Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Security Government Privacy United States

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Couldn't Access Nearly 7,000 Devices Because of Encryption

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:16PM (#55418715)

    apples new face unlock will make it easy!

    • by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:28PM (#55418807) Journal

      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.

      • by seinman ( 463076 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:32PM (#55418837) Homepage Journal
        On an iPhone, this is accomplished by pressing the lock button five times in a row. A little more cumbersome, but still easy enough to do quickly if the need arises.
      • by un1nsp1red ( 2503532 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:33PM (#55418849) Homepage
        I use Nova Launcher on my Pixel XL and you can do something very similar -- I have mine set so if I double-tap the screen at any time it instantly locks the screen and switches from print-unlock to PIN. Not sure if it works with a specific 'panic print' -- I set it a long time ago and haven't revisited the settings.
        • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          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.

      • Or left hand secures device in panic, right hand unlocks - or whatever you choose.
        • 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.

          • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @02:20PM (#55419227) Homepage Journal

            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.

            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.

            • 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.

            • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Monday October 23, 2017 @04:29PM (#55420091)

              How about just NOT using face or print to open, and just keep using a fairly complex password.

              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.

            • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @05:09PM (#55420325) Homepage

              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.

              • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @05:32PM (#55420457) Homepage

                But most importantly is we shouldn't have too.

              • by Altrag ( 195300 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @05:01AM (#55422449)

                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.

                • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @05:58AM (#55422575) Homepage

                  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."

        • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

          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...

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Monday October 23, 2017 @02:06PM (#55419121)

        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.

        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).

        • 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.

  • Alternatively... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by computational super ( 740265 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:17PM (#55418721)
    Or, they're saying that they can't access these devices to lull criminals into a false sense of complacency.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "a false sense of complacency."
      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
    • 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)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:20PM (#55418755) Homepage Journal

    Encryption works as designed.

    • Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:29PM (#55418823)

      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)

        by Cyberpunk Reality ( 4231325 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:50PM (#55419003)
        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.
        • 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.

      • 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)

      by lazarus ( 2879 )

      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...

      • 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.

        • by syn3rg ( 530741 )
          The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
          Ecclesiastes 1:9
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by KlomDark ( 6370 )

          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

      • 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.

    • They need to deal with it. Implementing laws and restrictions only affects law-abiding citizens.

    • by v1 ( 525388 )

      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?

    • 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.

    • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @04:04PM (#55419947) Homepage

      Better plan. Dump a few hundred photos from "granny on granny" into a folder called "Russian election plan." Then let the fun begin.

  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) <`ten.knilhtrae' `ta' `nsxihselrahc'> on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:25PM (#55418783)

    On how many of those devices did they have a warrant to even try to access them?

    • by Koby77 ( 992785 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:54PM (#55419037)
      Along similar lines, I wonder how many of those devices will have any actual evidence of wrongdoing? If we recall, the FBI desperately wanted to backdoor the cell phone of the San Bernadino terrorists, which they eventually did, but found no information of value. Just because the FBI says "6900 devices" doesn't really mean anything to me. Peoples' privacy deserves protection more than the FBI needs to backdoor everyone's cell phone just so that they can score the occasional long-shot conviction.
      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @02:59PM (#55419513)
        Back in the 1970s when DES was being standardized, The NSA told the standards body to remove certain sets of keys [arstechnica.com] from possible use in DES. There was widespread speculation that the NSA had weakened DES, but in the 1990s differential cryptanalysis was discovered (outside classified circles). And it turned out the keys the NSA said to remove were vulnerable to differential cryptanalysis.

        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.

        If we recall, the FBI desperately wanted to backdoor the cell phone of the San Bernadino terrorists

        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).

        • by Brannon ( 221550 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:57PM (#55419893)
          > 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.

          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.
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          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.

      • "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.

  • on a separate note (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ad454 ( 325846 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:27PM (#55418803) Journal

    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.

  • by Distan ( 122159 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:31PM (#55418829)

    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)

      by chispito ( 1870390 )
      iPhones. If you look at the market for vulnerabilities, iOS vulnerabilities command extremely high prices.

      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.
  • by cerberusss ( 660701 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:33PM (#55418847) Homepage Journal

    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)

      My favorite was when they shouted "You can't trust Kapersky! Dirty foreigners!" Yeah, more like they have the US antivirus makers in their pocket and Kapersky isn't under their control. Honestly the three letter agencies are more of a threat to me as a US citizen than any foreign intelligence.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @05:00PM (#55420275) Journal
      The problem was different thinking between the USA and UK.
      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.
    • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      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

  • by Koby77 ( 992785 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:34PM (#55418871)
    I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented? I guess they must not have solved any crimes at all?
    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:41PM (#55418935)

    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.

  • 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.

  • by Guyle ( 79593 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:43PM (#55418953) Homepage

    *points finger* Ha ha!

  • They are not going to be able to grab someone's device and lock up the case on them...sorry. Just not a problem that someone can solve for them. They are going to have to do real police work to bust people.

  • by sjvn ( 11568 )

    My heart bleeds for them.

  • by PPH ( 736903 )

    This --> &
    is the world's smallest violin. And it's playing just for you.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • If the FBI succeeds in making the device manufacturers provide back doors to encryption, it will take exactly 0 seconds for 3rd party apps that encrypt securely to take its place.
  • What debate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday October 23, 2017 @02:07PM (#55419139)
    There's a handful of law enforcement people who want backdoors. Everyone else says no. You need a few more participants on the other side before it qualifies as a 'debate'.
  • There are many other messages that remain inaccessible [fc2.com] historically.
  • Can someone please tell me what could possibly be on these phones that they can't get to? They already have all the calls & likely texts from the carrier (with a warrant, right?). They think there are some pictures of a terrorist holding his AK or something? I just really don't understand the need.
  • 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

  • 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?

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • ""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?"

  • Stuff's hard sometimes and I don't like it. Please fix.
  • Cellebrite isn't infallible.

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Working...