DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access To Is 'Unreasonable' (arstechnica.com) 510
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Just two days after the FBI said it could not get into the Sutherland Springs shooter's seized iPhone, Politico Pro published a lengthy interview with a top Department of Justice official who has become the "government's unexpected encryption warrior." According to the interview, which was summarized and published in transcript form on Thursday for subscribers of the website, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein indicated that the showdown between the DOJ and Silicon Valley is quietly intensifying. "We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption." "I want our prosecutors to know that, if there's a case where they believe they have an appropriate need for information and there is a legal avenue to get it, they should not be reluctant to pursue it," Rosenstein said. "I wouldn't say we're searching for a case. I''d say we're receptive, if a case arises, that we would litigate."
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also pretty unreasonable that criminals can't just be forced to admit guilt. Think of all the wasted time giving criminals due process of law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
The semi-official media euphemize this as a "plea bargain". But I prefer the more old fashioned term: coerced false confession.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
and you're wrong
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Informative)
When DNA evidence was first available, many old cases were reexamined. In about 10% of the cases, the person convicted could not possibly have committed the crime. Many of them had pled guilty [innocenceproject.org], usually to get lighter sentences.
Plea bargaining should be abolished. Nobody should be punished for exercising their right to a fair trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Plea bargaining should be abolished. Nobody should be punished for exercising their right to a fair trial.
How much extra are you willing to pay in taxes to ensure that happens? That's basically what it comes down to.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
How much extra are you willing to pay in taxes to ensure that happens? That's basically what it comes down to.
Many countries do not use plea bargaining, and they do all right. Courts can be more efficient, so cases are handled faster. Less activities should be criminalized, so there will be fewer criminal cases. America has far more people in prison than other countries, so sentencing reform could mean more people willing to plead guilty since their life won't be ruined by decades of incarceration. People should not go to prison for nonviolent offenses.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, most countries that have about a percent of their population in jail also don't give too much of a shit about "due process" or "fair trial", or in other words, countries that don't feel the urge to jail a sizable portion of their population most likely also have fewer trials to handle.
Re: (Score:3)
Many countries don't use presumption of innocence, nor juries, and they do, well, fine by their standards, but not fine by ours.
The 'others' argument only devalues our freedoms and protections, such as they are, by establishing the false equivalence with others who believe profoundly differently than we do. But those beliefs are foundational, and we devalue those at our great peril.
Re: (Score:3)
Many countries don't use presumption of innocence, nor juries
Plea bargains are based on a presumption of guilt, and deprive defendants of a jury trial.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
You could start by not jailing five times the amount of people than the rest of the world. That could ease the burden on the legal system considerably.
There is two possibilities why this happens. Either people in the US are more likely to be a criminal. Or your laws make it impossible to not be one.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a persuasive argument. [theguardian.com]
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
About as much as will be saved by not incarcerating people for crimes they did not commit.
Locking people up costs quite a bit of money.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Plea bargaining should be abolished. Nobody should be punished for exercising their right to a fair trial.
How much extra are you willing to pay in taxes to ensure that happens? That's basically what it comes down to.
It also comes down to the fact that there are things that are crimes that should not be. The War on Drugs exploded the prison population. It is bad policy and has exacerbated this glut of case that have to move through the system.
And to answer the first question, I would be willing to pay extra taxes to ensure that I and my fellow citizens can exercise our right to due process. How much, I don't know because I don't know what's reasonable.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Interesting)
The even more important takeaway from the other 90% is that being innocent and taking your trial to court is no guarantee you'll be found not guilty. The system should work so that you assume the court is right *most* the time, where the guilty get a reasonable rebate for confessing since they'd probably be convicted - otherwise they have really nothing to lose, while the innocent should not get an unreasonable extra punishment for trying to prove their innocence. What happens in the US is post-hoc justification, they were guilty (because they were found guilty) and they tried to get away with it (because they took it to trial) so let's lock them away forever.
What's wrong with the US system is that your plea is not taken into consideration at sentencing, it's being used to decide what crime to charge you with in the first place. Objectively I find that absurd because what actually happened can't be altered through a plea deal, the required flexibility for whether you should be punished stronger or lighter should be in the sentencing. Here in Norway the prosecution has to play their hand first, we're charging you with crimes X and Y, here's our sentencing recommendation if you're found guilty. Then you can either pick a "confession ruling" (tilståelsesdom) which is very simplified process for a 15-30% reduction in sentencing at the court's discretion or you can bring it to a full trial. It seems to work okay, though you never really know.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Plea bargaining should be enshrined in law, so that it can be controlled.
That is the way it works in military courts. If a defendant pleads guilty, the judge (or presiding officer) will still conduct a "providency hearing", which is a summary of the evidence, shorter than a full trial and with looser rules of evidence, but still enough to determine if the guilty plea is actually in the best interest of the defendant.
I saw a defendant in a special court martial plead guilty, had the plea rejected by the judge after the providency hearing, and then went on to be acquitted after a full trial.
Re: Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, but if you were to find out the true number was about 80% wouldn't that change your opinion on this?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Insightful)
"EVERY criminal in the jailhouse will tell you: "I didn't do it!"" because, in the jailhouse, EVERYBODY is ratting you out and EVERYBODY is watching and listening to you.
So you never ever admit to anything in the jailhouse because everything is known to the authorities. Oh, wait, even in the jailhouse the authorities cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs, of money, of weapons, and cannot even assure the innocent inmates of safety from one another...
And this is why encryption in the free society is both necessary and must be inviolate. 'Our betters', the prosecutors, jailers, and police, cannot be trusted, for they make mistakes. And they will not admit to them. Permitting them any sort of privileged access into your encrypted information is intolerable. Let them prove their case however they can, knowing they will fail and guilty will go free, rather than the innocent be unjustly accused and convicted due to circumstances. For you can be sure the authorities, 'our betters', will make it up if they need to to avoid being caught in lies. That has happened over and over. Arguing that encryption denies them critical evidence is just the other side of the coin of 'trust us', despite the manifold reasons not to.
For they cannot even manage their own institutions.
Well, no (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, thousands of people take that deal every year. I was locked up with several of them. This is not a Grisham novel, this is real life.
In the Feds (states are different, so YMMV), prosecutors establish the highest possible charges they can indict (I think this was supposed to be the highest 'provable' charges but that's not what we got) and then get the indictments. They present you with these charges (e.g.: A, B, C, D, and E) and offer you a 'reduction' to an appropriate charge for your offense (e.g.: A and B) in exchange for a guilty plea. Then they tell you their conviction rate (high 90's%).
THEY have practically unlimited resources from the FBI, the DEA, the ATFE, and to a lesser extent from local law enforcement. They have a large annual budget for crime lab and forensic analysis, as well as expert testimony. Most guys with no money and guys with prior engagement with the Feds immediately accept the plea. This means the Feds get to concentrate all of their firepower on the stubborn nails that insist on sticking up.
YOU have a public defender whose compensation for your case is capped at (IIRC) $3,000. If you are fortunate, and financially secure, maybe you have a paid attorney, but how much can you afford? $25,000? $50,000? A SIMPLE trial in the Fed can easily go past $30,000.
Worse, the benches are stacked with Republican nominated justices. Some of these guys act like they are extensions of the prosecutor's offices.
If you go to trial there is a high probability you are going to prison, even if you are innocent. When you are found guilty, you will be sentenced for all of the charges they originally laid against you (A, B, C, D, and E). They call this 'sending a strong signal'.
Charges A and B may have a sentencing range of 34 to 42 months. If you're at the bottom of the range (34 months) you will serve about 29 months with good behavior, do a little probation, and move on with your life. With such a short sentence you will be sent to a Low Security facility, if you're nonviolent maybe even a camp.
Charges A through E may carry a range of 270 to 300 months. If you make them go all the way through a trial you will probably not be at the bottom of the range. At 300 months you will have to serve at least 261 months. That's almost 22 years. You will also have to begin your sentence in a Maximum Security prison (a 'Penitentiary'). You will not like most of the people you meet there. Worse, they won't like you.
Rational people have this choice thrust upon them all the time in this country and do the Expected Value Equation:
Plead: 100% times 29 months.
vs
Trial: 90% times 261 months.
Often this happens to people who are guilty of some of their charges but not all of them (this is what happened to me). Sometimes it happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
I apologize for the length of this post.
Re:Well, no (Score:5, Funny)
Consider the case of Frederick II, an 18th-century king of Prussia. Frederick fancied himself an enlightened monarch, and in some respects he was. On one occasion, he is supposed to have interested himself in the conditions of a Berlin prison. He was escorted through it so that he might speak to the prisoners.
One after the other, the prisoners fell to their knees before him, bewailing their lot and, predictably, protesting their utter innocence of all charges that had been brought against them.
Only one prisoner remained silent, and finally Frederick's curiosity was aroused.
"You," he called. "You, there!"
The prisoner looked up. "Yes, your majesty?"
"Why are you here?"
"Armed robbery, your majesty."
"And are you guilty?"
"Entirely guilty, your majesty. I richly deserve my punishment."
At this Frederick rapped his cane sharply on the ground and said, "Warden, release this guilty wretch at once. I will not have him here in jail where by example he will corrupt all the splendid innocent people who occupy it."
FWIW (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few people in jail or prison claim to be innocent. Most freely admit their guilt*. This makes it more interesting when someone claims to be either innocent, guilty of only part of their charges, or not guilty of any of their charges (although often guilty of some other uncharged offense).
After you talk to 15 or 20 of these people (and read their documentation) you start to get a feel for who is bullshitting and who got fucked. Talking to members of either group will make you angry, but in very different ways.
*: Before a plea or trial your lawyer will tell you to STFU and plead innocent at your arraignment. This gives your lawyer a little leverage ion the plea negotiations (although in the Feds they're not allowed to call it 'negotiation' anymore).
PS. If you get arrested, say "I want to speak to a lawyer," and then stop talking. Seriously. Make your mouth be still. It's your life, don't screw around.
Friend of my youth is a public defender... (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes [choosing to plead to an offence for reduced sentence] happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
A friend since my college days became a public defender. He is rabidly against the death penalty. According to him, the main effect is to cause totally innocent people to plead guilty to lower-grades of murder rather than risk their lives by demanding a trial.
It's something like the argument against torture: Hurt someone enough and you can get him to say whatever he thinks you want him to say in the hope you'll stop hurting him. So information extracted by torture is unreliable.
SNR (Score:5, Insightful)
You should become familiar with a concept called "Signal-to-Noise Ratio" before speaking any similar bullshit regarding the shit circus that you dare to call "intelligence gathering" on your side of the Atlantic pond.
Technically, torture works fine if you torture several persons
By inflicting torture to more people, you'll just end up with even more unreliable bullshit that all spat to you just to make you stop.
Just a bigger pile of more random stuff they all hoped will make you stop, and that is.
and cross reference the statements.
You have such a huge pile of random bullshit, that you won't generate anything significant by cross-referencing.
You're most likely to get random match (some people happen to have randomly uttered the same thing in the middle of their ordeal) or thing that match due to shared common beliefs rather than actual truth (basically the poor victims will shout anything that they think will make you stop. Lots of them might think that you want to hear that it's the "evil foreign pedo-terrorist pirates with a a slightly different skin shade who did it, I swear !" So you're going to hear that a lot, even if none of the poor victim you've caught has the faintest clue of whatever you're speaking about).
You might not even have a single person in your pool of human playthings for sadists which has any information relevant to this.
Thus, it can be used for intelligence gathering but not in the justice system.
"Intelligence gathering" means the gathering of actual intelligence. Not hoarding as much noise as possible and hoping for some miracle by the data analyst guys which will suddenly make a small signal shine in the middle of the pile.
You don't find needles by stacking more hay on top of the haystack.
This is valid both regarding human-rights violating practice such as torture : you're basically just adding noise, you're not helping anything, except maybe your disgusting sadistic tendencies.
And it is valid regarding privacy violating practice such as NSA-levels mass-spying.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy to say when you’re not facing the potential of being wrongfully convicted and receiving a far worse sentence.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:5, Interesting)
They gave me two choices. One was to take a "cake" plea that involved zero prison time (suspended sentence) with some of the counts tossed out. The other was to have my charges tossed in favor of being charged under the higher law, re-arrested, have to post bond a second time with a likely higher bond I didn't have the money to pay (in practicality this means rotting in jail for potentially YEARS awaiting a trial), facing up to six years in prison if found guilty, and based on my research a few years after all this went down there is not a single case in my entire state (and may other states) where a trial for a sex crime ended in "not guilty" so I was guaranteed to be on the losing end of that gamble. My attorney (a very good and reputable one too!) urged me to take the offer because he knew there was no way to win.
What about the evidence? What about the particulars of the case? What about the tainted data, the forensics that stunk? Well, you see, the facts don't matter when they can just shovel you through with a strong-arm plea offer. It didn't matter if I was guilty or not because they held my head above a figurative vat of acid, a guaranteed destruction of up to a decade of my adult life, and coerced a guilty plea out of me. Justice was not served in my case; it was fucking slaughtered. This part of my life is what I think of when I read "never cop to a guilty plea to get reduced sentence." I hope it becomes what you think of as well.
Posted AC for super obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just take a look at what that moron said:
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
Uhh, your definition of the word "same" differs from that of most of humanity. Sorry but we don't provide the keys to our houses to the DOJ, lil' Roddy. Got any other faerie tales you'd like to tell?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to provide the keys for your locks to the DOJ because:
1, the manufacturer of the lock could provide them the key.
2, there are other ways they can get in without the key (lockpicking, smashing the door etc).
The idea is that suitably strong encryption cannot be broken at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea is that suitably strong encryption cannot be broken at all.
That's the POINT of encryption: to be SECURE! Otherwise, criminals could take your personal data for identity theft purposes and ruin your finances. As soon as you introduce a backdoor, the security scheme is compromised. The DOJ is insisting it ought to compromise the ENTIRE security scheme for one case and thus put millions of people's security at risk. It's stupid and irrational.
The more apt analogy is putting your entire military at risk to kill one enemy combatant but allowing them to decimate your
Re: (Score:3)
there is really no such thing as an un-openable safe. physics always wins, if you can't wedge the frame far enough apart that the lock state doesn't matter, you go in through the side with an angle grinder.
though there are alloys that cause you to get into internally destructive methods to get the thing open, by causing the angle grinder discs to get gummed up or chewed up with various materials under the metal so you have to resort to open flame options. Bout the best we have when it comes to physical secu
A reasonable desire. Impossible because internet (Score:5, Insightful)
A decent locksmith can open any lock consumers use in a minute or two.* Yet the lock DOES generally work - if you lock up your bike with a decent lock, a thief probably isn't going to walk off with it.
So the physical lock serves it's protective purpose, yet when you lock yourself out Pop-A-Lock can get you in for $25, and with a warrant police can enter an apartment. That's really not a bad situation. Compare if you lose your encryption key - you're permanently fucked; you can't call a digital locksmith if you're encryption is "good".
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a non-technical person to say "I like the idea of a security system or lock that protects things from the bad guys, but with enough effort can be bypassed in an emergency or by an expert with a warrant". Again, it works well for physical locks, so CONCEPTUALLY it's reasonable.
However, in today's digital world everything is connected to the internet and computer accessible, so a bad guy 5,000 miles away can have his computer working around the clock to try to break everybody's encryption. He doesn't have to hire a locksmith to work each lock. As computers get faster, it gets easier and easier to break a given level encryption, too. Therefore as a PRACTICAL matter, encryption needs to be super strong to be very useful. That's a practical fact for internet-connected devices.
So I think the person is either a) unfamiliar with the practical realities of computer encryption or b) expressing a desire of what they'd want if they could have whatever they want, not proposing that it's actually available in a practical way today. Possibly both.
It's not unreasonable to desire that digital locks worked like physical locks, secure from ordinary bad guys but locksmiths can open them. We just don't have any practical implementation that works that way, and probably never will.
We actually DO have a technical implementation that *would* work if the government could be trusted to a) keep the keys secret and b) not abuse the keys, using them without a properly executed warrant.
* Medeco locks used by some businesses and $5,000 safes take a few minutes longer.
Former locksmith here (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work as a locksmith. A long time ago, tools and techniques for tubular locks weren't common, so bike locks with a tubular cylinder WERE considered difficult. Tubular locks are the kind you see on soda machines, and have a circular key. Picks for tubular locks are now common, so they are no longer difficult. I've never seen any model of bike that would be considered difficult.
You might not BOTHER to pick a $12 lock since it's so easy to replace. It's not difficult, just not worth spending more than 3 minutes on if you happen to randomly get one with shallowing bitting at the key tip, and deep cuts near the bow. That's random to specific instances of the lock, though - in general they are slightly easier than home locks because they frequently have only four pins rather than five.
I mentioned bitting. If your key happens to have deep cuts near the "handle" and a very shallow cut near the top, that's more difficult. Especially if there is also a shallow cut right before the deep cut.
Re:Unreasonable huh (Score:4, Insightful)
The government knows every important detail of the Sutherland Springs shooter's life. There is no question of what he did, where he went, how he did it. This case is completely irrelevant to their demand to discard the constitution and remake the world into a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Racist.
But interesting to consider. How can anyone look at the actual statistics and not wonder what's wrong?
I have lots of ideas, but I almost can't comment of them. Because just bringing them up is.. well it sounds racist.
Re: (Score:3)
It's this "omg racist!!" kneejerk response that stops people from actually looking at the statistics properly or trying to do anything about them.
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions.
Facts may be used as evidence to support an opinion, but that doesn't change the nature of the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the mass shooting.
Tell you what... (Score:2)
Why don't we all give you our front door keys as well? That will make things easier for you too!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Dammit... Forgot to preview...
Our front door keys, the combinations to all our safes, and the keys to any and all safe deposit boxes that we have.
Re:Tell you what... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we all give you our front door keys as well? That will make things easier for you too!!!
Not really much easier than simply breaking down the door -- which isn't something they can do to a smartphone.
More seriously, I don't remember the part of the Constitution that says our rights are contingent on how easy it is for the Government to usurp and/or ignore them.
Re:Tell you what... (Score:4, Interesting)
You think that local police forces don't try? I remember going to a political rally of sorts where they were talking about how the city wanted all businesses and multi-unit housing to hand over copies of keys to the police and fire departments. For your safety of course.
All kinds of questions were raised. Would the city be required to make attempts to call the property owner before entering? Would there be a log of these entries? Would this be public record? What of lost or stolen keys, would the city pay for locks being rekeyed? What happens in the case of a burglary? What responsibility would the police have if there is damaged property, missing items, or other losses? Can they prove someone in the city government was not responsible? What kind of prevention for abuse of this kind of access by city employees would be in place? What punishment for this abuse would there be?
This was happening in a neighboring town so it didn't affect me directly, only as an example that might spread. As far as I know this didn't get far. Of course many of those questions on having the keys to our homes and businesses also apply to having the keys to our data.
Oh, and why not have keys to single unit homes? Probably because the city council members all lived in single unit homes.
Re: (Score:3)
I was involved with a project where the local fire department insisted on having a Knox Box for access to a pharmacy located within an office building (they already had access to the building) but the state health department insisted that only a licensed pharmacist could have that
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained.
Let's just punch in random players here for the purpose of examining random outcomes: What if the governments are/become the criminals? It's not exactly unheard of.
Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
That is some frightening language. (Score:5, Insightful)
i know the fourth hangs by a thread, tattered and mostly extinguished, but it still chills me to hear the government speak so blatantly.
Re: (Score:3)
What hangs by a thread? The 4th has been neutered for years if not decades.
It hasn't been about what's "legal" for...what, a century or more? It's more about what they can get away with. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that while we were focusing on the irrelevant ( 'what's legal' ), we lost the war ( 'what people pay attention to' ).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't trust government with encryption (Score:4, Interesting)
My government runs gun control and healthcare. Oddly enough, the sky is still up there and we're doing fine.
And still I wouldn't trust that very same government with encryption matters. Why? Because I can SEE what they do in terms of gun control and healthcare. I see a lack of shooting sprees and I see a medical system that works. How do you suggest we should be able to know whether they abuse encryption backdoors?
Re:You don't trust government with encryption (Score:4)
>"Hell, most US gun-owners haven't formed a militia or neighbourhood watch, which is what the second amendment really guarantees. "
Scholars, historians, legal experts, and the supreme court of the USA have, by majority, agreed that what you just said is wrong. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is odd, for sure, but it means an INDIVIDUAL'S right to [buy, make, keep, and carry] arms. That is what was said, that is what was meant. The "militia" part was an explanation of WHY not who.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/... [thefederalist.com]
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Re:same shit, new pig. (Score:4, Informative)
>"draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control "
Bzzzzz. Your first two sentences were perfect and then you had to go and ruin it. Study after study after study proves that "gun control" doesn't prevent such murders. People who want to murder are going to illegally get a gun somehow and use it illegally (and overwhelming against unarmed groups of victims). Or they are going to run 20 people over with a car. Or throw gas on a building and burn a dozen people to death. Or make a pressure cooker bomb and set it off somewhere interesting. "Gun control" does one thing really well- it takes weapons out the hands of law-abiding, GOOD people, who use them to protect themselves and loved ones and frequently stop and deter crime.
Areas in the USA with the highest (most unconstitutional and most draconian) gun control laws have the most gun murders and crime. This is fact. And when those laws get removed, magically, the gun murders and crime start going down and down. Also fact. Most gun murders occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. Yep- fact. Another interesting fact- licensed concealed-carry citizens commit 600% fewer felonies (ANY type of felony) than police officers. And ANOTHER fact- gun murders have been going down for decades. And this is despite there being more guns and more population.
So we can continue to respond emotionally and "do something" about violence by passing more and more gun laws that make the problem worse. OR we can learn from fact and realize that gun laws are not the solution.
Re:same shit, new pig. (Score:5, Insightful)
The word you're looking for is an assault rifle [wikipedia.org] (machine guns [wikipedia.org] are not used by people other than military) but that's a moot point.
This important thing to note is argument is a red herring when it comes to the issue of gun legislation because fact of the matter is that US has both a higher rate of homicide [wikipedia.org] in general as well as a higher rate of mass shootings/murders [cnn.com] than Europe. So the fact of the matter is that you're statistically much more likely to become a victim of a mass murder in the US than in Europe.
This is correct.
You want to know what I've noticed about these recent mass shootings? Over a third of them globally happen in the US despite you being only 5 % of the world population. Compared to other western nations, even other western nations with a high gun ownership rate such as we here in Finland, the difference is staggering.
First of all, this idea that most mass murders are done with an illegal gun seems to not hold true in light of the facts (more on that later).
But even if it would, even if it'd be the case that most mass shootings are done with an illegal weapon, that's not an argument against control, that's evidence to the contrary because it indicates that what gun control you do have is poorly implemented if criminals can acquire guns with such ease. Those illegal weapons come from somewhere. The fact that people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns manage to get them with such ease that mass shootings are now almost a daily phenomenon in the US should tell you that the system is broken somewhere. Either the laws are broken or alternatively the enforcement of the rules is lacking, because it should be alarming to you that murderous criminals can acquire weapons that they should not be allowed to get with relative ease.
Nearly every illegal weapon used was at some point a legal one. The gun show loophole is perhaps the most famous one of the examples that comes to my mind, though I'm not an expert on US law. No level of gun control will make much difference if there exist legal ways for people to bypass the level of control and purchase weapons without having their backgrounds checked and so on. This comes down to a combination of points made by the OP and you. The OP said that the ease of getting an AR-15 probably has something to do with it, and you rightfully corrected him that most mass murders are done with handguns. Therefore the correct question is: does the ease of getting a handgun affect the rate of murders?
Yes, yes it does. One of the key reasons why Europe on average has less murders & mass murders is precisely because you cannot acquire a legal handgun here nearly as easily as you can in the states. This means that the amount of handguns in the black market is also consid
Re:same shit, new pig. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your one and only source for mass shooting statistics was Every Town? That group states openly that their goal is to ban all the guns. You could not have found a more biased source if you tried. How about coming back with some neutral sources? Or even some sources biased on the other end to balance that out?
Le's go with that for a bit though. 54% were domestic violence cases, and 63% happened in private homes. Does this mean people cannot even keep a firearm in their own home? That's going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl when we see that 1/3rd of Americans own a gun. I find that statistic interesting. Why use the word "American" since 24% of the US population is under 18 and are legally barred from owning a gun. The percentage of Americans under 21, the age at which a person may legally purchase a handgun under federal law, or legally carry a concealed firearm in most states, is 27%. That means of "American adults" the gun ownership is closer to 50% than 30%. When using the metric "gun owning household" we find it's 44%, which is probably a better metric to use as children are not really counted.
Then there's the claim that 34% of these murderers were prohibited from possessing a firearm. Here's a question, why were these people not in prison? I mean, if these people cannot be trusted with a firearm then why would we release them from prison? Are they barred from other dangerous items as well? People get stabbed, run over by trucks, beaten with baseball bats, and so on and so on. Why focus just on the firearms? Lock them up if they are still a threat. If they aren't a threat then they should not be barred, but that's perhaps a discussion for another time.
The Every Town admits that "only" 10% of mass shooting deaths happen in "gun free zones". Is this supposed to make me feel better? Is that not still an epic fail of the "gun free zone" to protect the people within it? That number should not be 10%, or 5%, or 1%, it should be 0% or it's a failure.
You also mention "mass shootings" as a metric, why is it important that people are shot? Don't having people get run over by a truck count? Why compare the USA to Europe? Why not Mexico? Why not anywhere else in the world? Why compare the entire USA when the laws on gun ownership vary widely from state to state? Murder rates vary widely from state to state as well. The "murderous" USA is still far safer than so many places in the world. Is this safety from owning guns? Maybe we should pick nations of similar area and population, like Brazil.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it reasonable to let someone out of prison and prevent them from being able to defend themselves from criminals? I don't think so.
Then perhaps the question was not posed properly. Again, how reasonable is it to release a person from prison and deny them the right to defend their property, family, or their own life? Whether that be from animals or snakes, including the ones that walk on two legs?
Are you proposing that people with mental illnesses need to either be incarcerated or given guns? They did not choose their mental illness. Is it fair to prevent them from defending themselves? Ex-felons did choose to commit their crimes. Furthermore, you can continue to defend yourself without a gun unless you have some sort of physical disability that prevents it. Can you defend yourself in the case of an armed robbery? No, perhaps not. But if someone is already pointing a gun at you, you may not be
Re: (Score:3)
You might not be aware, but "every town research" is a looney leftist anti-gun organization. You can ignore what they say as it's bullshit.
Just came here to point this out. If you want to engage in debate about such issues, using factual sources is helpful.
(In case you're wondering, they're defining "mass shooting" far differently than anybody else so that they can manipulate the statistics easier)
Cooperative with us (Score:2)
He said there were companies who were cooperative.
I'd love to see that list published, so more companies can add them to blacklists.
FBI Succums to Politics (Score:2)
Re:FBI Succums to Politics (Score:5, Funny)
We have a problem that the FBI is controlled by political ebb and tides.
Not only that, we have people who go around and invoke mono-spaced fonts "just because". It's madness, I tell you!
In a mad world, only the mad are sane.
there own fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No. For one simple reason: Such a key, a master key to any and all encryption of any and all devices and servers in the USA is going to be wanted. And I mean by other countries. Which implicitly means that other secret services WILL want that key.
At any price.
You think that some nefarious countries like NKor would shy away from finding out someone who has access to this key, kidnap his whole family and hold them for ransom? We're not even talking bribery, we're talking countries that would do ANYTHING short
Doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Stop trying to doublespeake the issue, you cannot treat things differently just because it's covenient to you.
Encryption is either strong, or weak and thus useless, there is no middleground, you cannot devise a way to make it weak for some case scenarios while being strong for others because this defeats it's ultimate purpose.
There is zero reason to pursue something like this because the moment US based companies start using a crippled encryption scheme like that is the moment hackers will find a way to exploit it, and criminals will switch to encryption systems made in a country that does not have such ignorant moronic people in the DOJ barking crap like that.
Or do these morons really thing that criminals will go "oh hey, these chat apps have US weakened and backdoored encryption and we are commiting crimes in the US, let's use it!". Fucking stupid.
You know what encryption is about? Reducing the rampant privacy erosion that has been happening in recent years because DOJ and other US governmental agencies cannot control their hunger for data. Crimes were solved well before this age of constant mass surveillance and privacy invasion at dystopic scales. Police should be able to do their jobs without having to step on the privacy of everyone they can reach, and arguably sometimes they can do a better job when they are not focusing so much on how to better collect data without anyone knowing about it.
So you can go suck a cock Rosenstein. No one wants to live in a totalitarian state where your half assed ideas comes to fruition. Fucking deal with the reality that there will always be methods for criminals to lock information down in ways that they become unaccessible.
Executive Summary (Score:5, Funny)
"I don't understand how strong encryption works" - Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Re: (Score:3)
It's official, the DOJ supports criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a safe backdoor.
If it's there, especially if knowledge of it is public, criminals will get access.
It will drive everyone who has any sense to use non US encryption products.
If you want to stop hearing this from your leaders (Score:5, Insightful)
You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician.
Or you can keep reading these stories and hoping for the best. I guess that works too.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician. "
"Tough on crime" is a perfectly valid goal and platform. But that doesn't and shouldn't necessarily mean:
1) Throwing out the Constitution
2) Mass surveillance
3) Broken encryption
Re:If you want to stop hearing this from your lead (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it should not include those things, but you are horribly naive if you don't realize that it always does mean those things.
"Tough on crime" is _not_ a perfectly valid goal (Score:4, Informative)
You're right (Score:3)
People want to secure their homes in such a way that they can get in and out. Not you, and not anyone else. So get your fucking paws off of our private information.
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
They give the cops the right to smash down the door if required. The cops have effective door smashing tools.
Cause and effect. (Score:5, Insightful)
What he should be asking is why this happened. Working backwards we know that Corporations rarely do things that aren't in the interest of profit which means there was a demand for this feature. Why was there a sudden demand for iron clad smartphone security? Well strong encryption didn't start showing up in smartphones until after the exposure of a massive surveillance apparatus.
Now, you can kill the messenger but it's the reality that is the real problem: people don't want to live in a surveillance state!
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
*facepalms* (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I don't think we should be limiting the world to the smartest that the DoJ can buy...
Is this the same government... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Method; Meet Madness (Score:3)
There are completely legitimate cases where law enforcement should be able to access the contents of devices and communication s between individuals and like any investigative technique, it can be abused. However the fact that something can and is being abused does not make the legitimate use cases for something go away. Don't get me wrong, the fact that weakening encryption and installing backdoors into devices, applications and protocols is not lost on me and I fully understand that this can lead to the additions being exploited by unscrupulous members of law enforcement and other parties. However I can understand why someone in law enforcement and government would ask for them and I don't consider these people to be morons for doing so.
The way I see it, encryption is one of those "peace in the middle east" type topics that are incredibly complicated and nobody has anything that even resembles a good answer...
There are costs (Score:3)
These people think we're idiots. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't even keep their OWN secrets.
What makes them think that a secret backdoor only THEY have been entrusted with will be safe?
Sorry, but if a weakness exists, it'll be found.
What's more, if it's a DELIBERATE weakness, it will likely be found FASTER, as what CAN be done to compromise such a thing is predictable.
Backdoor Absurdly Negates Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
But we do not leave our doors unlocked, nor instead give the police (or basically anyone else who does not reside there) a key to use when they deem fit (abusively or not).
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
having it both ways? (Score:3)
you can't have one without the other. Anything good can be abused for bad purposes.
Give the phone to... (Score:3)
Re:Give the phone to... (Score:5, Funny)
They can't, experts smoke pot and cannot be hired by gov :)
Not a house (Score:3)
"Absolutist" = mathematically sound (Score:3)
Math says that "absolutist" encryption is the only kind that actually works. Deal with it.
I wonder if some of these idiots honestly believe that it's mathematically possible to have encryption that can be cracked by law enforcement but not criminals. I still think it's more likely an "Ask for a pony to get a dog" tactic: they ask for magical encryption to prod tech companies into providing other, actually possible forms of cooperation.
Why are the folks in charge (Score:4, Insightful)
always so damned ignorant ?
Why do we have to keep explaining the same things over and over to the same people ?
Encryption is doing its job if it prevents unauthorized folks from obtaining the data it's protecting. This includes the government. ( Whom no one fully trusts with anything ) Especially the government in some instances.
As leaky as the government is with their own networks and the data that rides them, it would only be a matter of time before any mandated backdoor became semi-public knowledge. At which point the damage that can be done would be epic.
What's " unreasonable " is the government demanding levels of transparency on the people while doing their damndest to hide everything they do under veils of secrecy, NSL's and secret courts. ( All under the guise of 'protecting' us of course. )
Tell you what, we'll give you access to our data, when you give us full access to yours.
Until then, you all can go fuck yourselves.
Hugs and kisses from all of us.
Stupidity is the lifeblood of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Government jobs attract thugs. Government is a coercive, violent institution that attracts people who have dictatorial personalities and who cannot compete properly on the open market. It is gangsterism on a grand scale.
They also do not understand that the more they push this ridiculous and mathematically-impossible idea about encryption that they alone have access to, they will push businesses and users into more and more secure technologies.
They fought Apple, and Apple hardened its systems. They get caught running PRISM, consumers ramp up their use of encryption and VPNs. Every time government does this, they push the world into more secure encryption.
Encryption either works for everyone, or no one.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
I am also doubtful he understands what encryption really is and how it works, or that he can remember the US government fighting and losing a similar battle during the 1990's.
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet he just shot his mouth off about it to the press where he claimed to want two mutually exclusive things. Isn't that pretty good evidence that he IS an idiot?
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Funny)
No, that's evidence that he is a two-faced scumbag; otherwise known as a typical politician.
Re: (Score:2)
They get elected.
Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for Treason (Score:2, Informative)
Are you a fucking NSA goon whose job is to inject inflammatory partisan bullshit immediately at the start of a comment section to derail any intelligent discussion about a story where a government agent is saying that it is unreasonable for Americans to have any secrets from their government. If you arenâ(TM)t then you are a fucking fool.
Re: (Score:3)
You're feeding them again. Have you not learned to avoid that yet? Distraction is the tool of the common enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
*whoosh*
Re: (Score:2)
People with tattoos need to be cleaner than those without any. If they were unclean while the tattoo was still healing, it would get infected.
Re: (Score:2)
strong encryption would mean hard/em to break, not impossible.
a strong rope can break.
a strong safe is not indestructible.
a strong room is not impregnable.
a strong door can be broken down.
Learn your definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
destroying evidence has always been a problem. That's why it's illegal to destroy evidence.
Re:Guns don't kill people, phones kill people?? (Score:4, Insightful)
You trust the government you distrust to have the sole access to means of violence, but not encryption? Not a good plan.
Re:Guns don't kill people, phones kill people?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another mass killing, yet another nutter allowed to have a weapon and zero guts in the Republican party to tackle the gun-funded NRA lobby.
These nutters were "allowed" to have a weapon? Can you show me a mass murder where the killer was not barred from possessing the weapon (by state or federal law) due to being in a "gun free zone", prior conviction of drug use/possession, mental health issues, prior conviction of a felony or violent misdemeanor, being in the nation illegally, or having been dishonorably discharged from the military?
Can you show me one of these murderers that was a member of the NRA?
BTW, the person that stopped the murderer in Sutherland Springs was an NRA firearms instructor. The killer in that shooting did pass a background check, only because his mental health history, violent crimes, and discharge from the Air Force were not reported to the FBI. Are these the same guys we want to trust with the keys to our electronic data?
Are these the same people we want to trust with stopping the next "nutter" with mass murder on their mind? No thanks. I have greater trust in those that cling to their bibles and their guns.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy violated prohibitions of having weapons in the room, at a minimum he was guilty of trespassing on the hotel property. He was barred from carrying those rifles into the hotel, but did it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
If the government can break it, so can other criminals.
Don't sugar coat it.