Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness' 431
Jason Koebler writes: Leslie Caldwell, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like that zone of lawlessness inside of peoples minds that the pesky 5th amendment creates, think of all the criminals going free because we can't force them to incriminate themselves! This is a situation that the DOJ and other alphabet agencies have brought upon themselves by thinking they are above the law in the first place.
Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like that zone of lawlessness inside of peoples minds that the pesky 5th amendment creates, think of all the criminals going free because we can't force them to incriminate themselves! This is a situation that the DOJ and other alphabet agencies have brought upon themselves by thinking they are above the law in the first place.
Or the Fourth Amendment. Or the Second. Or the First.
The situation is clear. We must take care to ban this subversive document [wikipedia.org] now. For the children! For the Feds! For great justice!
DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear you could just go back to the old school spy tradecraft (dead drops, one time code pads, etc.) and keep your illegal organization out of the eyes of the law as long as you weren't stupid and kept all confidential communications offline. I'll bet not more than 5% of law enforcement agency personnel even know what they used to do.
It's how I run my terroist organization these days, and the terror business is good.
Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Informative)
The Russians did exactly that after the Snowden revelations. They even bought up a bunch of typewriters.
Anyone with any sense knows that if you put it online, it's available.
Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Interesting)
Osama bin Laden managed to hide in plain sight for 6 years by doing something similar.
The basic approach of senior Al Qaeda figures was to use laptops but never connect them to the internet. Everything was based on thumb drives, which were moved around by trusted couriers. You couldn't plant a mole in there, because they basically didn't trust anyone they hadn't known for several generations.
He was eventually tracked down because his most trusted courier was on the phone with a friend being pestered about what he was doing, and the CIA happened to be listening.
Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Interesting)
You joke, but take a look at the 2002 Millenium Challenge [wikipedia.org] navy exercise.
The Red team, using old school tactics, dealt a staggering blow to the Blue team. (The exercise was then reset, with the Red team required to "follow the rules"). Quoting:
Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness (Score:4, Funny)
There's a potential terrorist under every cell in minesweeper, hell that's why they call them cells!
Re: (Score:3)
I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?
Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all
Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government (Score:5, Informative)
I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?
I graduated in 2009 from a public school in New Jersey. To answer your question, no. There were no civics classes. Not even available as an elective. We were however required to take a mandatory class on Microsoft Office. Our priorities are completely screwed up, aren't they?
When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Insightful)
There used to be a saying, something about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent one.
Tragically, in today's culture of politics dominated by fear, it almost seems like everyone is presumed to be guilty of something. That means the idea that it might be necessary to protect someone who might actually be innocent, or simply to leave them alone to live their lives without interference, is not given a lot of thought.
When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal, if you had missed it, is to pass enough laws you're guilty of *something*. Then, if you get to be a problem, there's sure to be *something* to nail you to the wall with.
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if it worked for Cardinal Richelieu...
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Interesting)
#insert observations/law/drferris.h
(preprocessed for your convenience)
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted â" and you create a nation of law-breakers â" and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.â
Re: (Score:3)
...it almost seems like everyone is presumed to be guilty of something.
Must we quote Rand again? Regardless of whether you like her or dislike her personally, or agree with her philosophy or not:
We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. ...when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's referring to killing one innocent, not imprison.
Imprison sounds like "whoops, we fucked your life", but at least isn't taking one away. Killing an innocent refers to what happens in Texas regularly.
If you'd been unable to see your children grow up or grow old with your wife or even miss that once-in-a-lifetime travel vacation, then most people would consider their life to have been "taken away". The part that's worth living, anyway.
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that doesn't even get into how your life could be ruined after the "oops, sorry about the imprisonment. You're free to go." Your old job definitely won't be available and new job opportunities might be skittish about hiring someone who went to prison. Even if they've expunged your record, people might still know you went to prison, might still think of you as guilty, and treat you as such. In short, your suffering might not end once you get out of jail.
There's a good reason that our justice system is supposed to be stacked in favor of the defendant.
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. We have so many byzantine laws and regulations (which, by the way, WE are expected to know them all, ignorance is no defense, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't, ignorance is a defense for THEM violating our rights) that no one person can possibly know, THOUSANDS MORE a year are added.
Everyone probably commits at least one felony a week without knowing it.
The solution is that EVERY LAW AND REGULATION should have a SUNSET DATE. To keep them active they should have to be re-authorized at least every 4 years. If the government had to do that only the most NECESSARY laws would remain on the books. Inherent government laziness would then work on the side of Liberty.
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:5, Insightful)
It always amazes me "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but a lawyer has to study years just to understand small subset of them. There are even special courts and judges for specific legal areas.
Re:When everyone is guilty... (Score:4, Insightful)
A funny idea I had once was that after the revolution, the new government gets a 100 page blank notebook to write the laws in.
Once they fill up the last page, all of them are executed.
The next group of guys gets a 100 page blank book.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, If you will all gather around the screen of the electron microscope, we can review the latest law we just etched in to the next paper molecule in the book.
Re: (Score:3)
Once they fill up the last page, all of them are executed.
Such delightful ambiguity. Would "they" happen to be the laws, or the government?
But power corrupts (even if unintentionally) (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with your basic point about the need for balance. Of course there are bad people in the world and of course we need police and courts and the like.
I think the problem today is that many in our current political class don't recognise that need for balance so much as they see "them and us" and even start to forget whose side they are supposed to be on. The truly evil part of the situation is that this result seems almost inevitable. The people calling the shots are exactly the people who necessarily deal with the worst of humanity as part of their job. How could this not affect their perspective? They naturally want to trust their allies, who are the people who would be empowered under all these proposed security measures and aided by restrictions on the privacy and security of others. And of course being influential figures within the government, it is highly unlikely that they will personally ever find themselves on the wrong side of a government screw-up and unable to get the problem fixed very quickly.
I don't think these people are evil. On the contrary, I suspect most people in government, including their agents in the police and security services, are probably just normal people who have a job to do and who genuinely want to do the right thing. As with any large group, there will eventually be a few bad actors included as well and it is necessary to identify and contain them, but that isn't usually the main problem.
However, I do think we're talking about people who are heavily biased, even paranoid, because it would take a superhuman level of detachment not to be when you look at the kind of people they have to deal with at times. I also think in most cases they are ignorant about the technologies they are dealing with, and therefore unable to make rational, objective judgements about the likely effects of the technical measures they propose as policy. Finally, I think that the more senior these figures get within the government and its agencies, the more detached they tend to be from reality for average citizens and the more ignorant or dismissive they can become of how things tend to play out for innocent people in less privileged positions who are nevertheless caught up by the measures the politicians propose.
As the saying goes, power corrupts. It doesn't necessarily have to be malicious or intentional. Obviously in some cases it has been, but often I think the corruption is more of a slow but almost inevitable change in perspective caused by the situations you find yourself in when you have power to wield.
And so it is necessary for those who are looking from outside, those who don't spend disproportionate amounts of their time dealing with a particularly nasty minority of the human race, those who understand the technical issues, to speak out about what is happening and where it could lead. As with any issue of civilised government, in the long run you're going to get much further by educating people about relevant issues and promoting intelligent discourse than you are with wildly exaggerated rhetoric and extreme positions backed by intimidation and ultimately violence. The latter are seductive, and often appear quite effective in the short term, but I doubt they've ever truly solved much.
Re:But power corrupts (even if unintentionally) (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting story. One of the things I find most reassuring about the police service* in the UK is that they have long maintained, great consistency and at almost any rank, that good community relations are the heart of good policing. Officers who go out on patrol** have consistently and overwhelmingly said they do not want to routinely carry firearms, because that goes against the basic principle of policing by consent, and instead they tend to assume that the solution to local problems often starts with trying to improve those relations if they are failing. Concerns are also raised often by the police themselves about the balance between having officers patrolling in vehicles for rapid response and having officers literally walking the beat and actually making contact with the public. I get the feeling that police officers in certain other parts of the world have a very, very different attitude to their relationship with the public.
*I remember well that when the local police schools liaison officer visited us, he made a point of saying he didn't like the term "police force" because it had the wrong connotations before you even started to look at what the police did.
**It's curious how often police officers and politicians in some places refer to officers "on the front line", this being about as overt a military metaphor as I can think of (short of being "on the front line in the war against $ABSTRACT_NOUN" I suppose).
Re: (Score:3)
Just like that zone of lawlessness inside of peoples minds that the pesky 5th amendment creates, think of all the criminals going free because we can't force them to incriminate themselves!
Well, yeah. Remember that the Constitution's version of "due process" is not supposed to actually restrict the government, so much as it protects the people from the historical (at the time) abuses governments had commonly employed.
The 5th Amendment protects against defendants being forced to create evidence against themselves. Remember the fun of the Inquisition, where the accused would be tortured or killed if they didn't confess? The 5th Amendment is a counter to that, and not much more. It's not a magic
Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.
Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.
If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.
What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah. Remember that the Constitution's version of "due process" is not supposed to actually restrict the government, so much as it protects the people from the historical (at the time) abuses governments had commonly employed.
Then what protects us from the abuses governments currently employ? Oh, encryption.
Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
The DOJ made their bed.
They continue to hoover-up massive amounts of data on everything from telecommunications to, as recently reported, vehicle movements, on everyone within and outside US borders. We are meant to trust that this data will not be abused by those who collect it, and that it cannot be hacked/modified/stolen by anyone else.
We have no choice but to encrypt our data. We seemingly have no way to stop it's collection, and those who collect it have repeatedly shown themselves to be poor stewards of that data (lack of protection, accessed without warrant, etc.). They've transitioned their methodologies based on that data being available and unencrypted, and failed to prepare for the inevitable fact that data encryption would eventually become commonplace...with or without Snowden...because there are lots of bad actors in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, they are not just collecting metadata, at least not under the common understanding of collect. Remember the Boston bomber? One week after his arrest they were discussing having just listened to his families calls to overseas. They had the calls recorded, collected to everyone else, but didn't listen to them till after the bombing. They are wanting the ability to retroactively listen to everyone this way. Later they will do it proactively, but baby steps. With this understanding, the warrant process is
Second amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score:5, Interesting)
My old laptop, which crapped out last week, had no trouble keeping up with me, I never found myself waiting for it, and I'm not a gamer, so when I ended up with a new machine that was roughly 20% faster, I decided to enable FileVault on it. I figured, worst case, it'll slow the new laptop back down to what I'm used to. And now, if my laptop is every analyzed by a law enforcement agency, I'll just become another bit of noise the NSA has to filter out.
And Apple has made FileVault a "checked by default" option when setting up a new Mac, so the same class of user who would end up with every toolbar and fake anti-virus in Windows (e.g. average or below average) will have FileVault enabled on their Mac. if Microsoft takes the same route (I haven't installed Windows 8 or newer recently, so I don't know, they may have already), we're looking at something like 2/3 of computer users with file encryption enabled by default, without even knowing it, and some portion of the remaining 1/3 who enabled it purposefully.
I can imagine the high-ranking NSA official who instituted the "record all encrypted data we find" policy, on the basis that only people with something to hide would bother, is sweating right now, as his colleagues are starting to realize he's just made all of their jobs that much more difficult; it has come to pass that only a handful of criminals, and no known terrorists, have made effective use of encryption, but they're still having to sift through all of the metadata recorded along with all of that encrypted data.
Also, before someone else makes the joke: "only criminals, security agencies, and banks" is redundant.
A quote (Score:5, Insightful)
This was in the context of the Iraq war, when the United States kicked over the anthill that was Saddam's government and suddenly all the factions started tearing each other and their civilization apart.
I do not normally agree with Donald Rumsfeld, and in the context of the Iraq war I definitely disagree with his decision to allow Iraq to destroy itself so thoroughly, but on the other hand if we're extending that freedom to people that we're actively in-confrontation with, then shouldn't we extend that freedom to ourselves?
Re:A quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I have mod points, but you're going to make it to +5 anyway, so I'd rather be more explicit: Thank you for such a poignant juxtaposition of our ideals with our weakness and susceptibility to fear.
poor cops have it so hard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:poor cops have it so hard (Score:5, Informative)
Warrantless [wikipedia.org] surveillance [wikipedia.org] just like they do now. It's scary just how correct Senator Frank Church was about the surveillance state after the Church Commission ended:
In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[9][10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re:poor cops have it so hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It is kinda sad how it has, in many ways, crossed that bridge,..
It was inevitable. It's just like the plot of "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie". There was no way that giving the surveillance state just "a little power" was going to be all they ever wanted. Give the NSA an inch and they'll take a dozen miles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is usually the only thing that keeps governments in check: government gridlock and incompetence are the friends of liberty. That's why calls from both the left and the right for more streamlined government, executive power grabs, etc. are so dangerous.
When you vote, vote with an eye towards maximizing gridlock in Washington.
Re:poor cops have it so hard (Score:4, Insightful)
A. The Internet permits people to organize faster than the oppressors can react to prevent it.
B. The Internet permits people to discover like-minded others. They will find each other offline if necessary, putting to death the lie that 'everyone is happy'.
C. Encryption will at least complicate the oppressors' surveillance.
So denying access at least serves the oppressors. And denying access is the foundation of efforts against child pr0n and other 'undesirable' activities.
Re:poor cops have it so hard (Score:4, Insightful)
Either you have something that you can minimally convince a Judge you've got probable cause or you don't DO it. PERIOD. You can't be a fucking criminal in the process of "enforcing" the law.
What's even worse is when they bypass the FISA court rubber stamp to do things warrantless. The FISA court even lets you backdate things by like a couple of days. If the government can't even convince the FISA court then you know they are doing something they definitely should not be doing (not as if the stuff FISA does approve is always above board).
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, beat them, deny them access to lawyers, make sure they aren't aware of their rights, etc. The people who have been try to dismantle the Warren Court rulings these last few decades have been increasingly successful as of late.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG!!! The pedophiles and terrorists are going to run rampant!! It's not like they used encryption before or anything!
Gotta love the flailing FUD as of late about encryption, reporting police officers on Waze, etc. The police state is definitely in full swing at this point.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Using Waze to enable reckless driving is nowhere even near the same thing as protecting privacy with encryption.
Wow, it's almost like you completely missed the point of my post. *golf clap*
I never report police on Waze and flag them as "Not there" whenever possible.
Awww, what a good little bootlicker. Good thing all the other people will undo your action.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Funny)
Oh and just to let you know, you hitting "not there" only hides it for yourself without sufficient voting from others [waze.com]. You didn't actually think your single "not there" hid those reports from everyone did you?
Lawful Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Security is a yes/no question (Score:5, Insightful)
Your position seems reasonable enough from an ethical/moral standpoint. Unfortunately, in reality, a device or communication channel is either secure against a certain attack or it isn't. There is not and never can be a middle ground of being secure against a certain attack unless that attack has been lawfully authorised by a competent court.
In short, if the government wants access to your encrypted information, even with appropriate oversight, then it must require your information to be insecure and therefore vulnerable to other parties accessing it as well. If the government wants to encourage security in communications, then it must accept that covert interception of those communications will no longer be possible. You can't eat your cake and have it.
Re:Security is a yes/no question (Score:5, Interesting)
Incorrect, if they want access to your encrypted information they may get a warrant, you can then defend yourself against said warrant by contesting it, a judge might hold you in contempt for not giving up the keys (that is a contempt to try and make you comply not a punitive one so is only supposed to be until they figure out your not going to). This is not what they seem to be worried about.
They are worried about not being able to just take or use secret courts to access whatever they want. Pervasive encryption means they can no longer get all the info they want from the middle men who tend not to fight back much, use national security letters when even the secret courts wont give them a warrant. Having to use actual warrants served to the people effected who might fight them and use the media to shame them means they better have a good reason vs just fishing. You can also devise hardware and protocols that put a time limit on being able to decypt things that would limit the time held in contempt (simple one is a chip that holds the keys and erases them if it does not get a passcode every so often or looses power a basic extension on existing TMP).
In short you can have secure encryption that the government could force you to let them access. It's messy, time consuming, and does not always work.
By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
It is not just security, it is privacy. It is the freedom from governments and others snooping through my life.
Re: (Score:2)
But you might be a pedophile or terrorist, Citizen. Big Brother knows you're a criminal they just haven't caught yet.
Some Nobody On Earth: Who Started? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sympathy for authorities, if something like that has ever happened, is an oscillation rather than something lost permanently.
This tends to change based on perceived need for more control to protect against threats. If we all feel in danger, we'll go along with, or even celebrate certain activities that might be considered to be unacceptable at some other time. If we feel safe, then the imposition of authority on people will chafe, because it is intrusive and there is no counteracting threat to make it nec
'Zone of Lawlessness' (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be all the corporate boardrooms, capitol buildings, and city halls, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Pfffff, morons in the justice department... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what, the criminals you were trying to catch were already "flicking the switch" on the encryption before this became the "default" setting.
The default setting came about because of your constitutional terrorism, wielding your Weapons of Constitutional Destruction to the detriment of the common man.
You only have yourselves to blame for this effect.
Dear DOJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Too Fucking Bad! Your entire administration and the one before it has demonstrated that you have absolutely no intent of defending the constitution especially where privacy and due process are concerned. To make this kind of statement while new stories of how you're tracking people's everyday movements even more you still complain that you don't get access because people and companies are defending themselves. Lawlessness? Fuck! Where have you been? There's already instances where evidence has been forged in cases to keep secrets of how information was obtained illegally and the DOJ has sanctioned it! Ms Cadwell, you're not the person who should be in the DOJ and you should resign immediately because you have your head right up your ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Your entire administration and the one before it has demonstrated that you have absolutely no intent of defending the constitution especially where privacy and due process are concerned.
There was ever an administration that actually defended the Constitution, privacy and due process? This shit has been happening since at least John Adams.
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire administration and the one before it has demonstrated that you have absolutely no intent of defending the constitution especially where privacy and due process are concerned.
There was ever an administration that actually defended the Constitution, privacy and due process? This shit has been happening since at least John Adams.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean we should stop speaking out for our ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but we should stop pretending that any politician in the history of this country has actually cared about protecting the rights of anyone but their wealthy, powerful base.
Re: (Score:3)
The main difference was that before, people at least tried to pretend that that wasn't proper behavior, and maybe just occasionally thought before they violated it.
Now they don't even care or try to pretend.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it went downhill with Teddy Roosevelt. [billofrigh...titute.org]
They shot first (Score:5, Insightful)
They shot first, they eroded the trust to a point where people, not criminals or terrorists or pedophiles but ordinary law abiding people have stood up and said "we don't trust the government any more, nor the systems in place to protect our privacy, and so we have to take it into our own hands."
The proliferation of wide spread encryption is almost a direct result of actions by the NSA, FBI, and friends. They brought this on themselves. If they want people to once again accept them as partners in protecting their rights rather than adversaries, they need to regain the trust they've lost.
Re:They shot first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If they're looking for a zone of lawlessness, they should check under their own feet first.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, but they are the "good guys". The rest of us are all just criminals that haven't been caught yet.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole idea of a "zone of lawlessness" has it all inside out.
The law is supposed to exist to protect and to serve the people, not something that the people are there to serve and protect.
In other words, you make and enforce laws when the lack of law causes problems. Not build laws and then expect people to move into them like they're a house, a reservation or a "free speech zone".
Isn't freedom itself a potential lawless zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that liberties could be misused and potentially give way to lawbreaking behavior is never a justification for the repeal of liberty.
We are always and everywhere free to break the law. That our social contract with government grants government the ability to prosecute law breakers ex post facto, does not equate to a wholesale license to restrict a liberty prior to its potential abuse.
To jump to such a conclusion would equally justify a national curfew. After all, who knows what we might get up to after dark?
Liberty by definition, always carries with it the potential for individual abuse.
orly? (Score:2)
Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's SUPPOSED to suck. If the Founders intended government to be able to rifle through our affairs AT WILL they wouldn't have put the 4th Amendment into the Bill of Rights would they?
Re: (Score:2)
A contingent of the Founders were more than willingly to write up and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] only . Seems they were quite as dedicated to that ideal as they have been made out.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems they *weren't* that is.
Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the reason the Constitution originally didn't have a Bill of Rights is that the people who drafted it were afraid that if they did so it would be interpreted to mean THIS IS ALL THE RIGHTS CITIZENS HAVE.
Which was not their intention. The Constitution is supposed to be an EXHAUSTIVE enumeration of all the power the Federal Government has. The rights of the People are supposed to be undefined and MANY.
This is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were part of the Bill of Rights to clarify that:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(the rights of the people are MANY and INDEFINITE)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(the powers of the government are FEW AND WELL DEFINED)
Government lawyer = power hungry idiots (Score:5, Informative)
"We understand the value of door locks and the importance of home security," she said. "But we're very concerned they lead not to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness.'"
Yes, you could get a warrant to enter a person's home, but in theory, only with probable cause--although law enforcement doesn't even bother with that anymore, under the guise of "national security" or "defending freedom" or "imminent terrorist danger" or some other vague excuse. Which is all the MORE reason why encryption is necessary, because unlike physical property, digital property deserves even greater protection from government intrusion, especially when the agents of that government--such as this lawyer--dare to openly speak the way they do. It proves the government is not trustworthy. Our private information is a record of our thoughts and actions in a way that physical property does not and cannot compare.
The fact is, I'd rather risk the vague possibility of a terrorist threat than be subjected to the certainty of a tyrannical government. The real terrorists are those who use fear and propaganda to advance oppressive tactics, repeal individual rights and freedoms, all in order to enshrine power and money for themselves. As I have said about law enforcement: if you don't like that your job is "hard" or "dangerous" or made more so as a consequence of technology, that's your problem. It doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens have any obligation to facilitate the rolling back of progress so that you can stay lazy and expend the absolute minimum amount of effort required.
Jealous much? (Score:3)
Seems to me they are just jealous that the zone of lawlessness is excluding them from the picture. All was fine in their minds if the main law violators were mostly within the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. Now that they have been cut out of the party they are spreading FUD like crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
They were allowed to borrow the family car on weekends. Then one night Dad saw them drag racing and trenching yards in the family car. Now they are not allowed to borrow the family car.
This is just them whining that they can't go to work now (if they had a job, that is) or the library to study (The 4 Ds on the report card suggest that wasn't likely to happen anyway).
Perhaps one day, when they are behaving responsibly and have built up trust again, they might occasionally be allowed to borrow the car again,
Re: (Score:3)
I argue that they don't need it. They need it the way a 5 year old will claim that chocolate deficiency is an actual medical problem.
I could use a Ferrari but the price is too high. They could use the ability to snoop into people's phones and PCs but the price is too high.
Like your DUI analogy, we tried the ignition interlock, but they hot wired it and got another DUI. Now they will have to walk (get it? LEGWORK!). Back in the before time, they brought down notorious mobsters and bank robbers by pounding th
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that this has to be a FUD scenario. I think law enforcement has a job to do, and they get to use certain tools to do it. If one of those tools becomes ineffective, then they have more trouble doing their job. Then they will complain because they are still expected to do their jobs.
Every year the city of Philadelphia along seizes $5.8m in civil forfeitures. Less than what robbers steal in that city. Right now, I'm more scared of being robbed by cops than by crooks. That's because cops are currently stealing more than the criminals on a dollar for dollar basis. Stuff like this...http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-14/news/52772884_1_forfeiture-program-drug-trafficking-property
Can you see why we don't trust them? Now tell me why again I should expose my personal information to the
A zone by any other name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is just the natural outgrowing from ridiculous things like "Free speech zones" that too many people were more than willing to support.
Non sequitor (Score:4, Insightful)
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
I do not think that phrase means what he thinks that means when the government's position is that all encryption needs a back door - NSA analysts have already shown that they'll use their access to data to invade privacy (i.e. looking up data of ex- girlfriends).
Though I'm pretty sure this is just posturing by the government to give everyone a false sense of security, and that Google, Apple and others have provided secret back doors that they aren't allowed to talk about.
Orwell Translation Matrix v1.2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Archer: (Score:4, Funny)
worry about the other "Zone of Lawlessness"! (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason we are using encryption more widely is because the US government has been spying on US citizens without lawful court orders. That is, Leslie Caldwell should be concerned about the "Zone of Lawlessness" at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Justice Department. Fix that, and then the American people might consider not using encryption anymore.
Re:worry about the other "Zone of Lawlessness"! (Score:4, Insightful)
And where are my mod points today. Yes. This. The Zone of Lawlessness is mostly inside the DC beltway.
Re: (Score:3)
Fix that, and then the American people might consider not using encryption anymore.
That ship has sailed, and is not coming back. When the American Government is indistinguishable from any other type of criminal, you are well advised to protect yourself from them all.
It is not just a company's choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawful access is uneffected. (Score:5, Insightful)
All common encryption does is prevent law enforcement from creating all sorts of new abilities and powers it did not have before, which is a very different thing.
Anti-Encryption Legislation Destroys Economies (Score:3)
France in the 90s tried to legislate and outlaw encryption with only a handful of exemptions allowed. That killed investment in the country. Businesses can't function if you take away their ability to encrypt their data. The government can't allow open access to data. We must have these protections to allow businesses to function. If a company can not protect their data, they will cease to do business there. Think of how many well guarded secrets are out there because of corporate America. Our entire cyber-security industry is built on the idea that ideas can flow from one location to another without everyone prying on what is contained in the message. This should not end. This can't end.
No asshole... (Score:3)
It's a zone of "Let's start limiting the power of the government like the Founding Fathers intended because you guys have overstepped your bounds a million-fold!"
Boo fucking hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
You've demonstrated you can't be trusted. The CIA has proven they're willing to lie to Congress.
So the reality is, you're all lying, thieving bastards who ignore the law and our rights.
You got fucking probable cause and a warrant, show it. But you don't get blanket fishing expeditions just in case.
Sorry, but you're asking for back doors to all forms of security ... which defeats the purpose of those forms of security in the first place.
Go piss up a rope.
how did things go before communication over wires? (Score:2)
people met on the street and in taverns and in private rooms, completely beyond the ability of anyone to eavesdrop
but enforcement against illegal activity proceeded by infiltrating groups and other methods
it seems the feds are complaining they might have to actually engage in hard work
do your damn job
Zone of Privacy (Score:2)
Why is it any of your business to know what goes on in private?
Windows blinds also create a Zone of Lawlessness! In the State of Arizona, for example, Windows Blinds would allow people to unlawfully have more than the state mandated maximum of two dildos per household! The sky will fall I tell you! Something must be done!
Do You Mean . . .? (Score:3)
Do you mean a zone of lawlessness where my Constitutional rights are violated in the name of "freedom"? Where law enforcement official engage in criminal acts to "protect" me? Where my privacy is illegally violated as a matter of policy?
No thank you, Oberführer Caldwell.
Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot meet kettle!
What's happened is the government has changed lawful access to mean secret courts with secret warrants, mass hacking and surveillance of systems we use every day for commerce etc with zero or token oversight. This is the real zone of lawlessness.
These systems can then be used for cyberstalking some ex, data sold to an investigator for profit, used politically to smear opponents etc, and result in innocent people blocked from flying, subject to extraordinary rendition, special measures interrogation techniques (ie, torture) etc without due process. If this happened in another country we'd call it extra-judicial lawlessness and condemn it.
I think many people are supportive of lawful access. This means due process, within the court system, etc etc. Suspected of x, probable cause, warrant issued but briefly sealed, warrant executed and unsealed, ability to contest basis for warrant, knowledge of its execution and existence etc, etc. This system of due process exists for a reason - and is well articulated and well developed going back to our constitution and subsequent amendments etc.
Our economy and society wins if we can rely on these systems to handle our searches for medical conditions, our emails to loved ones, confidential business information etc etc without massive invasions of privacy. Our economy and society win if we can count on the rule of law.
Small wonder Google and Apple are resisting the secret "National Security Letter" no due process system the government has invented, or the direct hacking of their systems.
No, Ms Caldwell (Score:4, Insightful)
The zone of lawlessness is created when you attorneys general will not indict cops for even the most radical forms of misbehavior. This behavior of course includes offenses that the little people regularly get nailed for, such as choking people to death on the street not in self-defense, plowing into a cyclist because you were texting, or (just this morning!) stealing nude images off women's cellphones and spreading them around for the lulz on social media.
Lock box analogy (Score:3)
Ms. Caldwell, I have here a lockbox with one key. Please place a $20 from your pocket in the box, lock it, and you hold onto the key. How secure do you think your money is in that box? Do you want the government to mandate that it must have a key to that box?
Now here I have a second key for that lockbox. I (representing the government) am the only one who has access to that key, so you should still feel relatively confident in the security of your money. \begin{JamesEarlJones}We are the United States Government. We don't DO that sort of thing. \end{JamesEarlJones} Do you still feel confident? Are you more or less confident in its security that you were in the first case?
Whoops, I lost the second key or someone stole it from me. Anyone may have access to the second key now. Now how confident are you in the security of your $20? More or less than the first two cases?
When we encrypt our data, we are basically putting it in a lockbox with one key, like the first case. You may think you're advocating for the second case, but a government-mandated "second key" will inevitably (and quickly) be compromised, resulting in the third case.
Here's a quote for you, dear DOJ (Score:3)
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
And yes, it's of course Jefferson.
It's funny how the very own people who founded your country would probably be the ones that would rebel again against the way you fuck it up today!
Not just the cops (Score:3)
I'm amazed no one in the articles have ever stopped to think it's not just the government we should worry about? What about criminals who are by no means bound by the law? A dude breaks into your computer (or steals it) and he simply disappears in the shadow. The government steals your data, the spot lights come on, the media is all over it and they justify why and ultimately nothing happens to them. I'm just as worried about the fore.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the BC (Before Computers) era, if one wanted perfect privacy, they would remember things and not write them down. They would talk to each other in their own homes with security from government eavesdropping about ideas, politics, anything they felt like. The fifth amendment gave them the right to keep such things from government "oversight."
Now, there is more to remember and machines to help us do so. Should these modern aids help the individual or make the jobs of surveillance agencies easier?
Put another way, would anyone want their careless/drunk/drugged/lusty words used against them in a courtroom?
Re: (Score:3)
Easy enough to fix too, at least in theory: If a corporation refuses to release *their* information in response to a court order, imprison the CEO and dissolve the corporation. Sure you'd have to get a law passed to that effect, but it a hard argument to make that we should compromise everyone's security rather than make the guilty parties liable for their crimes.
On the other hand if he's talking about the companies being unable to hand over *my* data and communications... well that's not their data to ha