4 ms·
> In fact, we were never able to view the contents of his phone They were also never able to learn what was said in the van before the London Bridge attack [1]
by deogeo 7y ago
> In fact, we were never able to view the contents of his phone
They were also never able to learn what was said in the van before the London Bridge attack [1]. Are we okay with Renault providing a law-free space inside their vehicles? All cars should be equipped with always-on microphones. But don't worry! The audio will be encrypted, and only accessible with a warrant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack
Edit: Just to make sure - this is satire, and the logical extension of believing people shouldn't be allowed to keep any secrets.
Responding in edit due to posting limit (way to make sure downvoted comments can't explain or defend themselves):
They can also record the person typing in their password, or recording the screen with cameras, or hardware or software bugs once they have a password to access the phone.
The analogy works perfectly, and while they may say the will not "treat an encryption backdoor like a universal bug", that's exactly what it is.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoThis isn’t a fair response. If law enforcement knows that some specific person is doing a crime, they can and do plant always-on microphones on their car. The law enforcement concern is that they can’t do that at all in this context. Even if you know for sure someone’s planning a serious crime, there’s no way to spy on their E2E encrypted communications. Most law enforcement agencies argue (with varying degrees of believability) that they will not treat an encryption backdoor like a universal bug they can just listen in on whenever.
- pjkundert 7y agoOf course there is - exactly the same way as they do so with the car: get a warrant, and surveil the target.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoHow would a warrant give them the ability to see what’s said in an encrypted chat? You can’t instal a camera on someone’s shoulder like you can put a bug in their car.
- DarthGhandi 7y agoMobile phone screen recording using malware.
- pjkundert 7y agoNobody said their job was "easy" in the hiring advertisement! When you get a Judge to agree that their is adequate reason and gain a warrant, you use your resources to surveil the target in public/private, using your considerable means as a law enforcement agency. Drones, bugs, malware, other espionage techniques. This is nothing more or less than these agencies complaining that free peoples are making their jobs harder. One big problem is cowardice: it is easier and safer to attack the liberties of law abiding citizens (because they won't shoot you in the face), in the hopes that, by sacrificing your citizen's liberties you might pick up a few more incompetent bad guys. Its way more dangerous to actually go out, do your job, and surveil a dangerous bad guy, who will shoot you in the face. If that's a problem -- then the law enforcement complainers need to go get a new, safer job, and leave the heavy lifting to their braver counterparts.
- deogeo 7y agoWhat if they talk with someone while walking through a forest? Should that also be forbidden, because it's difficult to spy on?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI’m not saying end to end encryption should be forbidden, just that it’s a toxic argument to go “haha, stupid law enforcement doesn’t realize there are already places that are hard to spy on!” Of course there are, nobody thinks otherwise.
- deogeo 7y agoSo what makes E2E encryption different, that the same arguments don't apply to other difficult-to-spy-on places? I think people should be made acutely aware it's not an assault on encryption - it's an assault on their right to keep secrets at all.