FBI Couldn't Access Nearly 7,000 Devices Because of Encryption (foxbusiness.com) 299
Michael Balsamo, writing for Associated Press: The FBI hasn't been able to retrieve data from more than half of the mobile devices it tried to access in less than a year, FBI Director Christopher Wray said Sunday, turning up the heat on a debate between technology companies and law enforcement officials trying to recover encrypted communications. In the first 11 months of the fiscal year, federal agents were unable to access the content of more than 6,900 mobile devices, Wray said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Philadelphia. "To put it mildly, this is a huge, huge problem," Wray said. "It impacts investigations across the board -- narcotics, human trafficking, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, gangs, organized crime, child exploitation." The FBI and other law enforcement officials have long complained about being unable to unlock and recover evidence from cellphones and other devices seized from suspects even if they have a warrant, while technology companies have insisted they must protect customers' digital privacy.
apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:5, Funny)
apples new face unlock will make it easy!
Re:apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:5, Interesting)
no different than print unlocks. You can be compelled to give your print (face) so just turn it off.
What I wish is that there was a stock way to program a panic print, such that you enter that print and the phone locks requiring a PIN to unlock. Set your middle finger to be the panic print and when you pull your phone out of your pocket near a risk situation just touch the sensor on the way out. A distinct vibrate could let you know it took.
Re:apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The safest way is to use the SSN of the NSA chief. I find nobody ever uses this as their PIN, and it's ironic.
Re:apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sweet. I use the Nova Launcher but I didn't know that it could do that. I will now seek it out and set it up.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nah, needs to be whatever hand usually grabs phone. If it's usually in your right pocket you want to be able to trigger panic as you're pulling it out of your pocket.
That or a setting for "After n failed attempts require PIN" setting, then set n == 1 or 2 and just use a finger that isn't programmed.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Informative)
How about just NOT using face or print to open, and just keep using a fairly complex password.
And...keep your phone locked at all times requiring that password to open.
Re: (Score:3)
which is what I do in high risk environments.
but I am looking for a security / risk trade-off that makes the fingerprint reader slightly less of a vulnerability.
But I do agree with the premise, that if you really care about the device security you should be using a PIN / passcode that will remain secure.
My wishlist:
register finger(s) for instalock, and if you bounce that finger on the reader 5 times it initiates secure erase.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
That actually leads to less security. Because prior to fingerprint sensors, about 50+% of phones had no passcode system enabled whatsoever.
The reason? It turns out passcodes are the antithesis to how these devices are operated - often glanced at (unlocked) hundreds of times a day, with each interaction lasting a few seconds, tops. Entering a passcode is enough of a bother that people don't actually... bother.
That's why they have biometric sensors - the goal is to turn that 50% of devices with no lock into a very low percentage - the biometric allows for quick and easy unlocking of the phone (basically without getting in the way) but have the benefits of a locked phone.
You see this in real life too - next time, check out the password your retail guy uses when they check you out - because the checkout kioss are typically locked, you'll find they have a quick password they can enter so they can get your transaction done quickly.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because most of us don't have anything on our phones that is worth going to prison to keep hidden. In fact even with a finger print and key number on my phone, if the law enforcement showed me a court order to unlock my phone I am pretty sure that I will do it. After consulting my attorney, and of course following his advice first.
Point is there is nothing on my phone but pictures of my kids, grandkids, and 1 picture of my exwife, plus my family contacts. Nothing that I need to secure enough to type in a 16 digit pin for everytime I want to make a phone call or buy a bag of chips.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4)
But most importantly is we shouldn't have too.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
So the old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?
Say you get pulled over by a particularly obnoxious cop who really takes a dislike to you but can't find a legit reason to arrest you.. so he looks through your phone and finds a picture of your grandkid in the bath when they were 8 months old.. Bam! Child porn!
Even if that gets thrown out (you it almost certainly would because I've made the scenario intentionally extreme to the point of silly,) the fact that you even got arrested for it is now on your permanent record and is going to have to be explained any time you need to look for a new job or cross the border or any other such things where they want to look at your criminal record.
OK so you decide you won't show your phone to whatever beat copy happens to pull you over and will only show it after consulting with your lawyer.. so now they're going to arrest you for refusing to cooperate instead so that they can take you into the station while you make the call. And certainly refusing to cooperate may not sound as bad as child porn on your record but has a much better chance of being upgraded from "arrested" to "charged" since you technically did refuse to cooperate in that instance, whether or not they find anything more serious to charge you with.
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4)
So the old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?
No. Again read what I said and take note of where I said "with a court order" and "upon advice from my attorney." You need to read what is said and not read into something you think it says.
It is the same thing if they show up at my door with a search warrant, which is a court order, I'm going to let them search. I'm in no way saying "here search my phone just simple because you want too."
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no. There is nothing on anyone's phone that they can't get from the carrier, encrypted or not. I've been on the other end so I know what these carriers can and can't do to your phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and I believe you missed the part where I said "with a court order" and "upon advice from my attorney". I'm in no way going to give any cop off the street my phone and say have a it. But if they produce a valid court order and my attorney says let them have it, I'm going to comply.
Re: (Score:2)
Or left hand secures device in panic, right hand unlocks - or whatever you choose.
How about right hand unlocks, left hand dead-shorts the battery. "Sure officer, you can inspect my phone" hands it over with left hand...
Re: apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you destroy it after you were asked to hand it over, then that would likely be destroying evidence (a crime.) If the data was encrypted, and only the method to unlock changed. It would be much tougher to make a case against you.
Re:apples new face unlock will make it easy! (Score:4, Interesting)
1) On iOS, pressing the power button 5 times quickly will disable biometrics and require the PIN/password/etc authentication. ("Emergency mode" it's called)
2) Face ID requires you to look at it. If you're not looking at it it will refuse to do a recognition attempt (but still count as one of the 5 tries). If you failed to do step 1 when handing over your phone, looking everywhere else (or closing your eyes) is sufficient to fail scanning. This also means pointing the phone at your face from a distance will fail it. (And as well, it will probably scan whoever's got your phone as well, reducing the count before mandatory passcode).
Re: (Score:2)
1) On iOS, pressing the power button 5 times quickly will disable biometrics and require the PIN/password/etc authentication. ("Emergency mode" it's called)
2) Face ID requires you to look at it. If you're not looking at it it will refuse to do a recognition attempt (but still count as one of the 5 tries). If you failed to do step 1 when handing over your phone, looking everywhere else (or closing your eyes) is sufficient to fail scanning. This also means pointing the phone at your face from a distance will fail it. (And as well, it will probably scan whoever's got your phone as well, reducing the count before mandatory passcode).
Not really. They just have to have one 3D image from standard camera range where you met those conditions. The only safe way is PIN only.
Nope. Try again. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the 3 letter people have stuff that does not show the marks of cop beat down.
Alternatively... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep using the consumer grade systems, its totally safe.
Until consumer tech encounters something like WARRIOR PRIDE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
NOSEY SMURF gave a hot mic.
Depending on the phone its a "any content from the phone" collection
The other part is for police to keep trusting their own phones.
If no case goes to open court, average police, gov and mil workers and contractors still "trust" their phones.
A great way to keep track of gov/mil/contractor
Re: (Score:3)
Or, they're saying that they can't access these devices to lull criminals into a false sense of complacency.
Let's think this through. We have an FBI that can actually access incriminating evidence but chooses to keep that to themselves. To what end? For this theory to work the FBI would have to knowingly let some of the worst criminals go on committing crimes.
Perhaps they have already looked into these devices and determined that nothing is incriminating on them but claim publicly that they have not looked but believe that that if they could look that something of value might be there. This means keeping case
Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption works as designed.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. The State does not have, nor ever had, unlimited authority over information, specifically MY information. To say that this is a problem is to cast it as a negative. It is not.
Re: Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
FMRI scans (Score:3)
Give them this and in 10 years they'll be whining about how unfair it is that they need a warrant to read your mind.
You laugh, but this has been tried [wired.com].
In the case cited, fMRI scans were used to determine whether the plaintiff's "intent". IOW, they were using the scans to determine whether the doctor has "intent" to defraud the insurance agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is for the people, by the people and of the people, so this must be a thing the people want. I propose we mandate that anyone selling a mobile phone in the US must have the option to toggle on an opt-in option for "make my data available to the government if they want it."
There. Now law abiding citizens with nothing to hide and who don't care about privacy can have what they want and the rest of us can quit hearing ignorant law enforcement officials whine about it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They probably wouldn't be so busy if people were not so desperate. Perhaps if the US government invested in better programs there wouldn't be so much crime to deal with. I know these problems are not easy ones to solve, but we're not going to fix anything by ruthlessly hammering it with a mallet. Absolutely everything seems like the wrong approach these days.
I'm probably just getting (really) old...
Re: (Score:2)
Everything goes through cycles.
To quote Psalms: There is nothing new under the sun.
Or To quote BSG(updated edition): All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again.
Re: (Score:2)
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy
Beg, borrow, or steal
And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say
And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight
And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by th
Re: (Score:2)
We don't care which old guy said it, they both had some wisdom.
Re: (Score:2)
everyone should get paid to not do things they dont want to do.
think how great the world would be if eages worked like that generally.
Hie incentivised everyone would be to not do the things they dont want to do.
fix crime overnight.
Re: (Score:3)
They need to deal with it. Implementing laws and restrictions only affects law-abiding citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
if "inconveniencing the law" is grounds for legislative changes, clearly we need to repeal the 4th amendment. I'm sure that one's a constant thorn in their sides and has no doubt hindered countless investigations over the years. (you wouldn't mind unless you were trying to hide something, right?)
Or I suppose they could just (re?)learn how to do their jobs without the crutch of a Free Pass around the law?
Re: (Score:2)
This is just some press release by upper management let's ask the law enforcement officers that had to investigate over 15 million identity thefts last year what they think. I'm sure they would have pointers on how to secure your information.
Re:Great news (Score:4)
Better plan. Dump a few hundred photos from "granny on granny" into a folder called "Russian election plan." Then let the fun begin.
Did they have a warrant? (Score:5, Interesting)
On how many of those devices did they have a warrant to even try to access them?
Re:Did they have a warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
You reap what you sow (Score:5, Informative)
When the govenrment is working for the people to strengthen the products they use, the people are more willing to go along with its recommendations. And to trust it when it says it needs a backdoor and will only use it with a warrant in cases of criminal or national security importance.
But the last two decades has seen multiple revelations that the government is working against the people - violating the 4th Amendment under the veil of secrecy. When the public gets a whiff of that, they start to distrust the government. Not only do they refuse to put in backdoors, they start implementing security measures that even they cannot bypass if they lose the key. "Just to be on the safe side."
The U.S. government has nobody to blame but themselves for letting things to get to this point. Once you lose the people's trust, the people stop going out of their way to make things easier for the government, and in fact will start doing things to make things harder for the government.
Incidentally, that was a PR snowjob by Apple. The cell phone in that case didn't belong to the terrorists. It actually belonged to the San Bernardino County government. It was assigned to one of the terrorists as a work phone. Apple was basically arguing that they should not be compelled to give the owner of a phone access to information on the phone in the case of a (potential) dire emergency. If you follow through on their argument, employers would not have access to company phones they provided to employees, parents would not have access to phones they bought for their kids, you could not authorize police to pull GPS data from a phone you lent to a friend when they went hiking and got lost. It's an argument which weakens the concept of ownership (right of the owner to know what their property is being used for, vs the user's right to privacy).
That wasn't Apple's argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple had several arguments, the most powerful of which was that the government had not proven that Apple was the only party which had sufficient expertise to crack the phone--the law only gives the government authority to force a company to aid in this type of situation when there's no reasonable alternative.
But if it makes you feel better about yourself to concoct some sort of anti-Apple fiction, then please do. Maybe you won't need to kick a puppy on the way home then.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an argument which weakens the concept of ownership (right of the owner to know what their property is being used for, vs the user's right to privacy).
Well, why should the the owners rights remove the users rights to privacy. Not being an American, it seems obvious that my right to privacy is more important then the right for someone to remove my privacy. My countries laws reflect this as well, with employers rights to spy on their workers being less then the workers rights to privacy.
Probably rooted in America's founding principals such as being able to own people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Along similar lines, I wonder how many of those devices will have any actual evidence of wrongdoing?"
Exactly. In my local newspaper, they often post articles of a caught 'drug-dealer' with photos of 25 grams of MJ, 60 bucks in singles (the bastard) and an assortment of old phones they found in a drawer, they obviously were all the phones the guy ever owned, 5 or 6 generations of phones from the last 10 years or so.
I guess the cops think he's Stringer Bell.
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, what there were demanding is that Apple create a way of bypassing their security. Not that they use a tool already in existence to bypass the security.
That was a clear example of government overreach.
on a separate note (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI can't beat confessions out of thousands and thousands of suspects, making it harder to get convictions from criminals hiding critical evidence in their encrypted (non-cleartext) brains.
Sorry, but some sacrifices are needed to keep democracies from becoming police states. Especially when it is always the police asking for more an more power over citizens they are supposed to protect.
Does anyone have a list of devices? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone have a list of devices the FBI can't decrypt? I'd like to make sure my next phone is one on the list, but I'm not sure which Android devices pass that test.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't particularly care for Apple products, but if security were my main criterion for a new devices, that's what I'd get.
Well, you got greedy (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they got greedy. They wanted dragnet-like capabilities, and they were like "well fuck these civilians". They went too far, and now found out about that Dutch saying that says: "trust arrives walking, and departs on horseback".
And now nobody trusts these three letter agencies anymore. And now they're whining like toddlers, saying "this is a huge, huge problem" when in fact they created the problem themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, you got greedy (Score:4, Informative)
The UK was able to keep a secret and got all Irish communications. Only a few in the UK mil, GCHQ and Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch had any idea about the "collect it all" networks, results that covered all communications in, into and out of Ireland. Voice prints found one or both sides of all new, interesting conversations.
"How Britain eavesdropped on Dublin" (15 July 1999) http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
No lawyers, no human rights lawyers, court workers, telco workers, police, journalists had the information to understand national and international collection in/in and out of Ireland.
Irish funding, direct support from the USA was discovered and tracked back to its origins in the USA by the UK mil thanks to the use of phone networks.
The funding and flow of material into Ireland from the USA was then stopped.
If interesting people did not understand how total network collection worked globally they just kept on talking.
The results allowed the UK mil and Special Branch to focus in on small groups, offering each interesting person a deal to turn informant or consider other methods.
The USA is now different. The gov needs publicity, budget growth for contractors, good cyber police news stories for the news cycle.
US human rights lawyers, court workers, telco workers, contractors, ex and former police, journalists, cult members, faith groups, criminals now understand the inner workings of police network collection and what a phone will not keep secure.
The USA told the world decades of the UK's best kept "collect it all" secrets so US police could get into phone crypto for open courts.
The UK had the better idea and kept methods secure, the USA will see easy collect it on consumer grade phones go dark due to methods been discovered in the courts.
WARRIOR PRIDE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Interesting people who would have once kept on talking, inviting new people to talk (voice print of the new person) will just move to more traditional methods of communications. Well way from junk consumer devices and brands with open mics.
What could have been decades of total network collection was lost to needing good news about a few US court cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically they got greedy
And lazy. I used to work for a mobile phone provider in the technical department. There is nothing they need off your phone to send your ass to jail that they can't get from the provider. Every sms/mms, contact, and every place you have been they can get from the provider. An if the provider tills you they can't, they are lying because I have done it.
The reason they want this power is because, unlike us, the providers have very deep pockets and lots of lawyers. They can tell the government to go to
Re: (Score:3)
The CEO in that example went to prison for insider trading. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. The rest of that example has to do with broad spying by the NSA, not the FBI. Again that has nothing to do with the current discussion. The current discussion is the police forcing you to hand over the pass key to your phone. Not the NSA trolling everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
No convictions prior to 2006 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented? I guess they must not have solved any crimes at all?
More things were written down on paper or communicated over the phone, for starters. Now it's both easy and practical to have a system where any potentially incriminating information can be entered directly into an encrypted ecosystem wherever you happen to be.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented?
Wiretaps, pen registers, trap-and-trace.
Room bugs, directional microphones.
Seizure of paper records. (Encryption is an issue there, too.)
Informants, tips, infiltrators.
Interrogation.
Fingerprints and other physical evidence.
VERY good P.R.
Of course there were also: mail intercepts, agents provacteur, entrapment, honey-traps, planted evidence, blackmail, "sink tests", bogus tests (e.g. bullet isotope analysis), torture, lying to sus
Re: (Score:3)
I've found a trick on those crime dramas for identifying the red herrings: If the main characters refrain from brutalising, threatening or intimidating the suspect, that means they are likely going to be found to be innocent later.
SUX To BE The FBI In This Case (Score:2, Interesting)
I understand the need for law enforcement, but I also understand the need for personal privacy and sanctity of one's personal property (home, things, so on).
I understand if I drop a cigarette or cigar butt or even a soda cap that it might have my DNA or fingerprints on it. I know that my cell phone might radiate identifying information about me.
My point is this:
The line between what the government can legally pry into and what requires a search warrant has always been and will forever be "blurry" in the USA
Digging themselves in a deeper hole. (Score:2)
The agents who struggled to prosecute teenagers for ripping off the telco 20 and 30 years ago are now considered some of the senior "cyber" experts. Somewhere at the FBI there is a crotchty old fucker who still tries to use his checkbook at the grocery store and he's sending out weekly paper memos urging his underlings to finally figure out what to do about these encripdon scramblers. "We defeated screen saver passwords we can defeat this too!"
It's going to take a die-off to un-fuck this situation.
In the
Reaping what you sow. (Score:5, Informative)
To put it mildly, this is a huge, huge problem,"
Hey, FBI?
No, it isn't, but do you remember this? [wikipedia.org] The absolutely massive violations of the 4th amendment by the USGov? THAT is a "huge, huge problem". The intrusion into the personal life of billions of ordinary, peaceful, law abiding citizens around the world (not just in the USofA). No-warrant, mass surveillance, like we used to blame the USSR and GDR for.
You violated the spirit and the letter of the law on such a scale that the world pushed back. You were given our trust, and you violated it. Not just here and there, exceptionally. No, you violated it systemically and constantly, for decades. And you are still doing so. No one who violated those laws has seen their day in court, a single day in prison, a single dollar of fine. You turned yourselves into a surveillance state.
So yes, we are pushing back and we will KEEP pushing back, harder than ever. We will reclaim the rights you stole from us, with or without your permission. Because that's how things work in a free society - something you wouldn't understand.
Sincerely,
The rest of us who aren't tyrannical fucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup.
The FBI (CIA, NSA, etc) have been clearly shown to be completely untrustworthy.
End of story.
Huge problem? (Score:2)
So, 20 years ago when smart phones didnâ(TM)t exist, was it a huge problem then? Because, if not, it canâ(TM)t be a huge problem now.
Nelson said it best. (Score:3)
*points finger* Ha ha!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! (Score:2)
My heart bleeds for them.
Awww (Score:2)
This --> &
is the world's smallest violin. And it's playing just for you.
Good news at last! (Score:2)
federal agents were unable to access the content of more than 6,900 mobile devices, Wray said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Philadelphia. "To put it mildly, this is a huge, huge problem,"
And to the extent that we care about the Constitution, we want to keep it that way. Don't forget, these police associations are the primary lobbyists for that police right to steal from citizens.
Giving the NSA the evil eye (Score:2)
I wonder what it is like when the director of the NSA and the FBI get together. Does the director of the FBI just lay into the director of the NSA for creating this "problem" or does he just give him the evil eye.
Pointless Regulation (Score:2)
What debate (Score:5, Insightful)
Get used to it Hooverites. (Score:2)
What is on these phones?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Carriers don't have access to text message *contents
Yeah they do. I used to work for a carrier. I have pulled the exact contents that you are talking about for law enforcement. There is nothing on your phone that they need to send your ass to jail they can't get from the carrier. The reason they want access to the device is because it's simpler. Carriers have deep pockets and can fight to keep the data private. It is in the best interested of the carrier to fight such requests.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that I think about it I remember one instance where I pushed out a rom update OTA to one particular MDN sitting on my desk.
Think about the implications of that.
Why don't they get it yet? (Score:2)
I just don't understand. They continue to say things like this, appearing to be in complete denial of reality. Why is this? Encryption is out there. It's not going away, and there is no going back to the way they used to operate. They need to accept this. I believe 100% that companies who have the ability to provide/decrypt customer data with a court order should be required to do so. This should increase safety for all of us, as software continues to be written that ensures it is in fact impossible
Same story, same attitude. (Score:2)
Every time I hear about law enforcement wanting anything to do with mobile phones it reminds me how much they put into recovering stolen devices in the first place.... exactly zero.
Priorities right?
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI wouldn't be investigating a stolen phone anyway. Not in their jurisdiction, unless they have reason to believe the phone was stolen in connection with a crime across state lines or a matter of national security.
Dear FBI, NSA, RCMP, CSIS, etc... (Score:2)
You are more of a threat to a free, democratic society than terrorists, pedophiles, drug dealers and their ilk have ever been.
Here is a cock. Suck it.
it's a huge problem (Score:2)
""To put it mildly, this is a huge, huge problem," Wray said. "It impacts investigations across the board -- narcotics, human trafficking, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, gangs, organized crime, child exploitation, political coverups, wait, did I say that last part out loud?"
Boo-fucking-hoo (Score:2)
Apparently.... (Score:2)
Cellebrite isn't infallible.
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Funny)
FBI confirmed for whiny crybabies who want to be spoonfed everything instead of doing the jobs they were hired to do.
Let's face the facts. There can only be two choices when it comes to encryption: Ban ALL encryption for consumer devices (which would be a gigantic leap backwards and create a massive security issue for everyone) or leave encryption alone. Compromising encryption algorithms IS A NON-STARTER.
Of course if they banned encrytion, then of course the rich, and politicians would still manage to have it, as would EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL AND TERRORIST with the means and wherewithal to find and use it, so banning encryption is also a NON-STARTER. The Djinn is already out of the bottle, we do not have time travel machines, you can't go back in time and prevent encryption from being invented, fucking DEAL WITH IT, LAW ENFORCEMENT!
Do you use bold and all-caps because you only want me to read those bits, or is it because you want me to read those bits more intensely than the non-bold-or-all-caps bits?
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you use bold and all-caps because you only want me to read those bits, or is it because you want me to read those bits more intensely than the non-bold-or-all-caps bits?"
Don't be so harsh. The kid went to a HTML-course yesterday.
Re: (Score:3)
People have a right to privacy and encryption is important to allow them to retain that right. I don't agree though that any law against it would be ineffective. For a start encryption would disappear from most consumer products and the encryption that remained would eventually be easier to detect. I think that, were it outlawed, the total amount of crypto would reduce.
Anyone caught using crypto illegally (whether is can be unencrypted or not) would stand to be be arrested and stopped from committing crime
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, WUT?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, this is an argument I haven't considered. I think what most people mean by "won't work" is that with the existing tools and suggested methods, there would be nothing stopping someone who wished to use cryptographically secure tools on top of, or beyond the consumer level system. (See http://www.phantomcode.com/com... [phantomcode.com])
What you suggest is that we would mandate all encryption without government access illegal. Banks and large corporations would get a registration for their crypto/certificates and then ju
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the wrong attitude entirely. You're telling people with access to secret courts, gag orders, and virtually unlimited funding to 'deal with it'. They also happen to either write the laws, or have untoward influence over those who do.
They'll deal with it, but I don't think you'll like the eventual outcome.
Posting angry sounding rubbish on Slashdot doesn't change the fact that in the end, it's not a fight consumers can win. It's a lot like the gun control debate -- the exact same rationale gets tro
Re: (Score:3)
> Let's face the facts. There can only be two choices when it comes to encryption: Ban ALL encryption for consumer devices ... or leave encryption alone. Compromising encryption algorithms IS A NON-STARTER.
Non techies don't think this way though. They are forever convinced that they can do this, or that they can claim they aren't doing this while actually doing this. The belief in backdoored encryption seems pervasive, because we have people clamoring for it constantly.
Re:The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> That's why we have checks and balances built into law enforcement, to keep them from running rampant.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but fail to see where the checks and balances are for "law enforcement". Not from the executive branch, which has been "tough on crime" since Nixon in the 60s. The militarization of the police has gone completely out of control since 2001. (See "Do Not Resist (2016)" or "Rise of the Warrior Cop" 2014 by Radley Balko for some examples). And not from the judicial b
Re: (Score:2)
Are you quite sure that the media just doesn't cover the bad minority of law enforcement and it is appearing to be much more prevalent than it really is? Out of all the cops I've dealt with in my life,... a dozen or so... most of them were very decent people. One had an anger problem, but by and large they were looking out for the public.
On topic, the FBI are not your typical cops. I think they should concentrate on getting the bad guys without having access to everybody's personal info.
Re:As it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the biggest problem with this idea is that most people won't have anything to hide and the FBI would find nothing of value for that effort, and those who were even slightly serious about hiding stuff would immediately toss the device that had been out of their control in the trash, and the FBI would again get nothing and would lose a device.
I think dumpster diving is part of their job description.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Funny)
You're right. I usually traffic my drugghumans with pickup trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try:
Maybe because they haven't committed any crimes or maybe because they haven't been convicted of any crimes or maybe because this is still a country that doesn't imprison those that are no longer in power.