11 ms·

> the Secret Service regularly run into encryption roadblocks during their investigations Maybe it's time we change the language and stop letting government of

> the Secret Service regularly run into encryption roadblocks during their investigations Maybe it's time we change the language and stop letting government officials label individual rights which are working as intended as "roadblocks" into government investigations. > experts generally agree that Congress is unlikely to pass a bill requiring warrant-compatible encryption Boo hoo. That's the system working as intended. Do your job correctly and stop making an enemy out of the People and you'll find requiring a warrant isn't a "roadblock".

thestartup 7y ago
What's your experience working in the IC or with LE?
vilhelm_s 7y ago
"Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant, hence the name. The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, so the encryption provides more privacy than is provided for by laws and constitutional rights. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposal-simply-anti-security https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposa... for the previous bill.
- carapace 7y ago
  > The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, The concern is that law enforcement apparently can't understand that "Warrant-compatible encryption" is an oxymoron. If encryption is a munition (if privacy is a weapon) then the 2nd Amendment is in play, eh? (edit: WWII, Turing, Bombe, Enigma.)
  - rubinelli 7y ago
    Definitely, after all encryption is a crucial tool for citizens to protect themselves from oppressive governments, so it fits the spirit of the law even better than it fits its letter.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  > "Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant It sure does, just like my front door requires a key :)
  - vilhelm_s 7y ago
    I'm not sure what point you are making, but the entire argument in favor of these laws is to make encryption work more like front doors. In order to open the door the police require a warrant, but once they have that there are no technical issues which make it hard to get to door open, they can just call a locksmith.
- Vrondi 7y ago
  They should stop expecting all of their job to be easy as a Google search, get off their rears, and do real detective work. If it isn't worth real-world work, then it's probably not worth eroding citizen rights over.
txru 7y ago
Warrants don't work, that's the problem. There have been many instances now where a judge issued a legal warrant that was impossible to enforce, because of encryption. Should that be the case? It's not a simple question.
- camelNotation 7y ago
  That isn't the failure of warrants, our rights, or any other aspect of the legal process. That's a failure of law enforcement. They can't break encryption, sure, but they also can't read the private thoughts of individuals - yet somehow they've figured out ways to get the information they need most of the time. A great solution in many of these cases would be to work alongside companies like Apple to implement more products like Face ID. With Face ID, they can take a few pictures of a person, 3D model their face, open the phone. It's an easy thing with the right resources. It's a technological equivalent of interrogation. The same can be done in other contexts, they just need better hackers, better investigators, and more resources on their side.
  - txru 7y ago
    What you posit with interrogated Face ID is a method of hacking encryption. You've provided a backdoor, that is the person's face. Previously the suspect's phone was encrypted, now the encryption is broken against the suspect's intent. A warrant was used to break the encryption. Do you see what I'm getting at? You came up with warrant-breakable encryption, but didn't call it that. This is why it's not an easy question-- the solutions are nuanced, and some are a lot uglier than others.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      Furthermore, there was a falsehood of security to begin with. You shouldn't legally be able to say the data is safe when it isn't safe to anyone with a couple photographs.
    - sailfast 7y ago
      Maybe? There's a huge distinction between warrant-breakable encryption as a default (because it's easier) and enforcing that nobody can encrypt data unless it's encrypted using biometric data (or other information that is available outside the head of a user)
koboll 7y ago
We have to let the government install thought reading chips into our brains, because the government regularly runs into the roadblock of people knowing things but not saying them during their investigations
- gubbrora 7y ago
  People with clearance have to undergo regular lie detectors. Wouldn't be surprised if a loyalty chip is the next step on that path. I'm not convinced a very dark future is preventable
  - m11r 7y ago
    No they don’t. Certain types of clearances for DoD or the Intelligence Community may require polygraph along with the background investigation process, but the vast majority of cleared US government or contractor personnel do not have to undergo polygraph testing – they only go through routine reinvestigations at the 5- or 10-year marks following favorable adjudication for their initial clearance.
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Ancestor post said "lie detector". A polygraph test would be a separate thing entirely. I'm not entirely certain why you thought to link them. The lie detector in the regular process is when the federal employee investigates whether the answers on your questionnaire match up with public records and in-person interviews. The polygraph is security theater intended to intimidate the subject and possibly reveal previously undisclosed issues by provoking a stress response. That's why they keep using it.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - m11r 7y ago
        That’s true, although the requirements for different clearance levels are drastically different, and most people don’t refer to the standard background (re-)investigation process as a “lie detector,” even if the investigators are in fact attempting to determine your honesty in addition to evaluating other signals about your behavior and potential ability to be influenced or manipulated. Most of the time, comments about “lie detectors” are a reference to polygraph tests, which only apply to an extremely minor percentage of the overall cleared workforce; I just wanted to point that out, that it’s not quite as bleak as implied by the parent.
camelNotation 7y ago
Agreed. There is no other context where this type of argument works. If I have a right to privacy, that's obviously dangerous because it means I can privately do bad things without easily being seen or caught. That was always the trade off with giving citizens rights and liberty. You can't simply eliminate our rights just because they are a barrier between law enforcement and public welfare. That decision was already made long ago and the choice was to take the risk because the alternative, where those in power can violate the privacy of anyone they choose, turned out to be a pretty terrible thing. Those barriers are a feature, not a bug.
- empath75 7y ago
  This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. Lawbreaking is one of the means that people have to fight against an unjust system.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics, while simultaneously going above the speed limit and drinking and driving every chance they get. I don't think most people have the innate sense of wanting it to be possible for everyone to commit crimes; I think it's much more selfish in that they just want themselves and their associates to get away with committing crimes.
    - LyndsySimon 7y ago
      > Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics Who are those people, exactly? I run in mostly right-wing circles (online especially), and the vast majority of people on the right seem to be opposed to the "War on Drugs" on the grounds of individual liberty. I can't imagine many on the left are in support of it - am I wrong? I don't think it's nearly as popular as it might seem.
      - 7y ago

thestartup 7y ago

What's your experience working in the IC or with LE?

vilhelm_s 7y ago

"Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant, hence the name. The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, so the encryption provides more privacy than is provided for by laws and constitutional rights. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposal-simply-anti-security https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposa... for the previous bill.

carapace 7y ago
> The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, The concern is that law enforcement apparently can't understand that "Warrant-compatible encryption" is an oxymoron. If encryption is a munition (if privacy is a weapon) then the 2nd Amendment is in play, eh? (edit: WWII, Turing, Bombe, Enigma.)
- rubinelli 7y ago
  Definitely, after all encryption is a crucial tool for citizens to protect themselves from oppressive governments, so it fits the spirit of the law even better than it fits its letter.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
> "Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant It sure does, just like my front door requires a key :)
- vilhelm_s 7y ago
  I'm not sure what point you are making, but the entire argument in favor of these laws is to make encryption work more like front doors. In order to open the door the police require a warrant, but once they have that there are no technical issues which make it hard to get to door open, they can just call a locksmith.
Vrondi 7y ago
They should stop expecting all of their job to be easy as a Google search, get off their rears, and do real detective work. If it isn't worth real-world work, then it's probably not worth eroding citizen rights over.

txru 7y ago

Warrants don't work, that's the problem. There have been many instances now where a judge issued a legal warrant that was impossible to enforce, because of encryption. Should that be the case? It's not a simple question.

camelNotation 7y ago
That isn't the failure of warrants, our rights, or any other aspect of the legal process. That's a failure of law enforcement. They can't break encryption, sure, but they also can't read the private thoughts of individuals - yet somehow they've figured out ways to get the information they need most of the time. A great solution in many of these cases would be to work alongside companies like Apple to implement more products like Face ID. With Face ID, they can take a few pictures of a person, 3D model their face, open the phone. It's an easy thing with the right resources. It's a technological equivalent of interrogation. The same can be done in other contexts, they just need better hackers, better investigators, and more resources on their side.
- txru 7y ago
  What you posit with interrogated Face ID is a method of hacking encryption. You've provided a backdoor, that is the person's face. Previously the suspect's phone was encrypted, now the encryption is broken against the suspect's intent. A warrant was used to break the encryption. Do you see what I'm getting at? You came up with warrant-breakable encryption, but didn't call it that. This is why it's not an easy question-- the solutions are nuanced, and some are a lot uglier than others.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Furthermore, there was a falsehood of security to begin with. You shouldn't legally be able to say the data is safe when it isn't safe to anyone with a couple photographs.
  - sailfast 7y ago
    Maybe? There's a huge distinction between warrant-breakable encryption as a default (because it's easier) and enforcing that nobody can encrypt data unless it's encrypted using biometric data (or other information that is available outside the head of a user)

koboll 7y ago

We have to let the government install thought reading chips into our brains, because the government regularly runs into the roadblock of people knowing things but not saying them during their investigations

gubbrora 7y ago
People with clearance have to undergo regular lie detectors. Wouldn't be surprised if a loyalty chip is the next step on that path. I'm not convinced a very dark future is preventable
- m11r 7y ago
  No they don’t. Certain types of clearances for DoD or the Intelligence Community may require polygraph along with the background investigation process, but the vast majority of cleared US government or contractor personnel do not have to undergo polygraph testing – they only go through routine reinvestigations at the 5- or 10-year marks following favorable adjudication for their initial clearance.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Ancestor post said "lie detector". A polygraph test would be a separate thing entirely. I'm not entirely certain why you thought to link them. The lie detector in the regular process is when the federal employee investigates whether the answers on your questionnaire match up with public records and in-person interviews. The polygraph is security theater intended to intimidate the subject and possibly reveal previously undisclosed issues by provoking a stress response. That's why they keep using it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - m11r 7y ago
      That’s true, although the requirements for different clearance levels are drastically different, and most people don’t refer to the standard background (re-)investigation process as a “lie detector,” even if the investigators are in fact attempting to determine your honesty in addition to evaluating other signals about your behavior and potential ability to be influenced or manipulated. Most of the time, comments about “lie detectors” are a reference to polygraph tests, which only apply to an extremely minor percentage of the overall cleared workforce; I just wanted to point that out, that it’s not quite as bleak as implied by the parent.

camelNotation 7y ago

Agreed. There is no other context where this type of argument works. If I have a right to privacy, that's obviously dangerous because it means I can privately do bad things without easily being seen or caught. That was always the trade off with giving citizens rights and liberty. You can't simply eliminate our rights just because they are a barrier between law enforcement and public welfare. That decision was already made long ago and the choice was to take the risk because the alternative, where those in power can violate the privacy of anyone they choose, turned out to be a pretty terrible thing. Those barriers are a feature, not a bug.

empath75 7y ago
This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. Lawbreaking is one of the means that people have to fight against an unjust system.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics, while simultaneously going above the speed limit and drinking and driving every chance they get. I don't think most people have the innate sense of wanting it to be possible for everyone to commit crimes; I think it's much more selfish in that they just want themselves and their associates to get away with committing crimes.
  - LyndsySimon 7y ago
    > Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics Who are those people, exactly? I run in mostly right-wing circles (online especially), and the vast majority of people on the right seem to be opposed to the "War on Drugs" on the grounds of individual liberty. I can't imagine many on the left are in support of it - am I wrong? I don't think it's nearly as popular as it might seem.
    - 7y ago