14 ms·

Snowden lawyer: Bill of Rights was meant to make government’s job more difficult

284 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

howeyc 11y ago
Exactly, law enforcement isn't exactly supposed to be a super easy job.
- seiji 11y ago
  Most programmers actually hate computers and now just want "cloud APIs" for everything so they don't have to think about how networking/systems/storage all works together. Most law enforcement officers actually hate the law and just want "privacy APIs" for everything so they don't have to think about how searches/seizures/privacy all works together.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    The difference being, when I use the AWS API, I'm not perpetrating a crime against the citizenry...
    - xena 11y ago
      Yet
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      That's debatable depending upon what you're using it for.
  - Practicality 11y ago
    Strange. Putting these systems in the cloud just gives you different problems. It doesn't really make them go away.
  - xyzzy4 11y ago
    Most law enforcement officers don't know what an API is, so I don't know why you're saying they want them and putting it in quotes. Basically, you're just making stuff up.
Gnewt 11y ago
Of course. The whole points of a) the bill of rights and b) the entire system of checks and balances is to make things more "difficult". This is as the framers intended, explicitly to avoid things like judicial overreach as is happening in the iPhone case. The "inefficiency" caused by the system of checks and balances is by design... sort of like a delay after the entry of an incorrect password.
- mtgx 11y ago
  > The "inefficiency" caused by the system of checks and balances is by design... sort of like a delay after the entry of an incorrect password. I think that shows an important insight: The FBI believes that both the Constitution and the "PIN delay" are "making its job more difficult", because it would rather not have to follow any laws and just do whatever it wants every time, anytime. Both rise from the same type of thinking that's happening at the FBI and most other intelligence and law enforcement bodies in the US = the laws don't apply to us.
  - techabuse 11y ago
    Bingo. Every time I see a fresh gripe from the likes of the FBI, I think of how much worse it would be if we didn't have the nominal protection of the Constitution.
  - krapp 11y ago
    If it were really the case that the FBI "would rather not have to follow any laws and just do whatever it wants every time, anytime," they would have already raided Apple's headquarters and taken what they wanted at gunpoint. Obviously, they believe their position is legally justifiable.
    - wavefunction 11y ago
      Or it could be that the FBI expects compliance from Apple as they expect compliance from all of us _and_ they know that raiding Apple's headquarters to take what they want (what? what would they take?) at gunpoint would cause many currently compliant citizens to become less compliant. Our system depends on many lies to keep lurching along for the benefit of the elite and anything that causes those lies to be uncovered for more and more people is best avoided, according to the status quo.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
The structure of the US Government was born out of a centralization of power and thus was meant to be a decentralization of power. It seems this fundamental aspect is lost on people and everyone gets caught up in a flurry of arguing over who to trust. The entire point in decentralization of power is trusting any one entity (or group with aligned incentives) as little as possible. The simple, easy, and wrong answer is to try to optimize certain groups of people with aligned incentives by removing barriers to what they want. Those barriers, if at the service of the rest of the system are the very reason the system works.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Most Americans don't remember all the various other break off republics that Americans and American leadership wanted to spawn. The whole concept of a singular law via treaties, or large nations comprising of hundreds of millions of people is flawed. Nation States should be very small, a few million people and sovereign and independent and directly democratic. That way you can actually get some representation in how you want to live. As it is, you get virtually no representation.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    I'm not the one who downvoted you, but I assume it's because you're advocating direct democracy, because everything else is spot on. The problem with direct democracy is that people end up voting on things that don't affect them, which they don't have enough time or incentive to fully consider, but that severely harm other people. Representative democracy (in sufficiently small communities) works because a representative can then afford to take the time to hear members of the community out before making a decision. And when the communities are small, individuals actually have the capacity to make their grievances heard and can potentially personally sway enough other voters to change an election outcome.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Switzerland is an example of direct democracy that works just fine. There is also the idea of an Athenian democracy which I also support. At the end of the day the representative democracy has similar problems, where the representatives represent those people funding them. Don't even bother reading the legislation they are passing. and so on.
clarkmoody 11y ago
It's incredible how far we've come from the original intent of the Constitution. The reason the Bill of Rights isn't baked in is because the Constitution enumerated a small set of limited powers to the federal government, with the assumption (articulated in the Tenth Amendment) that all other powers were reserved for the states and for the people. Thankfully the states demanded the Bill of Rights at ratification. Without it, we would have lost all of the rights listed by now, due to the rampant power-grabs of the federal government since the founding. Although Snowden's lawyer claims the Bill of Rights was supposed to make the government's job "more difficult," he is missing a larger point: almost all of what the federal government does today is not it's job at all! Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government power to do most of its current functions.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  It isn't just the federal government. State governments are just as bad. http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-states-laws-banning-flag-burning-are-unconstitutional/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-... And that is just the 1st amendment recently.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    The Constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper, so it can easily be ignored and misinterpreted without the system breaking and throwing an "error message". Paper has no power to enforce the rules written on it. Digital systems, however, are programmed deterministically and do not have such problems: >"The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/couqgc5 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
    - danharaj 11y ago
studentrob 11y ago
> I’m not surprised when I see polls that say that Apple should turn over the information to the FBI Grr. This poll was completely biased and it's being cited all over the place as if it were a good gauge of public opinion. The question is framed as if Apple only needs to unlock the phone. It does not mention that Apple would need to write new software and alter its product. [1] The real question is, should the DOJ be allowed to force Apple to create new software that enables the phone to be unlocked. That is the question that is being put to the courts, and that is the question that needs to be asked of the American people if this is to become an election issue. The poll question: "As you may know, the FBI has said that accessing the iPhone is an important part of their ongoing investigation into the San Bernardino attacks while Apple has said that unlocking the iPhone could compromise the security of other users’ information. Do you think Apple" * Should unlock the iPhone (51) * Should NOT unlock the iPhone (38) * Don’t know/Refused (11) [1] http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/02/2-22-2016-iPhone-release.pdf http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/02/2-22-2016-iPhone-r...
- phicoh 11y ago
  Basically Apple created the current problem by making it possible to push new firmware to a locked phone. I'm not saying that Apple is worse than industry standard, just that the backdoor already exists. So what prevents the FBI from asking Apple to have a team visit the Apple offices, get access to all code that runs on the iPhone and the docs and signing keys? The team will then unlock the phone and leave with nothing but the unlocked phone. All of this, get Apple to appear as a third party witness already exists in the law.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 11y ago
    Are you advocating for the government positions here? It sounds like you are, but it's not 100% clear.
    - phicoh 11y ago
ikeboy 11y ago
>I have been urging colleagues to respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that. Wanting Apple not to be able to comply doesn't mean they shouldn't comply when they can. They should comply, and make sure they can't comply on newer models (i.e. make secure enclave nonupdatable without wiping keys or unlocking first).
- studentrob 11y ago
  If they comply here that's a step towards the DOJ being able to ask them to always be able to comply in the future. It's a slippery slope Plus, compliance now may reveal some of their trade secrets which may hurt other elements of their future products' security. I trust Cook on this
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    "Obeying the law when you agree with it is a slippery slope to obeying it when you disagree!" Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? No.. > And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed. Serving DOJ requests within Apple's facility does not mean the newly created software will not get out into the wild. We know the DOJ wants to unlock hundreds or thousands of phones. Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Furthermore, if the US successfully forces Apple to unlock iPhones, China will ask for the unlock feature as well. We do not want this tool in the hands of oppressive regimes. We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers.
massemphasis 11y ago
WTF does this have anything to do with China? > Don’t we want Apple to be able to say that they can’t help China track the communications of dissidents or other repressive regimes? People are more worried about the US' being the "repressive regime". The poll released is telling of how power is kept in the US. You don't have to have 100% support, just over 50%. Here we see that the FBI is far more sophisticated than they let on, and supported by a more cohesive program considering support for them is just north of 50%.
Animats 11y ago
He's right. Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to give the Government less power than the Government would like. Law enforcement needs to be a bit frustrated on a regular basis.
deepnet 11y ago
It is undemocratic to secretly steal freedom - they must make us beg them to take it away.
slicktux 11y ago
Dare I say; The Constitution is an Objective Document, that is (forthrightly), been subjected through interpretation. . .ergo, opinions and power grab's. The US. Constitution is simple and elegant, but cruel and antithetic to the Federal Government's power hungry tendencies of knowing what is best for all. . . so the interpretation of the document. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the most misinterpreted section of the US.CONST. Example: the NOT enumerated power (a summary to say the least, of the actually enumerated powers) "general welfare of the USA" or the "to regulate commerce clause"... this article words it great "This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce!. . ." http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/04/ron-paul-says-supreme-court-has-utterly-abused-commerce-clause-but-hopes-it-will-overturn-obamacare-abomination/ http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/04/ron-paul-says-suprem...
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
History buff here. For those interested, take a look at the ratification debates. For a lot of people, it wasn't even clear why you'd need a Bill of Rights in the first place. The only reason it was included is to get the states to ratify. The anti-federalists (those opposed to the new constitution) made all kinds of arguments about the things that would happen. The federal government would take over most of the power. There would be a standing army. Language would be stretched to take the government far beyond the bounds that were initially established. There are two especially interesting things about this. First, the anti-federalists, like libertarians recently, were considered the tin foil hats of the day. Who could believe such silliness would ever happen here? Yet, like our recent example, they were proven right. The second thing that's interesting is the depth of conversation and debate that was going on almost 250 years ago. The debaters understood which structural flaws the government might or might not have and were arguing about weaknesses that in some cases took many decades to eventually show up. I seriously wonder if such a well-reasoned and supported by history discussion could happen today.
reacweb 11y ago
"respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that."
- josefresco 11y ago
  Even if the ability existed, the answer would be still be "no". Nation states have no recourse beyond economic/military actions. I don't understand the potential threat of China requesting information we won't give them anyways.

284 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

howeyc 11y ago

Exactly, law enforcement isn't exactly supposed to be a super easy job.

seiji 11y ago
Most programmers actually hate computers and now just want "cloud APIs" for everything so they don't have to think about how networking/systems/storage all works together. Most law enforcement officers actually hate the law and just want "privacy APIs" for everything so they don't have to think about how searches/seizures/privacy all works together.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  The difference being, when I use the AWS API, I'm not perpetrating a crime against the citizenry...
  - xena 11y ago
    Yet
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    That's debatable depending upon what you're using it for.
- Practicality 11y ago
  Strange. Putting these systems in the cloud just gives you different problems. It doesn't really make them go away.
- xyzzy4 11y ago
  Most law enforcement officers don't know what an API is, so I don't know why you're saying they want them and putting it in quotes. Basically, you're just making stuff up.

Gnewt 11y ago

Of course. The whole points of a) the bill of rights and b) the entire system of checks and balances is to make things more "difficult". This is as the framers intended, explicitly to avoid things like judicial overreach as is happening in the iPhone case. The "inefficiency" caused by the system of checks and balances is by design... sort of like a delay after the entry of an incorrect password.

mtgx 11y ago
> The "inefficiency" caused by the system of checks and balances is by design... sort of like a delay after the entry of an incorrect password. I think that shows an important insight: The FBI believes that both the Constitution and the "PIN delay" are "making its job more difficult", because it would rather not have to follow any laws and just do whatever it wants every time, anytime. Both rise from the same type of thinking that's happening at the FBI and most other intelligence and law enforcement bodies in the US = the laws don't apply to us.
- techabuse 11y ago
  Bingo. Every time I see a fresh gripe from the likes of the FBI, I think of how much worse it would be if we didn't have the nominal protection of the Constitution.
- krapp 11y ago
  If it were really the case that the FBI "would rather not have to follow any laws and just do whatever it wants every time, anytime," they would have already raided Apple's headquarters and taken what they wanted at gunpoint. Obviously, they believe their position is legally justifiable.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    Or it could be that the FBI expects compliance from Apple as they expect compliance from all of us _and_ they know that raiding Apple's headquarters to take what they want (what? what would they take?) at gunpoint would cause many currently compliant citizens to become less compliant. Our system depends on many lies to keep lurching along for the benefit of the elite and anything that causes those lies to be uncovered for more and more people is best avoided, according to the status quo.

CyberDildonics 11y ago

The structure of the US Government was born out of a centralization of power and thus was meant to be a decentralization of power. It seems this fundamental aspect is lost on people and everyone gets caught up in a flurry of arguing over who to trust. The entire point in decentralization of power is trusting any one entity (or group with aligned incentives) as little as possible. The simple, easy, and wrong answer is to try to optimize certain groups of people with aligned incentives by removing barriers to what they want. Those barriers, if at the service of the rest of the system are the very reason the system works.

x5n1 11y ago
Most Americans don't remember all the various other break off republics that Americans and American leadership wanted to spawn. The whole concept of a singular law via treaties, or large nations comprising of hundreds of millions of people is flawed. Nation States should be very small, a few million people and sovereign and independent and directly democratic. That way you can actually get some representation in how you want to live. As it is, you get virtually no representation.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  I'm not the one who downvoted you, but I assume it's because you're advocating direct democracy, because everything else is spot on. The problem with direct democracy is that people end up voting on things that don't affect them, which they don't have enough time or incentive to fully consider, but that severely harm other people. Representative democracy (in sufficiently small communities) works because a representative can then afford to take the time to hear members of the community out before making a decision. And when the communities are small, individuals actually have the capacity to make their grievances heard and can potentially personally sway enough other voters to change an election outcome.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Switzerland is an example of direct democracy that works just fine. There is also the idea of an Athenian democracy which I also support. At the end of the day the representative democracy has similar problems, where the representatives represent those people funding them. Don't even bother reading the legislation they are passing. and so on.

clarkmoody 11y ago

It's incredible how far we've come from the original intent of the Constitution. The reason the Bill of Rights isn't baked in is because the Constitution enumerated a small set of limited powers to the federal government, with the assumption (articulated in the Tenth Amendment) that all other powers were reserved for the states and for the people. Thankfully the states demanded the Bill of Rights at ratification. Without it, we would have lost all of the rights listed by now, due to the rampant power-grabs of the federal government since the founding. Although Snowden's lawyer claims the Bill of Rights was supposed to make the government's job "more difficult," he is missing a larger point: almost all of what the federal government does today is not it's job at all! Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government power to do most of its current functions.

fweespeech 11y ago
It isn't just the federal government. State governments are just as bad. http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-states-laws-banning-flag-burning-are-unconstitutional/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-... And that is just the 1st amendment recently.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  The Constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper, so it can easily be ignored and misinterpreted without the system breaking and throwing an "error message". Paper has no power to enforce the rules written on it. Digital systems, however, are programmed deterministically and do not have such problems: >"The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/couqgc5 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
  - danharaj 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

> I’m not surprised when I see polls that say that Apple should turn over the information to the FBI Grr. This poll was completely biased and it's being cited all over the place as if it were a good gauge of public opinion. The question is framed as if Apple only needs to unlock the phone. It does not mention that Apple would need to write new software and alter its product. [1] The real question is, should the DOJ be allowed to force Apple to create new software that enables the phone to be unlocked. That is the question that is being put to the courts, and that is the question that needs to be asked of the American people if this is to become an election issue. The poll question: "As you may know, the FBI has said that accessing the iPhone is an important part of their ongoing investigation into the San Bernardino attacks while Apple has said that unlocking the iPhone could compromise the security of other users’ information. Do you think Apple" * Should unlock the iPhone (51) * Should NOT unlock the iPhone (38) * Don’t know/Refused (11) [1] http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/02/2-22-2016-iPhone-release.pdf http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/02/2-22-2016-iPhone-r...

phicoh 11y ago
Basically Apple created the current problem by making it possible to push new firmware to a locked phone. I'm not saying that Apple is worse than industry standard, just that the backdoor already exists. So what prevents the FBI from asking Apple to have a team visit the Apple offices, get access to all code that runs on the iPhone and the docs and signing keys? The team will then unlock the phone and leave with nothing but the unlocked phone. All of this, get Apple to appear as a third party witness already exists in the law.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 11y ago
  Are you advocating for the government positions here? It sounds like you are, but it's not 100% clear.
  - phicoh 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

>I have been urging colleagues to respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that. Wanting Apple not to be able to comply doesn't mean they shouldn't comply when they can. They should comply, and make sure they can't comply on newer models (i.e. make secure enclave nonupdatable without wiping keys or unlocking first).

studentrob 11y ago
If they comply here that's a step towards the DOJ being able to ask them to always be able to comply in the future. It's a slippery slope Plus, compliance now may reveal some of their trade secrets which may hurt other elements of their future products' security. I trust Cook on this
- ikeboy 11y ago
  "Obeying the law when you agree with it is a slippery slope to obeying it when you disagree!" Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? No.. > And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed. Serving DOJ requests within Apple's facility does not mean the newly created software will not get out into the wild. We know the DOJ wants to unlock hundreds or thousands of phones. Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Furthermore, if the US successfully forces Apple to unlock iPhones, China will ask for the unlock feature as well. We do not want this tool in the hands of oppressive regimes. We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers.

massemphasis 11y ago

WTF does this have anything to do with China? > Don’t we want Apple to be able to say that they can’t help China track the communications of dissidents or other repressive regimes? People are more worried about the US' being the "repressive regime". The poll released is telling of how power is kept in the US. You don't have to have 100% support, just over 50%. Here we see that the FBI is far more sophisticated than they let on, and supported by a more cohesive program considering support for them is just north of 50%.

Animats 11y ago

He's right. Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to give the Government less power than the Government would like. Law enforcement needs to be a bit frustrated on a regular basis.

deepnet 11y ago

It is undemocratic to secretly steal freedom - they must make us beg them to take it away.

slicktux 11y ago

Dare I say; The Constitution is an Objective Document, that is (forthrightly), been subjected through interpretation. . .ergo, opinions and power grab's. The US. Constitution is simple and elegant, but cruel and antithetic to the Federal Government's power hungry tendencies of knowing what is best for all. . . so the interpretation of the document. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the most misinterpreted section of the US.CONST. Example: the NOT enumerated power (a summary to say the least, of the actually enumerated powers) "general welfare of the USA" or the "to regulate commerce clause"... this article words it great "This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce!. . ." http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/04/ron-paul-says-supreme-court-has-utterly-abused-commerce-clause-but-hopes-it-will-overturn-obamacare-abomination/ http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/04/ron-paul-says-suprem...

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

History buff here. For those interested, take a look at the ratification debates. For a lot of people, it wasn't even clear why you'd need a Bill of Rights in the first place. The only reason it was included is to get the states to ratify. The anti-federalists (those opposed to the new constitution) made all kinds of arguments about the things that would happen. The federal government would take over most of the power. There would be a standing army. Language would be stretched to take the government far beyond the bounds that were initially established. There are two especially interesting things about this. First, the anti-federalists, like libertarians recently, were considered the tin foil hats of the day. Who could believe such silliness would ever happen here? Yet, like our recent example, they were proven right. The second thing that's interesting is the depth of conversation and debate that was going on almost 250 years ago. The debaters understood which structural flaws the government might or might not have and were arguing about weaknesses that in some cases took many decades to eventually show up. I seriously wonder if such a well-reasoned and supported by history discussion could happen today.

reacweb 11y ago

"respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that."

josefresco 11y ago
Even if the ability existed, the answer would be still be "no". Nation states have no recourse beyond economic/military actions. I don't understand the potential threat of China requesting information we won't give them anyways.