other.
at times, it even may be hard to tell them apart, as their personalities and what makes them 'tick' are very similar, if not exactly the same.
we somehow accept this personality type as a leadership type and we ELECT them to office, too.
when was the last time a smart brainy nerdy guy was elected to a high ranking public office? we don't elect thinkers or builders. we elect NUTJOBS, primarily.
crime does pay. the code of justice is a maze and those who can navigate it well make out well. that's on BOTH sides, law enforcement and criminal. prison system continues to drain our otherwise useful funds (very profitable to lock people up in the US) and smart criminals avoid it all and find the loopholes that don't require 'murdering people' and such. they are still horribly evil people, but they know how to survive.
so again, crime does pay. need more proof? spend time with wallstreet guys and tell me otherwise.
Re:Oh, no, they won't misuse this (Score:3, Interesting)
Since there's an island of relative sanity here, here I'll respond. As you have implied and others have stated, the surveillance would be kept funded in preference to many other things we may consider more valuable. But there's another thing...
Imagine the aftermath of the next successful terrorist event. The first question to be asked will be, "Why didn't the government stop this?" The answer will carry the next question (demand), "Because we didn't have enough law enforcement capabilities, give us more!" What's missing is reason. I can grant that some level of surveillance, wiretaps, etc is necessary in order to mitigate security threats, but I believe that wholesale surveillance is ineffective in addition to being just plain wrong. Unfortunately we only appear to hear from 2 camps, the Omnipresent Camp (see and hear everything) and the No Surveillance Camp. No (audible) public voices are trying to chart the course to find effective security, acceptable risk, and preserving our privacy and freedom. It's a really delicate balancing act, but in the public forum I don't even think we're trying to find a sweet spot.