5 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the criteria for "exceptional criminal investigations" included the obtaining of a warrant to access said data. Suppose

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the criteria for "exceptional criminal investigations" included the obtaining of a warrant to access said data. Suppose some magical system like this was possible "breakable encryption, but only in the presence of a warrant". What are the arguments against this?

natch 9y ago
What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? How is that a good thing? Please explain.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  This is the way things have worked since the United States was formed and is written into the Constitution. Do you actually think the justice system should not have the ability to use warrants? Then you need to change the Constitution.
  - natch 9y ago
    It needs to work for all countries, not just the US. Please continue your explanation.
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      All countries with a government have a warrant system. Please explain your point.
      - natch 9y ago
        As I said: What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? I think the problem I see is in there somewhere. Did I state it poorly? How could I state it better?
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        The point is they already can. You're proposing to change the status quo in every functioning government on the planet. Since these people are ultimately controlled by the voters, they are ultimately acting to fulfill the will of the voters.
        natch 9y ago
        No, they can't, at least that's what they're telling us. Some devices, they haven't been able to get into. That is the status quo. Being able to crack properly done, effectively unbreakable encryption is not the status quo, it's a fantasy. And voting? You are assuming democracy. Also you're forgetting about the tyranny of the majority. If you aren't even going to read what I'm saying, let's just stop here.
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        You act like encryption is the default state. It isn't. An officer with a warrant has access to your written records in your home and stored with third parties. Why is access to encrypted data magically different and somehow magically overreach where all previous access wasn't?
        natch 9y ago
        >You act like encryption is the default state. It isn't. It wasn't the default state. Past tense. You're taking a very 1980's view. The world has moved on. Sure, there are some types of data that are not yet protected, but that's a deficiency which should be corrected with time. >Why is access to encrypted data magically different Nothing magic about it, but it's different for a couple of reasons. First, because a smartphone is more like an extension of your brain than it is like a file cabinet. Second, because in the old paper world you imagine (or pretend?) we still live in, the entities interested in accessing people's private data didn't have the internet, so they would have to by necessity go to one house at a time to get written records. Now, they do have the internet, and they can hoover up everything. And they do. "They" meaning not necessarily good guys. Sometimes there are rogue cops, or haven't you heard? Not to mention black hat hackers. So, because of this extraordinary change in how data can be accessed in bulk, and the personal nature of devices, private data needs better protection. Not magic. Just different times, with different snooping tools, different data, and different devices. So much has changed, you might as well ask what hasn't changed.
- heartles 9y ago
  Agreeing with other comments, that seems like a problem with warrants in general, not with some supposed technology. If cops can get a warrant to raid anyone's house then of course they'd be able to get a warrant to raid anyone's phone in this situation. The solution to that issue would be to fix how warrants are granted to make them less prone to abuse. But that seems like an entirely different debate.

natch 9y ago

What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? How is that a good thing? Please explain.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
This is the way things have worked since the United States was formed and is written into the Constitution. Do you actually think the justice system should not have the ability to use warrants? Then you need to change the Constitution.
- natch 9y ago
  It needs to work for all countries, not just the US. Please continue your explanation.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    All countries with a government have a warrant system. Please explain your point.
    - natch 9y ago
      As I said: What if corrupt, evil, law enforcement working with corrupt, evil, judges are able to issue warrants and read whatever they want, whenever they want? I think the problem I see is in there somewhere. Did I state it poorly? How could I state it better?
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        The point is they already can. You're proposing to change the status quo in every functioning government on the planet. Since these people are ultimately controlled by the voters, they are ultimately acting to fulfill the will of the voters.
        natch 9y ago
        No, they can't, at least that's what they're telling us. Some devices, they haven't been able to get into. That is the status quo. Being able to crack properly done, effectively unbreakable encryption is not the status quo, it's a fantasy. And voting? You are assuming democracy. Also you're forgetting about the tyranny of the majority. If you aren't even going to read what I'm saying, let's just stop here.
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        You act like encryption is the default state. It isn't. An officer with a warrant has access to your written records in your home and stored with third parties. Why is access to encrypted data magically different and somehow magically overreach where all previous access wasn't?
        natch 9y ago
        >You act like encryption is the default state. It isn't. It wasn't the default state. Past tense. You're taking a very 1980's view. The world has moved on. Sure, there are some types of data that are not yet protected, but that's a deficiency which should be corrected with time. >Why is access to encrypted data magically different Nothing magic about it, but it's different for a couple of reasons. First, because a smartphone is more like an extension of your brain than it is like a file cabinet. Second, because in the old paper world you imagine (or pretend?) we still live in, the entities interested in accessing people's private data didn't have the internet, so they would have to by necessity go to one house at a time to get written records. Now, they do have the internet, and they can hoover up everything. And they do. "They" meaning not necessarily good guys. Sometimes there are rogue cops, or haven't you heard? Not to mention black hat hackers. So, because of this extraordinary change in how data can be accessed in bulk, and the personal nature of devices, private data needs better protection. Not magic. Just different times, with different snooping tools, different data, and different devices. So much has changed, you might as well ask what hasn't changed.
heartles 9y ago
Agreeing with other comments, that seems like a problem with warrants in general, not with some supposed technology. If cops can get a warrant to raid anyone's house then of course they'd be able to get a warrant to raid anyone's phone in this situation. The solution to that issue would be to fix how warrants are granted to make them less prone to abuse. But that seems like an entirely different debate.