5 ms·

The Clipper chip initiative[1] from the Clinton era completely failed, for two reasons: one, the technology was proven to be flawed, and two, privacy advocates

The Clipper chip initiative[1] from the Clinton era completely failed, for two reasons: one, the technology was proven to be flawed, and two, privacy advocates shot it down. It seems as though all the debates and analysis on this topic have already occurred. Yet, here we are again: a law enforcement agency demanding special privileged access to privately owned consumer electronics because it might contain useful crime fighting information. It seems to me that the U.S. needs to have a broader discussion about what levels of government surveillance and intrusiveness into private lives we are comfortable with. The outside threat of terrorism is now the club being wielded to force the issue, but is there really any evidence that this type of increased access helps? We had the Boston Marathon attack, in which two brothers immigrated from Chechnya, a known breeding ground for some of the most brutal terrorists in the world, the Russians actually phoned to warn us about them, and nothing was done. Similarly, there was chatter in 2000-2001 about an attack involving passenger jets, reported by Israeli and German intelligence agencies. Yet, nothing was done. One would have thought it common sense to scrutinize foreign nationals, especially from Muslim countries with a lot of hostility toward the U.S. among the populace, who were involved in aviation. Reportedly, the Israelis even were monitoring a couple of the 9/11 hijackers in the U.S. at one point. Should we not be streamlining our intelligence bureaucracies to avoid another Marathon fiasco, before sacrificing what little remains of our privacy on the altar of national security? 1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/clipper-chips-birthday-looking-back-22-years-key-escrow-failures https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/clipper-chips-birthday...

MCRed 11y ago
We don't need to have a discussion. As you point out we already had it. It doesn't matter. We want privacy, we believe we have human rights. They don't care. They want power. That's what this all boils down to. They want power. And they are going to keep trying until they get it, just as they have taken over so much already.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  We don't want privacy - we want the illusion of privacy that entrusting couple of corporations to not assist the LEOs gives us. What they want from apple is to use ability(and keys) they already have - so apple has not provided you with privacy in the first place.
cptskippy 11y ago
The impression I get is that "fighting crime" is just an excuse for asserting a level of control or removing a degree of privacy.
rayiner 11y ago
> It seems as though all the debates and analysis on this topic have already occurred. I don't know if I buy that framing of it. We've already had this debate: hundreds of years ago. We decided that the government can't search your stuff at random, but if it gets a warrant, it can, and is entitled to reasonable cooperation in doing so (breaking locks, drilling into safes, breaking open safe deposit boxes, etc). I think you can just as easily say that privacy advocates are the ones trying to reignite a settled debate. They want phones treated differently than how other property is treated. This is privacy advocates trying to shift the Overton window: where a search pursuant to a valid court order somehow becomes a privacy violation.
- gergles 11y ago
  The difference in all of your examples is that the government actually cannot compel assistance with the things you described. The government itself can break locks, drill safes, break open deposit boxes, of course. But to date, they haven't tried to call Brinks and force them to come explain how to break into a safe. If I were able to somehow develop a file cabinet that was impenetrable, the government would not be able to come compel me to break it open for them. They are allowed to try to break it open, but they cannot compel me to help them. (CALEA requires that systems must be built so that the government can snoop. Cell phones aren't covered by CALEA (the network is)).
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The power of the courts to compel cooperation in civil and criminal investigations predates the Constitution. Courts routinely order banks to drill into safe deposit boxes, for example. They can also force your accountant to hand over records about you and testify against you. The limiting principle is whether the cooperation imposes an "unreasonable burden" on the third party.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      The key differences now are that our devices' activities are more akin to sending a letter through the legally protected US mail, rather than disclosing secrets to untrusted third parties like cell carriers (no reasonable person, upon being shown a text messaging app, would think they were texting their carrier and not their friend). Thus, we expect a much higher standard of proof and accountability for accessing that information than has been applied of late. Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. Finally, by whatever basis you want to argue (multiple amendments in the bill of rights, etc.), we should not be forced to deny the effectiveness of mathematics. We should have the right to use whatever algorithmic and physical security mechanisms we desire to guard ourselves against hackers, thieves, and foreign spies. If that slows the local spies down too, they'll just have to find some other way to do their jobs, and reconsider whether the scope and scale of their activities was appropriate to begin with.
deciplex 11y ago
> It seems to me that the U.S. needs to have a broader discussion about what levels of government surveillance and intrusiveness into private lives we are comfortable with. Actually I don't really want to have that discussion, both because a lot people who would be involved in the discussion probably don't respect privacy, and because the outcome of the discussion anyway is moot: privacy is paramount, regardless of what "most people" think. Since the enemies of privacy have the entire resources of the state at their disposal - and I'm including the media in that - and since the average person has not proved up to the task of defending his own privacy, it seems that the only way we're going to have it is by making it a technological inevitability. While we're at it, I'll assert the same of liberty in general. Contemporary nation-states have transitioned from simmering hostility to liberty and civil rights, to open and sneering contempt.
dkokelley 11y ago
> ...a law enforcement agency demanding special privileged access to privately owned consumer electronics because it might contain useful crime fighting information. I believe the device is actually owned by the (cooperative) employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. The county is happy to provide the device and its contents, but Syed (or county policy) locked it down.

MCRed 11y ago

We don't need to have a discussion. As you point out we already had it. It doesn't matter. We want privacy, we believe we have human rights. They don't care. They want power. That's what this all boils down to. They want power. And they are going to keep trying until they get it, just as they have taken over so much already.

venomsnake 11y ago
We don't want privacy - we want the illusion of privacy that entrusting couple of corporations to not assist the LEOs gives us. What they want from apple is to use ability(and keys) they already have - so apple has not provided you with privacy in the first place.

cptskippy 11y ago

The impression I get is that "fighting crime" is just an excuse for asserting a level of control or removing a degree of privacy.

rayiner 11y ago

> It seems as though all the debates and analysis on this topic have already occurred. I don't know if I buy that framing of it. We've already had this debate: hundreds of years ago. We decided that the government can't search your stuff at random, but if it gets a warrant, it can, and is entitled to reasonable cooperation in doing so (breaking locks, drilling into safes, breaking open safe deposit boxes, etc). I think you can just as easily say that privacy advocates are the ones trying to reignite a settled debate. They want phones treated differently than how other property is treated. This is privacy advocates trying to shift the Overton window: where a search pursuant to a valid court order somehow becomes a privacy violation.

gergles 11y ago
The difference in all of your examples is that the government actually cannot compel assistance with the things you described. The government itself can break locks, drill safes, break open deposit boxes, of course. But to date, they haven't tried to call Brinks and force them to come explain how to break into a safe. If I were able to somehow develop a file cabinet that was impenetrable, the government would not be able to come compel me to break it open for them. They are allowed to try to break it open, but they cannot compel me to help them. (CALEA requires that systems must be built so that the government can snoop. Cell phones aren't covered by CALEA (the network is)).
- rayiner 11y ago
  The power of the courts to compel cooperation in civil and criminal investigations predates the Constitution. Courts routinely order banks to drill into safe deposit boxes, for example. They can also force your accountant to hand over records about you and testify against you. The limiting principle is whether the cooperation imposes an "unreasonable burden" on the third party.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    The key differences now are that our devices' activities are more akin to sending a letter through the legally protected US mail, rather than disclosing secrets to untrusted third parties like cell carriers (no reasonable person, upon being shown a text messaging app, would think they were texting their carrier and not their friend). Thus, we expect a much higher standard of proof and accountability for accessing that information than has been applied of late. Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. Finally, by whatever basis you want to argue (multiple amendments in the bill of rights, etc.), we should not be forced to deny the effectiveness of mathematics. We should have the right to use whatever algorithmic and physical security mechanisms we desire to guard ourselves against hackers, thieves, and foreign spies. If that slows the local spies down too, they'll just have to find some other way to do their jobs, and reconsider whether the scope and scale of their activities was appropriate to begin with.

deciplex 11y ago

> It seems to me that the U.S. needs to have a broader discussion about what levels of government surveillance and intrusiveness into private lives we are comfortable with. Actually I don't really want to have that discussion, both because a lot people who would be involved in the discussion probably don't respect privacy, and because the outcome of the discussion anyway is moot: privacy is paramount, regardless of what "most people" think. Since the enemies of privacy have the entire resources of the state at their disposal - and I'm including the media in that - and since the average person has not proved up to the task of defending his own privacy, it seems that the only way we're going to have it is by making it a technological inevitability. While we're at it, I'll assert the same of liberty in general. Contemporary nation-states have transitioned from simmering hostility to liberty and civil rights, to open and sneering contempt.

dkokelley 11y ago

> ...a law enforcement agency demanding special privileged access to privately owned consumer electronics because it might contain useful crime fighting information. I believe the device is actually owned by the (cooperative) employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. The county is happy to provide the device and its contents, but Syed (or county policy) locked it down.