5 ms·

> Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in the com

> Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in the commission of a crime an essential liberty? I would say NO. But, the issue is there's no way to only allow a backdoor to be used when/after someone commits a crime. As tech people we understand this, and history proves it. Apple had a person testify at the hearing who expressed this really well. She also brought up other points I hadn't considered. Also, the FBI is missing non-encrypted communications in most of these cases! I know encryption by default is going to be a problem for them in the future, but they are acting like it's the reason the recent attacks went undetected - when it actually had nothing to do with it.

will_brown 10y ago
>there's no way to only allow a backdoor to be used when/after someone commits a crime. Outside of the encryption debate, this concept rings true of most evidence. In other words in the streets nothing really prohibits an officer from illegally searching/seizing evidence of a crime and a prosecutor bringing charges, but the 4th Amendment is our protection only after the fact where illegally obtained evidence is subject to being suppressed from use at trial. Example, police illegally raid a house without a warrant, break open a safe and seize cocaine...all evidence of crimes including the illegally seized cocaine could be suppressed. Is there a way to determine when the backdoor was accessed? If so, then the defendant is actually more protected because there would be digital record of the illegal search/seizure vs the street example above where officers can lie about the factual events regarding illegal searches and seizures (i.e. testimony the defendant was outside the house in plain view holding the cocaine, so a warrant wasn't required). If not and it can't be determined when LEO accessed the backdoor it is still similar to any other illegally obtained evidence. >but they are acting like it's the reason the recent attacks went undetected - when it actually had nothing to do with it. I thought they tried to limit their position to need for the follow up investigation, but if they framed it to the public the way you describe, I agree that is disingenuous.

will_brown 10y ago

>there's no way to only allow a backdoor to be used when/after someone commits a crime. Outside of the encryption debate, this concept rings true of most evidence. In other words in the streets nothing really prohibits an officer from illegally searching/seizing evidence of a crime and a prosecutor bringing charges, but the 4th Amendment is our protection only after the fact where illegally obtained evidence is subject to being suppressed from use at trial. Example, police illegally raid a house without a warrant, break open a safe and seize cocaine...all evidence of crimes including the illegally seized cocaine could be suppressed. Is there a way to determine when the backdoor was accessed? If so, then the defendant is actually more protected because there would be digital record of the illegal search/seizure vs the street example above where officers can lie about the factual events regarding illegal searches and seizures (i.e. testimony the defendant was outside the house in plain view holding the cocaine, so a warrant wasn't required). If not and it can't be determined when LEO accessed the backdoor it is still similar to any other illegally obtained evidence. >but they are acting like it's the reason the recent attacks went undetected - when it actually had nothing to do with it. I thought they tried to limit their position to need for the follow up investigation, but if they framed it to the public the way you describe, I agree that is disingenuous.