10 ms·

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.

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.
    - polyphonic01 8y ago
      What sort of abuse and what have been the effects of that abuse?
      - mrep 8y ago
        To add on to this, wiretapping has definitely brought some good including against our own government. For example, it was used to catch Rod Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois trying to sell Obama's senate seat once Obama became president [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_removal_from_office,_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_r...
      - AlexCoventry 8y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Illegal_surveillance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Illegal_surveilla...
        mrep 8y ago
        A covert illegal mass surveillance program is a lot different than a judge approved wiretap on a specific person based on reasonable suspicion. There were literally only 3,168 approved wiretaps in 2016 [0] and as my other comment mentioned, it has even been used to catch politicians of illegal activity [1]. [0]: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2016 http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-20... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18104461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18104461
        realusername 8y ago
        I don't see any way to keep those ones and to restrict the mass surveillance in the same time. These few lawful interceptions are not doing enough good to me to counter-balance the availability of the mass surveillance programs. So that's why I argue about shutting off interception as much as possible technically.
        8y ago
  - JoshuaAshton 8y ago
    Yes.
SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago
Do you think that building codes should require every bedroom to have a microphone connected to the local courthouse, to be activated only in the event that the authorities suspect the occupants are going to discuss a crime?
- polyphonic01 8y ago
  No, I consider that giving law enforcement too much access. Others may disagree. From the article: "Telecommunications companies are required to give police access to calls under federal law, but many apps that rely solely on internet infrastructure are exempt. Facebook contended Messenger was covered by that exemption." I think it's good that law enforcement can tap calls if necessary, and I see no convincing reason why the existing law and precedent should not extend to apps like messenger which are used just as traditional phones are by many people. Therefore I'm comfortable extending the law to internet based communications. The powers granted to government should not be absolute, but there must be powers that are granted, so we debate about what powers to grant. The debate cannot be resolved on an a priori basis using abstract principles, it can only be resolved on a case by case basis. If we only rely on abstract principles we will inevitably be pulled toward absolute power or absolute impotency.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    So let's walk through the logic here. Suppose you say any system that can be used for communications must have a way to tap when a warrant is issued. This means any encrypted communications system must have a back door built in that the government can access. And not just some single highly-regulated federal task force: any federal, state or local court in the US could in theory issue a warrant for someone's communication data, so the backdoor would have to be accessible to all of them. Which means there's no encryption. There's no way that many separate people and agencies, all with access, would be able to maintain operational security; sooner or later it's going to blow wide open and anyone who wants to get access to someone else's communications will be able to with little effort. That's what you're arguing for. Is that what you want to argue for? And this is not idle abstract hypothetical slippery-sloping here. When the legal fight was happening, to try to force Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino shooter's phone, news came out that local police agencies around the country were literally lining up things like "someone was in a car crash, decrypt their phone for us so we can see if they were texting while driving" requests in anticipation of Apple being forced to decrypt phones in response to court orders. The instant you open up and force a backdoor/decrypt for one case, it will be wide open for every case, everywhere, and then we're back to effectively no encryption.
cheeze 8y ago
> green username > Every comment downvoted Obvious troll is obvious.
qwerty456127 8y ago
IMHO the right for secrecy of correspondence should be absolute and included in the constitution. Nobody should be legally allowed to wiretap anybody (but a victim that expects a call from a criminal and has given their consent perhaps) ever.
- Terr_ 8y ago
  Reducto ad absurdum: "I've got a warrant to search these premises for a kidnapped child. What's inside that big crate with the air holes?" "Nice try, officer, but those are postcards to my business associates, which makes it a big crate of correspondence." --- If you prefer, substitute the child/crate with cash, drugs, weapons, letter-bombs...
  - qwerty456127 8y ago
    Nice try, officer, people advocating against privacy and Internet freedom always use child protection as their banners but start abusing the anti-privacy facilities for whatever else they want (and that's rarely about children) as soon as they manage to establish them. What I mean is it's Ok for an officer with a search warrant to look inside a big crate but if they actually find letters there it's not Ok to read them without the consent of the recipient or the author.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      There are very many cases in which both a 21st century and 18th century person would agree that it's reasonable for an officer with a search warrant to read through a box of letters without the accused recipient's consent; conspiracies to commit fraud justify reading your archive of business correspondence and using it as evidence in court; murders done for relationship reasons justify reading your archive of love letters and using them as evidence in court.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        It says so right in the 4th amendment "...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A warrant to search "your archive of business correspondence" or "your archive of love letters" is fine, reading those things while serving a warrant for your neighbors' stolen cat, Fluffy, not so much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

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.
  - polyphonic01 8y ago
    What sort of abuse and what have been the effects of that abuse?
    - mrep 8y ago
      To add on to this, wiretapping has definitely brought some good including against our own government. For example, it was used to catch Rod Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois trying to sell Obama's senate seat once Obama became president [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_removal_from_office,_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_r...
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Illegal_surveillance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Illegal_surveilla...
      - mrep 8y ago
        A covert illegal mass surveillance program is a lot different than a judge approved wiretap on a specific person based on reasonable suspicion. There were literally only 3,168 approved wiretaps in 2016 [0] and as my other comment mentioned, it has even been used to catch politicians of illegal activity [1]. [0]: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2016 http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-20... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18104461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18104461
        realusername 8y ago
        I don't see any way to keep those ones and to restrict the mass surveillance in the same time. These few lawful interceptions are not doing enough good to me to counter-balance the availability of the mass surveillance programs. So that's why I argue about shutting off interception as much as possible technically.
        8y ago
- JoshuaAshton 8y ago
  Yes.

SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago

Do you think that building codes should require every bedroom to have a microphone connected to the local courthouse, to be activated only in the event that the authorities suspect the occupants are going to discuss a crime?

polyphonic01 8y ago
No, I consider that giving law enforcement too much access. Others may disagree. From the article: "Telecommunications companies are required to give police access to calls under federal law, but many apps that rely solely on internet infrastructure are exempt. Facebook contended Messenger was covered by that exemption." I think it's good that law enforcement can tap calls if necessary, and I see no convincing reason why the existing law and precedent should not extend to apps like messenger which are used just as traditional phones are by many people. Therefore I'm comfortable extending the law to internet based communications. The powers granted to government should not be absolute, but there must be powers that are granted, so we debate about what powers to grant. The debate cannot be resolved on an a priori basis using abstract principles, it can only be resolved on a case by case basis. If we only rely on abstract principles we will inevitably be pulled toward absolute power or absolute impotency.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  So let's walk through the logic here. Suppose you say any system that can be used for communications must have a way to tap when a warrant is issued. This means any encrypted communications system must have a back door built in that the government can access. And not just some single highly-regulated federal task force: any federal, state or local court in the US could in theory issue a warrant for someone's communication data, so the backdoor would have to be accessible to all of them. Which means there's no encryption. There's no way that many separate people and agencies, all with access, would be able to maintain operational security; sooner or later it's going to blow wide open and anyone who wants to get access to someone else's communications will be able to with little effort. That's what you're arguing for. Is that what you want to argue for? And this is not idle abstract hypothetical slippery-sloping here. When the legal fight was happening, to try to force Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino shooter's phone, news came out that local police agencies around the country were literally lining up things like "someone was in a car crash, decrypt their phone for us so we can see if they were texting while driving" requests in anticipation of Apple being forced to decrypt phones in response to court orders. The instant you open up and force a backdoor/decrypt for one case, it will be wide open for every case, everywhere, and then we're back to effectively no encryption.

cheeze 8y ago

> green username > Every comment downvoted Obvious troll is obvious.

qwerty456127 8y ago

IMHO the right for secrecy of correspondence should be absolute and included in the constitution. Nobody should be legally allowed to wiretap anybody (but a victim that expects a call from a criminal and has given their consent perhaps) ever.

Terr_ 8y ago
Reducto ad absurdum: "I've got a warrant to search these premises for a kidnapped child. What's inside that big crate with the air holes?" "Nice try, officer, but those are postcards to my business associates, which makes it a big crate of correspondence." --- If you prefer, substitute the child/crate with cash, drugs, weapons, letter-bombs...
- qwerty456127 8y ago
  Nice try, officer, people advocating against privacy and Internet freedom always use child protection as their banners but start abusing the anti-privacy facilities for whatever else they want (and that's rarely about children) as soon as they manage to establish them. What I mean is it's Ok for an officer with a search warrant to look inside a big crate but if they actually find letters there it's not Ok to read them without the consent of the recipient or the author.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    There are very many cases in which both a 21st century and 18th century person would agree that it's reasonable for an officer with a search warrant to read through a box of letters without the accused recipient's consent; conspiracies to commit fraud justify reading your archive of business correspondence and using it as evidence in court; murders done for relationship reasons justify reading your archive of love letters and using them as evidence in court.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      It says so right in the 4th amendment "...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A warrant to search "your archive of business correspondence" or "your archive of love letters" is fine, reading those things while serving a warrant for your neighbors' stolen cat, Fluffy, not so much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]