4 ms·

> Soghoian isn’t optimistic. “The FCC is sort of caught between a rock and a hard place,” he says. “They don’t want to do anything to stop the devices that law

> Soghoian isn’t optimistic. “The FCC is sort of caught between a rock and a hard place,” he says. “They don’t want to do anything to stop the devices that law enforcement is using from working. But if the law enforcement devices work, the criminals’ devices work, too.” It's telling that law enforcement priorities work out this way. They're not terribly concerned about what hijinks highly-educated hackers get up to or the occasional tech-savvy stalker, they would much rather be able to nab the untrained- the working-class dropouts who own a cellphone but don't know how it works- as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nevermind that the average citizen is much more concerned about identity theft than someone smoking weed on a street corner.

Balgair 11y ago
As usual, it is all about incentives. What are the incentives for law enforcement? How are they 'graded' at the end of the year? What do they need to do to keep their jobs? They have to catch criminals. You can pick apart what each of the words in that sentence means, but that's the deal. If those are all low key guys, like the know-nothing drug dealing kid in your 8th grade English class, so be it. They are paid all the same, it's all about the number going up every year.
- yuhong 11y ago
  I think this is part of where the phone encryption scare comes from, right?
fweespee_ch 11y ago
> It's telling that law enforcement priorities work out this way. They're not terribly concerned about what hijinks highly-educated hackers get up to or the occasional tech-savvy stalker, they would much rather be able to nab the untrained- the working-class dropouts who own a cellphone but don't know how it works- as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nevermind that the average citizen is much more concerned about identity theft than someone smoking weed on a street corner. Yeah, law enforcement is graded on quantity rather than quality baring a truly unusual situation. This leads to them having a preference to permitting broken systems abused by criminals to remain in place so they can catch the uneducated and the uninformed. It is sadly the same trick they use with child porn. They'd rather distribute it and catch low hanging fruit than shut it down to do more legwork. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/27/the-ethics-of-a-child-pornography-sting/the-government-shouldnt-distribute-child-pornography-period http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/27/the-ethics-o... > Participating in the distribution of child pornography is a federal crime. But that’s exactly what the F.B.I. did in this case. In order to identify more than 1,000 people suspected of trading in child pornography, the F.B.I. operated a child pornography website for nearly two weeks. During that period, more than 23,000 images of child pornography were available for viewing, downloading and endless reproduction in ways completely beyond the F.B.I.’s control. In short: The government has criminalized an activity and acted to further the commission of just that crime. > If the government is going to break the law in order to enforce it, it must justify how any resulting benefits outweigh any harms. When the government participates in the distribution of contraband, it has little control over who will use those illegal guns, drugs or child pornography, and little ability to protect victims from these harms. They aren't interested in the ethics of it. They just want to increase their numbers.
rayiner 11y ago
If people were openly doing drugs on the streets of my parents' stuffy suburb, the homeowners association would have a conniption. Way bigger deal than identity theft.
- cubano 11y ago
  I've been personally involved in a 5-car 8 man police search of my vehicle where the initial officer illegally searched my car and found some cocaine residue on a mirror under the passenger seat. You would have thought I just robbed a bank at gunpoint or something.

Balgair 11y ago

As usual, it is all about incentives. What are the incentives for law enforcement? How are they 'graded' at the end of the year? What do they need to do to keep their jobs? They have to catch criminals. You can pick apart what each of the words in that sentence means, but that's the deal. If those are all low key guys, like the know-nothing drug dealing kid in your 8th grade English class, so be it. They are paid all the same, it's all about the number going up every year.

yuhong 11y ago
I think this is part of where the phone encryption scare comes from, right?

fweespee_ch 11y ago

> It's telling that law enforcement priorities work out this way. They're not terribly concerned about what hijinks highly-educated hackers get up to or the occasional tech-savvy stalker, they would much rather be able to nab the untrained- the working-class dropouts who own a cellphone but don't know how it works- as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nevermind that the average citizen is much more concerned about identity theft than someone smoking weed on a street corner. Yeah, law enforcement is graded on quantity rather than quality baring a truly unusual situation. This leads to them having a preference to permitting broken systems abused by criminals to remain in place so they can catch the uneducated and the uninformed. It is sadly the same trick they use with child porn. They'd rather distribute it and catch low hanging fruit than shut it down to do more legwork. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/27/the-ethics-of-a-child-pornography-sting/the-government-shouldnt-distribute-child-pornography-period http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/27/the-ethics-o... > Participating in the distribution of child pornography is a federal crime. But that’s exactly what the F.B.I. did in this case. In order to identify more than 1,000 people suspected of trading in child pornography, the F.B.I. operated a child pornography website for nearly two weeks. During that period, more than 23,000 images of child pornography were available for viewing, downloading and endless reproduction in ways completely beyond the F.B.I.’s control. In short: The government has criminalized an activity and acted to further the commission of just that crime. > If the government is going to break the law in order to enforce it, it must justify how any resulting benefits outweigh any harms. When the government participates in the distribution of contraband, it has little control over who will use those illegal guns, drugs or child pornography, and little ability to protect victims from these harms. They aren't interested in the ethics of it. They just want to increase their numbers.

rayiner 11y ago

If people were openly doing drugs on the streets of my parents' stuffy suburb, the homeowners association would have a conniption. Way bigger deal than identity theft.

cubano 11y ago
I've been personally involved in a 5-car 8 man police search of my vehicle where the initial officer illegally searched my car and found some cocaine residue on a mirror under the passenger seat. You would have thought I just robbed a bank at gunpoint or something.