FBI Chief: Apple, Google Phone Encryption Perilous 354
An anonymous reader writes The FBI is concerned about moves by Apple and Google to include encryption on smartphones. "I like and believe very much that we should have to obtain a warrant from an independent judge to be able to take the contents," FBI Director James Comey told reporters. "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." From the article: "Comey cited child-kidnapping and terrorism cases as two examples of situations where quick access by authorities to information on cellphones can save lives. Comey did not cite specific past cases that would have been more difficult for the FBI to investigate under the new policies, which only involve physical access to a suspect's or victim's phone when the owner is unable or unwilling to unlock it for authorities."
Think of the children (Score:5, Funny)
Oh won't somebody think of the children.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Informative)
Orin Kerr, how iOS 8 thwarts lawful warrants, and has some goods and some bads. Series of three articles: [part 1] [washingtonpost.com] [part 2] [washingtonpost.com] [part 3] [washingtonpost.com].
Cato institute take: link [washingtonpost.com].
the only thing that Kerr doesn't address is the snowden stuff, and how that may justify enhanced apple protections. apparently he thinks this is still too "tinfoil hat" for a deep consideration. whatever.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
A warrant is the legal right for authorities to search yourself and your possessions at a particular location. Whether successful or not, whether they gain access or not is arbitrary. Just like apparently the requirement they return the searched property to it's original state and not apply a state sanctioned free of court review punishment by 'trashing' the property, especially considering how destructive they could be in the search for a micro SD card (demolition of the property and sifting of the rubble and then walking away with a meh).
So lawful warrants are not thwarted, the right to search does not imply the right to a successful search, that failure to achieve a successful search is an indication that the search warrant was unfairly and falsely granted. Access is the problem of those conducting the search and not the victims of the search. The victim of the search is not required to assist in the search, not required to tear apart their own furniture, empty their own cupboards, smash open their appliances, nor destroy plates their and cups or throw their own clothes on the ground after ripping them open.
The search warrant is a notice to the victim of the search of the right of the authorities to conduct the search. If the victim does not unlock the door, authorities may use other methods, the laws governing minimum force require that they contact a lock smith and not use a battering ram to smash open the door. However, as of course as the search warrant is all to often used as a method of punishment for a perceived lack of cooperation and or perceived lack respect for authorities, any idea of adhering to minimum force laws are corruptly ignored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has announced that it has designed its new operating system, iOS8, to thwart lawful search warrants.
The piece opens with a blatant lie. Here is your Logic lesson for the day. "If the premise is a lie, so is the conclusion."
Don't waste your time with propaganda, we are smarter than that.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Informative)
The first link the person posted is what I copied the quote from. All 4 articles are fine examples of the continuance of COINTELPRO, and pure propaganda (not that I expect better from the commonly complicit Washington Post). In the first article GP linked, I counted 3 blatant lies in the first paragraphs, and several intentionally misleading statements.
First paragraph
1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.
2. Under the new operating system, however, Apple has devised a way to defeat lawful search warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption does not defeat warrants. Apples encryption removes them as a middle man, but does not defeat the exercise of a warrant in any way shape or form.
3. “Unlike our competitors,” Apple’s new privacy policy boasts, “Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data.”
LIE, Apple is not the only company developing and advertising user controlled encryption.
M-1. Warrants will go nowhere, as “it’s not technically feasible for [Apple] to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”
Misleading. As stated above Apple removes itself as a middle man but does not make execution of warrants impossible.
M-2. Anyone with any iPhone can download the new warrant-thwarting operating system for free, and it comes automatically with the new iPhone 6.
Misleading. Anyone with a supported Apple device can download and install any upgrade. Apple adding encryption did not change a well established practice.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.
you're mischaracterizing. he's arguing that because ios7 already protected customers while providing LEO access via warrant, the net effect of ios8 is the customer gets the same protection and legal warrants are blocked. This is his thesis for the post, which he goes on to support. you can agree or disagree. it's not fair to call it a lie. He never says that apple's aim is to thwart legal warrants.
2. Under the new operating system, however, Apple has devised a way to defeat lawful search warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption does not defeat warrants. Apples encryption removes them as a middle man, but does not defeat the exercise of a warrant in any way shape or form.
again, mischaracterizing. The ios8 encryption thw
Re: (Score:3)
I read your post, every time you make the false claim "you're mischaracterizing" you are attempting to claim that a professional writer, who makes their living by writing, is a failure at their job. It implies that one or more of the following occurred. 1) The author did not intentionally choose their words. 2) The author did not perform proper research. 3) The author unwittingly provided an opinion contrary to what they wanted. Your claim is absolute nonsense.
I did not make up the quotes provided. I
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is a third party, and should not be required to provide the Government with back doors. The encryption, as stated above, removes them as a middle agent. A middle agent does not (and never did) prevent a judge from issuing a warrant nor does it prevent an agency/agent from issuing and exercising a warrant. A warrant is a legal issue between Law Enforcement and a Suspect, and nowhere does the US Constitution imply that third parties are to be placed between those two parties.
If you wish to pursue an
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the DOJ did over the past few months, but whatever it was must have been seriously heinous to get Apple and Google to work together against them. I mean, we've only been demanding encrypted email communication for what, twenty years? And all of a sudden, Apple's DOJ abuse canary comes down, and Apple and Google are scrambling to encrypt everything.
Why do I have a feeling that Eric Holder's resignation is just the tip of the iceberg?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Think of the Constitution?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Think of the Constitution?! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. I'm a godless anarchist.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea it's by it's very definition of irony.
"What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.
Really? I'm pretty sure the past year of leaks have showed the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and even local law enforcement are constantly operating above the law! If anything, encryptable cellphones allow people to keep their 4th amendment rights!
Re:Think of the children (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Informative)
The courts can not hold Apple in contempt, stop with the bullshit fear tactics.
We can demonstrate the Constitutionality of this with a safe lock analogy very easily.
The Constitution states exactly "Reasonable Search and Seizure". This means that a locksmith should try to open the safe door (at request and pay for services) if asked by the Government. If the owner reworked the lock or a very clever locksmith made the lock (which is exactly what encryption does) then the Locksmith can not be held liable for not being able to open the door. The cops have to try and break in to the door.
Further, if the owner of the safe has a booby trap causing the contents of the house to immediately incinerate when the door is force and the police have no evidence (which is again what Encryption does) that is not the Locksmith's fault.
In neither case can the Locksmith go to jail or be held liable for the lack of evidence.
I have already seen some of our Constitutionally challenged politicians trying to claim that encryption is equivalent to harboring, so sure the fight may come up. The analogy above easily demonstrates that it is not harboring. Assuming a fair Constitutional minded Judge this is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully, rational people realize that encryption is not a "hidden compartment". The phone is still visible, as is the lock. Instead of attempting to comprehend or address the safe analogy you responded to, you are attempting to introduce another appeal to emotion fallacy analogy.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
If the FBI, NSA et al was really thinking about the children, they would be thinking how important it is for our children to have a constitution that's enforced.
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
If it pisses off some FBI Chief, you know it must be good. (Either that or it is vunerable to the FBI and the Chief is just clueless.)
Re:Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Retard,
The purpose of mod points is to affect the visibility of certain posts for the benefit of Slashdot readership. Whether they are anonymous or not is irrelevant to that stated goal. Mod points are NOT intended to reward or punish user IDs, except for ass masters like you.
HTH
Excellent point! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points ...:)
Re:Excellent point! (Score:5, Funny)
I wish I had mod points ...:)
Step 1: Log In
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Mod Points!
Re: (Score:3)
I have mod points ... oh, wait....
Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:5, Insightful)
"What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law."
Well that's pretty rich considering the government has allowed lots of federal agencies to place themselves beyond the law.
Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that speaking like that will get you on an NSA watch list, except we're already all on NSA watchlists.
If you've ever used TOR you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:5, Funny)
At this point i think they look at who is not on a list and watch them. It would likely be more efficient/effective.
Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they just forgot. But in these cases, the contempt of court charges, which might only be a few months at most, are still better than the potential alternatives of the original charges.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I'm sitting in a _public_ court room, and the judge order I hand over the keys -- sure, he can have them. Everyone else can fuck off until that day.
Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#In_use_today [wikipedia.org]
One guy spent 14 years behind bars.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209 [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
which might only be a few months at most
And if you still haven't turned over the encryption, then the judge can extend the penalty a few more months and repeat the process indefinitely. The reason contempt doesn't usually last very long is because people get that they'll stay in jail longer, if they continue to remain in contempt of court than if they turn over the evidence that the court demands of them.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
That is, unless you're outside the US. I'm not super familiar with laws in other countries, but I believe most require a defendant to provide the password.
Mind probes are next (Score:3)
I'm thinking of a future sci-fi scenario where a person who refuses to "cooperate" with a federal investigation is compelled to undergo a mind probe to ferret out the "criminal" data in his neurons. Seriously, we're already cybernetic in that a smartphone or PC can already be considered an extension of our brains, an additional storage pool for our memories. Where goes the right to remain silent? At most an uncooperative witness or suspect should be made to choose between jail time or unlocking his smart ph
Not Even True (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Even True (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's harder and would require real police work. Without encryption they can look then claim they didn't after they use the information to determine a way to construct probable cause using parallel construction. This is why some people think parallel construction is an end run around warrants and the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
The government is under no constitutional or legal obligation to inform you of a warrant on you, no such protection has ever existed in fact or de jure. They can tap your phone without you knowing, they can read your mail, they can install cameras at your home and work; indeed there's
Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't want me to encrypt everything maybe you should not have spied on everything that wasn't encrypted...
Wisdom (Score:3, Insightful)
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” --Confucius
FBI Director James Commie.
Re:Wisdom (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wisdom (Score:5, Informative)
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
All "communist" countries were all about being authoritarian regimes, not about communism. So what is the difference again?
The same as the difference between communism and fascism. (Mussolini and Franco, both facist leaders, fought the Communists tooth and nail in their day.)
The same as the difference between communism and the Taliban. (The Taliban emerged from the fighters that overthrew the Communist regime in Afghanistan.)
The same as the difference between communism and monarchies. (It bears mentioning that one country...Russia...had its monarchies ended by Communism in a bloody civil war.)
The same as the difference between communism and National Socialism (Nazis..who hated communism pretty hard, by the way, and killed 25 million of them).
Saying that someone is the same as a communist because they are authoritarian is as far off the mark as saying two companies are the same because they are direct competitors in the same market. Communism is a subset of authoritarian government forms, not the same set, and it's not at all compatible or even friendly with most of the other forms of government that share its authoritarian characteristic. I know it feels good to throw words around that make someone sound bad, but really...if you want to be a truly active and useful participant in a democracy, you have to pull your head out of your ass and deal in terms of fucking reality.
Re:Wisdom (Score:4, Interesting)
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” --Confucius
FBI Director James Commie.
We are already living in an "inverted totalitarian state" [truthdig.com]. I quote:
Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.
There has been a slow motion coup d'etat over the past number of years. Private oligarchical corporations have won. They now openly bribe congressmen, write laws, and underwrite our new NSA surveillance state. You can vote for who you want. It may make some small difference. But you will not substantially influence the levers of power by simply voting.
This FBI leader is just a mouthpiece for the surveillance state. I don't trust anything he says.
Maybe if they didn't abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse (Score:5, Funny)
If only we had elected that guy that campaigned on hope and change.
Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama is to blame for everything bad and previous governments did nothing wrong.
I don't give shit about previous governments. Fuck Bush! He's history... Obama is to blame for what the present government is doing now... Get it?? He was elected president to be responsible, and dammit, he sure is!
Re: (Score:3)
Amen!
Obama has had ample opportunity where bad policies of the previous administration have been brought to light and rather than fix them, he’s repeatedly reaffirmed the bad acts by his predecessors. The buck stops at this desk, ultimately. He gets a tiny little bit of a pass if he could claim he didn’t know about abuses of privacy, but as soon as they’re front page news and he lets them keep going, I don’t care who started it. Obama owns it.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. They made their bed, now they have to lay in it. Or lie in it (which is more their style)
Beyond the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly is he saying? That the constitutional right to privacy is illegal? Quote: FBI Director James Comey told reporters. "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for granting emergency access when lives are on the line, but I'd think people would be willing to decrypt devices in specific instances where they knew that someone's life was in danger not for some sort of blanket invasion of privacy to hunt for crime.
Re:Beyond the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, you're simply invoking your rights, as enumerated by the 5th. Disingenuous and illogical court rulings notwithstanding.
Re:Beyond the law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ummm... You need to re-read the Constitution if you think the court ruling on a warrant is "disingenuous and illogical". The courts are simply following the Constitution you deride them for not following. BTW, it is the 4th that concerns this more than the 5th although they do go hand-in-hand most of the time.
You are referring to the part "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It is the court that dispenses due process of law. So encryption would most certainly block that due process.
Lastly, there are remedies to compel a suspect to comply with court orders to include imprisonment for contempt of court. Many have gone to jail for not complying with a legally issued court order to divulge their encryption password. So I don't see what this FBI Chief's issue is. He is using the age old "ticking time bomb" argument that was used to justify torturing detainees in Guantanamo. I don't buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that the amendments are necessary for those rights - all of them exist completely independently of any enumeration in the Constitution; the Bill of Rights only exists to remind the gov't that that is the case.
You also have an issue with plain English. "Nor" clearly s
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between manslaughter and negligent homicide is a question of knowledge. Courts prove wether or not people know things all the time.
"Witness, do you know the encryption password for this phone?" ... "You can't ever prove it one way or the other!" ... "But witness, your girlfriend saw you decrypt your phone on Tuesday." ... "o_0"
Better, the difference between manslaughter and, say, murder, is strictly an act of the mind, the question of malice. In
Re:Beyond the law? (Score:5, Informative)
By "forgetting" the key, you're placing yourself beyond the law.
Well no you might be in contempt of court, possibly you could be comitting the crime of obstruction of justice; if others followed your example it could even be inciting riot, yet none of thes would be "beyond the law". Seems likely that the courts will have to figure out where "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," ends and "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," begins, as how can the government force you to assist in gathering evidence for law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, just like how you're "placing yourself beyond the law" if they get a warrant to search your 100-acre farm and you refuse to tell them where the bodies are buried.
Oh wait, that's not how it works at all!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The ticking time bomb is pretty much a logical fallacy.
Re:Beyond the law? (Score:5, Informative)
Forgot some. (Score:3)
Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse [wikipedia.org]
Law Enforcement is not supposed to be easy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are checks and balances in the system for a reason. Rights of every citizen to be protected. I am deeply sorry that the FBI feels that people protecting their data from prying eyes causes them difficulty in doing their jobs. However, it is the job they signed up for, and the laws they swore to uphold.
let them suck it (Score:5, Insightful)
If the feds come to me with a valid warrant to decrypt my phone -- I'll do it -- rather than risk contempt of court. Their warrant better say what they are looking for.
Anybody else wants to look at it -- they can suck it.
Police & other government agencies have been snooping on suspects' phones for too long, without a warrant, and that is in direct contradiction to this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That is the fourth amendment to the constitution, and it remains the law of this land. No, you cannot search my phone without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. "Unreasonable" can and is defined however it is convenient for them
Re: (Score:3)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Don't worry. "Unreasonable" can and is defined however it is convenient for them
No matter what, with encryption enabled they'll have to first convince a judge to issue a warrant. That's a respectable hurdle when compared to automated dragnet searches.
Re:let them suck it (Score:5, Insightful)
And also don't forget:
No person [...] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Which means - and has been tested in court [cybercrimereview.com] - that not only are we within our rights to secure in our papers, etc. with encryption but We-The-People also cannot be legally compelled to give up the password to said encryption.
"Beyond the law," Director Comey? We are provably /within/ the law. It is your organization which is pushing the limits of legality, not the citizens it is nominally there to serve.
Re: (Score:3)
Valid warrant: no such thing (Score:3)
Dear FBI and Police forces (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck off, I don't give you permission to download my phone contents nor do I give you permission ICE agents to copy my laptop contents. The information on my devices belongs to me and not to you. If you have a suspicion of a crime and need my data, get a warrant fucksticks!
Beyond the law? Unjust law is no law at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the FBI's long and rich history of fascism and acting against the US Bill of Rights (starting with Hoover, and going downhill from there), not to mention the NSA's rampant (and blatantly illegal) domestic spying....
I'll damn well act against their silly rules and regulations any well damn time I feel like it.
Every American should be encrypting the hell out of anything they own, and demanding that companies do likewise with their products and services. The sooner we render the Gestapo and Stasi impotent, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently he considers a warrant from a judge as going "beyond the law" -- "within the law" presumably meaning police walking all over constitutional rights.
Yes, there is a cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there is a cost to privacy. Some lives may be lost as a result of increased privacy and due process. I think most people are okay with that.
Re:Yes, there is a cost (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly it's not like the government gave away weapons to criminals and then they started shooting people. Oh wait. Never Mind.
Yeah, here for our protection.
Child Kidnapping & Terrorism (Score:2)
It is not okay to use the same, tired old memes to justify continued use of Orwellian surveillance techniques.
You TLAs have proven, time and time again, that you cannot be trusted to wield this type of power responsibly. I would prefer a little less safety in exchange for more freedom.
The 4th, 5th... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, how dear people use the fourth and fifth amendments, what do they think it's there for?
Seriously, though, how can he stand there and say there's something wrong with companies responding to a market demand for technology that enables people to protect their rights. Encryption is not a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to remain silent, the government has no right to force you to unlock your door (or decrypt your phone) or to know what's inside unless they're able to show probable cause.
It's probably incredibly naive of me to believe in such quaint ideas though... All hail our benevolent overlords, all hail!
Re: (Score:3)
Regular people *started* to finally care, at least a little bit, once internet commerce became a thing, but even then SSL was only used to protect credit car numbers in transit.
The last few years have been interesting - a lot of people are starting to finally grasp the importance
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on (Score:4)
>>>"I like and believe very much that we should be able to take the contents,"
Do you also believe in the Santa Claus?
In closing, fuck you. No.
Rich words from a peeping tom (Score:5, Insightful)
"I like and believe very much that we should have to obtain a warrant from an independent judge to be able to take the contents"
A better opener might be to point to the cases where NSA, CIA, and FBI employees have been prosecuted for violating the constitutional REQUIREMENT (not just a "like") before whining about some of the gaping privacy gaps getting patched up. Oh, wait, there aren't violators being punished, just whistle blowers? Funny that.
Now please leave us alone as we attempt to regain some of our privacy from you damn peeping toms.
What does obtuse mean? (Score:2)
Does he really think it's about people placing themselves beyond the law? Is he so dense that he can't see this in the context of recent history? Hell, of current events, really.
The US Federal Govt. has shown that it's happy to ignore the 4th ammendment when collecting information about Americans, to say nothing of the billions of non-Americans who make up the bulk of Apple's customers and Google's users.
I guess they want it illegal (Score:2)
I guess they want to make it illegal to protect yourself and your data from intruders and thieves.
Zieg Heil, Mein Fuhrer!
same pathetic unsupported excuse to abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
and... (Score:2)
"Comey cited damned near every other case as examples of situations where quick access by authorities to information on cellphones can damage lives."
Oh wait.. he didn't mention that part.
Encryption is a security issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't just about the government invading peoples' rights. This is also about basic data security.
These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures). If the contents of the phone are not encrypted, then anybody who gets their hands on the phone can access that information. This is extremely unsafe. I could easily imagine somebody building small, hand-held device which will plug into an iOS or Android phone and download its contents within a minute or two (such devices may already exist, I don't know, I haven't looked). All you'd need is for somebody to leave their phone unattended for a short time, and all of their data could be lost.
So what the FBI is really asking here is for people to never be safe with their data. They're not just asking for the ability to look at your information, if they were to be listened to, your information wouldn't be safe from anybody else either.
Re: (Score:3)
These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures).
And all of their personal and business correspondence, and access to their bank accounts, brokerage accounts, password managers (though access to someone's e-mail is generally sufficient to get into everything else on-line), etc. Your phone can also tell someone where you go (navigation history) and if you have it turned on can even provide them with a detailed account of where you have been, every minute of every day.
The aggregate content of a smart phone is, for many people, everything about them worth
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Policin' Ain't Easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? (Score:3)
So he's saying that he's fine with the FBI needing warrants, but when it comes to encryption HO CRAP NO THAT'S ABOVE THE LAW. Next, the FBI will be saying that locks and safes are above the law because they delay law enforcement's access to _______. Great stuff, bravo, good hustle..
Statistics (Score:3)
The thing that always baffles* me about these government agencies wanting to broaden their powers in the name of "terrorists" or "child porn" or whatever the current boogeyman is, is the fact that all of these groups are statistically insignificant. I would guess that you could round up every single child pornographer on the planet and you wouldn't even need a single United States maximum security prison to hold them. They are not a statistical threat to our country, our way of life or, really, our children. They are aberrations. Sure, on a small scale they can cause real and very unfortunate damage, but these are not people that are going to destroy our society. Their crimes are more offensive than that of, say, a car thief but, a car thieves crimes and a child pornographers crimes are about equally as likely to destabilize our society. I can't understand why we need to treat them any differently than a common criminal*.
* It doesn't actually baffle me and I do understand why we treat them differently than a common criminal: Because those in power want to retain that power and the best way to do that is to make sure the unwashed masses don't try to overthrow their masters. A scapegoat that convinces the unwashed masses to submit to ever increasing authoritarianism is the least violent way to enslave them.
partly agree with him (Score:3)
I actually agree with him as the ability to seize information quickly when done right can save lives. HOWEVER, the people to blame for the removal of this ability is the US government for repeated abuses of everyone's rights and privacy. The US has proven they cannot be trusted with the ability to follow due process so you can hardly blame consumers and companies for looking to implement ways to remove their ability to gain any access regardless of process.
Unlike my house keys, sir? (Score:5, Informative)
Change the subject to house keys and the company to Master Lock. Does Mr. Comey, who is employed by me and my fellow taxpayers, also disagree with strong locks on houses? "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Yes. That's one application, of many, for locks. They can also be used for securing my person, house, papers, and effects, as is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. I want to lock my house at night, not just to keep out the police but to keep out everyone who doesn't live here. I want to lock my phone at night for exactly the same reasons. Pity if that's an inconvenience to someone; frankly, I don't care.
obtain a warrant? (Score:3)
Had "obtain a warrant" been their approach leading up to now, maybe encryption-everywhere wouldn't be gaining traction.
Next: E2E voice encryption (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, Director Cormey, I'm sure you like the current procedure where you just obtain a warrant from an "independent" magistrate, a.k.a former prosecutor R. Stamp, even after the fact if you need to. Especially if you can do it based on an "anonymous tip" courtesy of your buddies over in the NSA. I'm sure that makes you feel good when you put on your Judge Dredd costume and run around a hotel bedroom screaming "I AM THE LAW" (BTW the "escort" you hired to watch this performance isn't REALLY impressed, you know)
Too bad. Enough abuses by criminals and governments (but I repeat myself) have finally gotten the encryption idea going, even among corporate behemoths. Next will be end-to-end encryption of voice as a matter of course. What will you ever do when you can't just touch a key and listen to anything you want? You might have to do some actual... work!
Warrant (Score:3)
"I like and believe very much that we should have to obtain a warrant from an independent judge to be able to take the contents,"
The citizens would like and believe that very much too
But that isn't really what's happening, now is it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And thus the balance shifts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I read in the summary that the FBI chief was all for needing a warrant. I guess the point is that the FBI wants to be able to snoop through a phone with just a warrant and not a warrant *and* cooperation of the phone's owner to provide the decryption keys.
Re:...allow people to place themselves beyond the (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure about that?
Citation: Know Your Rights! [eff.org]
If the police ask for my encryption keys or passwords, do I have to turn them over?
A: No. The police can't force you to divulge anything. However, a judge or a grand jury may be able to. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to give the government self-incriminating testimony. If turning over an encryption key or password triggers this right, not even a court can force you to divulge the information. But whether that right is triggered is a difficult question to answer. If turning over an encryption key or password will reveal to the government information it does not have (such as demonstrating that you have control over files on a computer), there is a strong argument that the Fifth Amendment protects you. If, however, turning over passwords and encryption keys will not incriminate you, then the Fifth Amendment does not protect you. Moreover, even if you have a Fifth Amendment right that protects your encryption keys or passwords, a grand jury or judge may still order you to disclose your data in an unencrypted format under certain circumstances. If you find yourself in a situation where the police are demanding that you turn over encryption keys or passwords, let EFF know.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)