7 ms·

In test case, U.S. fails to force Facebook to wiretap Messenger calls

185 points by T-A 8y ago

chrischen 8y ago
The US government will need to buy targeted ads. Then Facebook will let them hear the calls.
- ericlewis 8y ago
  Agree
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
  Please don't give them any ideas.
- pawelmurias 8y ago
  "Have you been peddling dope lately? Apply right now for a awesome plea bargain!"
justtopost 8y ago
So we are supposed to trust this even though the details are sealed? Sounds like the investigators get to have their cake and eat it too. Do they expect people fall for this kind of posturing and send juicy details of criminal activity over messenger?
- busterarm 8y ago
  Facebook needs the good PR. They made some handshake behind closed doors and released this.
  - friedman23 8y ago
    Completely unsubstantiated statement
    - busterarm 8y ago
      Statement of the completely obvious.
  - urspx 8y ago
    I'm not sure that resisting government wiretaps is 'good PR' in US political discourse; at best, it's probably a mixed bag.
qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
Cyrus Fariver has the whole document online, it’s an interesting read. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33ce-4723-a294-883a95e7ee59.html#document/p38/a457338 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33c...
polyphonic01 8y ago
If in the course of a criminal investigation it becomes necessary to wiretap a suspect, Facebook should cooperate with the government and implement the wiretap. As long as a warrant is issued for the wiretap, there should be no issue with this. Protection of people's privacy must be balanced with granting law enforcement sufficient powers to effectively prosecute criminals.
- xevb3k 8y ago
  And should they ensure that encryption always has backdoors to enable this too?
- zarriak 8y ago
  I trust no government, especially the US government, to require the implementation of a wiretap. It has already been shown that they have greatly abused any trust given to them. Law enforcement already has the FISA court, Stingrays, PRISM, and enough other stuff that they don't have an issue breaking in to stuff. In every known circumstance that took a tech giant to court, the FBI just used a third party to provide them a method of gaining access to a physical device. It is absurd for them to receive implementations of wiretapping on any service when they should just do their job and unlock the physical devices. It is also blatantly clear that they tried to force Facebook's hand by using this case. I mean really why do you think this case involves MS13 members?
  - polyphonic01 8y ago
    So you disagree that law enforcement should be able to tap phones.
    - realusername 8y ago
      Not the OP but on my case I disagree yes, there's been so much abuse from governments about wiretapping that the risk/benefit of allowing it isn't worth it.
      - 8y ago
fipple 8y ago
Ultimately, the government will do what it wants with respect to wiretapping because the ruling class of both political parties in the US support it, so there is no electoral accountability. Thus Facebook would be wise to give the appearance of compliance and willingness to help, while resisting total dragnets.
- zarriak 8y ago
  No, it is much more advantageous for them to engage in stuff like PRISM which has no public oversight or accountability and then play pretend in courts. Also this gives them more leverage, they would much prefer these things come in the form of legislation that creates barriers to entry for social media.
- forgotmypw 8y ago
  >Facebook would be wise to give the appearance of resisting total dragnets, while giving the appearance of compliance and willingness to help. FTFY
LanceH 8y ago
The government asks (demands) access, but takes no responsibility for abuse. Just saying...
torgian 8y ago
Bullshit. Facebook capitulated and have access. No doubt. They made backroom deals. Call me paranoid, but if the government wants something, there’s honestly little anyone can do about it.
tempodox 8y ago
Doing all this surveillance working for SV companies definitely pays better than doing it for an alphabet agency. SV will never just give up their data for free.
emayljames 8y ago
Or: "US government releases PR press release to hide what facebook and the secret services are really up to".
fragmede 8y ago
Don't forget that in August, Facebook's head of security, Alex Stamos, stepped down on the strength of his principles, and with that, I'd give a lot more credibility to the possibility that, as others have pointed out; that Facebook could intentionally weaken crypo at the behest of the government in exchange for plausible deniability allowing for parallel reconstruction.
- pas 8y ago
  > parallel reconstruction No re- prefix needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
dmartinez 8y ago
There is a chance that Facebook is trying to change public opinion for the better with a move like this. Unlikely, but possible.

185 points by T-A 8y ago

chrischen 8y ago

The US government will need to buy targeted ads. Then Facebook will let them hear the calls.

ericlewis 8y ago
Agree
RhodesianHunter 8y ago
Please don't give them any ideas.
pawelmurias 8y ago
"Have you been peddling dope lately? Apply right now for a awesome plea bargain!"

justtopost 8y ago

So we are supposed to trust this even though the details are sealed? Sounds like the investigators get to have their cake and eat it too. Do they expect people fall for this kind of posturing and send juicy details of criminal activity over messenger?

busterarm 8y ago
Facebook needs the good PR. They made some handshake behind closed doors and released this.
- friedman23 8y ago
  Completely unsubstantiated statement
  - busterarm 8y ago
    Statement of the completely obvious.
- urspx 8y ago
  I'm not sure that resisting government wiretaps is 'good PR' in US political discourse; at best, it's probably a mixed bag.

qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago

Cyrus Fariver has the whole document online, it’s an interesting read. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33ce-4723-a294-883a95e7ee59.html#document/p38/a457338 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33c...

polyphonic01 8y ago

If in the course of a criminal investigation it becomes necessary to wiretap a suspect, Facebook should cooperate with the government and implement the wiretap. As long as a warrant is issued for the wiretap, there should be no issue with this. Protection of people's privacy must be balanced with granting law enforcement sufficient powers to effectively prosecute criminals.

xevb3k 8y ago
And should they ensure that encryption always has backdoors to enable this too?
zarriak 8y ago
I trust no government, especially the US government, to require the implementation of a wiretap. It has already been shown that they have greatly abused any trust given to them. Law enforcement already has the FISA court, Stingrays, PRISM, and enough other stuff that they don't have an issue breaking in to stuff. In every known circumstance that took a tech giant to court, the FBI just used a third party to provide them a method of gaining access to a physical device. It is absurd for them to receive implementations of wiretapping on any service when they should just do their job and unlock the physical devices. It is also blatantly clear that they tried to force Facebook's hand by using this case. I mean really why do you think this case involves MS13 members?
- polyphonic01 8y ago
  So you disagree that law enforcement should be able to tap phones.
  - realusername 8y ago
    Not the OP but on my case I disagree yes, there's been so much abuse from governments about wiretapping that the risk/benefit of allowing it isn't worth it.
    - 8y ago

fipple 8y ago

Ultimately, the government will do what it wants with respect to wiretapping because the ruling class of both political parties in the US support it, so there is no electoral accountability. Thus Facebook would be wise to give the appearance of compliance and willingness to help, while resisting total dragnets.

zarriak 8y ago
No, it is much more advantageous for them to engage in stuff like PRISM which has no public oversight or accountability and then play pretend in courts. Also this gives them more leverage, they would much prefer these things come in the form of legislation that creates barriers to entry for social media.
forgotmypw 8y ago
>Facebook would be wise to give the appearance of resisting total dragnets, while giving the appearance of compliance and willingness to help. FTFY

LanceH 8y ago

The government asks (demands) access, but takes no responsibility for abuse. Just saying...

torgian 8y ago

Bullshit. Facebook capitulated and have access. No doubt. They made backroom deals. Call me paranoid, but if the government wants something, there’s honestly little anyone can do about it.

tempodox 8y ago

Doing all this surveillance working for SV companies definitely pays better than doing it for an alphabet agency. SV will never just give up their data for free.

emayljames 8y ago

Or: "US government releases PR press release to hide what facebook and the secret services are really up to".

fragmede 8y ago

Don't forget that in August, Facebook's head of security, Alex Stamos, stepped down on the strength of his principles, and with that, I'd give a lot more credibility to the possibility that, as others have pointed out; that Facebook could intentionally weaken crypo at the behest of the government in exchange for plausible deniability allowing for parallel reconstruction.

pas 8y ago
> parallel reconstruction No re- prefix needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

dmartinez 8y ago

There is a chance that Facebook is trying to change public opinion for the better with a move like this. Unlikely, but possible.