5 ms·

This could be example of parallel construction[1]. They may already have unencrypted it via a backdoor, but they wouldn't be able to use anything they find as e

This could be example of parallel construction[1]. They may already have unencrypted it via a backdoor, but they wouldn't be able to use anything they find as evidence in court because they'd have to reveal the backdoor. If they can plausibly show they brute-forced it instead, they keep the backdoor hidden. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

wyldfire 11y ago
Ok, but IMO this is a much lesser evil than (1) compulsory lawful-override of encryption/back door or (2) legislation to exclude devices which don't provide back doors. Ultimately states will develop the capacity for brute forcing and you have relatively little recourse. While I hate the idea of a three letter agency doing this at any scale large or small, the potential for corrupt local LEOs to abuse their power with an encryption backdoor is very great.
Godel_unicode 11y ago
"it could be parallel construction" is true in literally every instance since it's impossible to prove the negative case. This is becoming my cue to stop reading the comments; when parallel construction is the most obvious argument, you've read the interesting ideas up thread.
- kevin_b_er 11y ago
  However, the US Government is known to have gathered hidden evidence in drug cases, then used parallel construction to hide the violation. So, now the government's presentation of evidence should always be considered in question. As it has shown dishonesty at the presentation and gathering of evidence and there's nothing that says they haven't changed their unethical ways, how can they be trusted to present evidence legally gathered? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05...

wyldfire 11y ago

Ok, but IMO this is a much lesser evil than (1) compulsory lawful-override of encryption/back door or (2) legislation to exclude devices which don't provide back doors. Ultimately states will develop the capacity for brute forcing and you have relatively little recourse. While I hate the idea of a three letter agency doing this at any scale large or small, the potential for corrupt local LEOs to abuse their power with an encryption backdoor is very great.

Godel_unicode 11y ago

"it could be parallel construction" is true in literally every instance since it's impossible to prove the negative case. This is becoming my cue to stop reading the comments; when parallel construction is the most obvious argument, you've read the interesting ideas up thread.

kevin_b_er 11y ago
However, the US Government is known to have gathered hidden evidence in drug cases, then used parallel construction to hide the violation. So, now the government's presentation of evidence should always be considered in question. As it has shown dishonesty at the presentation and gathering of evidence and there's nothing that says they haven't changed their unethical ways, how can they be trusted to present evidence legally gathered? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05...