4 ms·

U.S. Launches Fresh Assault on Apple’s ‘Warrant-Proof Encryption’

deogeo 7y ago
Relevant for those who think warrants adequately shield privacy: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
shakna 7y ago
> He cited a case in which it took more than a year from the arrest of a suspect in a child exploitation case to obtaining data from his device. They're starting out with the "think of the children" argument. Which means you know from the outset they are likely not being genuine in their pursuit of this. > "...enact legislation to ensure lawful access for law enforcement, consistent with the traditional protections of privacy, to digital evidence of crime." They can make the legislation all they want. The traditional protections of privacy cannot apply to the digital evidence of crime. The digital playing field is far more level than the physical playing field. In the physical world, a lock acts as a deterrent, but not much more. In the digital world, a lock doesn't generally act as a deterrent. You just throw more computing power at it until it breaks, or you find a simpler way to make it break. If you know a lock is vulnerable, because it has legislated to be, you have every incentive and no deterrent to find the weakness in that lock. In the physical world, agents of another country are generally not a relevant concern. In the digital world, any multinational platform has to be aware of multinational efforts to control discourse, including hacking of important and/or old accounts. The digital world is much more akin to a group of embassies located side-by-side each other than the average person's home.
htfu 7y ago
> Forbes recently obtained a search warrant from Ohio, signed off on in October 2019, showing an FBI-owned GrayKey was able to extract data from an iPhone 12.5, though no device exists (neither does iOS 12.5). In the search warrant application, the government doesn’t specify what model of iPhone it was, but an image shows it has three camera lenses on the back of the device. Only Apple’s top of the range iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max models have three cameras. Love this speculation about a non-existent mystery iPhone model when a quick search reveals that yes, iPhone12,5 is the model number for 11 Pro Max.
skrowl 7y ago
Does "warrant-proof" here just mean that Apple doesn't have the keys? Wouldn't that make ANY end-to-end encryption "warrant-proof"?
- shakna 7y ago
  > Wouldn't that make ANY end-to-end encryption "warrant-proof"? Yes. And the legislative community around those involved in the intelligence service would rather cripple e2e with magic keys than allow it to continue to protect everyone.
mindslight 7y ago
Apparently that assault includes getting Forbes to frame the issue as "Warrant-Proof" encryption, rather than using the straightforward term: secure encryption. This is especially funny given the mainstream media's enthusiasm for talking up the necessity of security when the topic is security for the government itself. By this disingenuous framing, a pad of paper is also "warrant-proof" - after all the government is unable to issue a single directive to the manufacturer and obtain a copy of everything written on pads they produced, or prevent their pages from being hidden or burnt. Society has gotten along just fine with the police having to do policework, rather than being able to just set up a panopticon.

Relevant for those who think warrants adequately shield privacy: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...

shakna 7y ago

> He cited a case in which it took more than a year from the arrest of a suspect in a child exploitation case to obtaining data from his device. They're starting out with the "think of the children" argument. Which means you know from the outset they are likely not being genuine in their pursuit of this. > "...enact legislation to ensure lawful access for law enforcement, consistent with the traditional protections of privacy, to digital evidence of crime." They can make the legislation all they want. The traditional protections of privacy cannot apply to the digital evidence of crime. The digital playing field is far more level than the physical playing field. In the physical world, a lock acts as a deterrent, but not much more. In the digital world, a lock doesn't generally act as a deterrent. You just throw more computing power at it until it breaks, or you find a simpler way to make it break. If you know a lock is vulnerable, because it has legislated to be, you have every incentive and no deterrent to find the weakness in that lock. In the physical world, agents of another country are generally not a relevant concern. In the digital world, any multinational platform has to be aware of multinational efforts to control discourse, including hacking of important and/or old accounts. The digital world is much more akin to a group of embassies located side-by-side each other than the average person's home.

htfu 7y ago

> Forbes recently obtained a search warrant from Ohio, signed off on in October 2019, showing an FBI-owned GrayKey was able to extract data from an iPhone 12.5, though no device exists (neither does iOS 12.5). In the search warrant application, the government doesn’t specify what model of iPhone it was, but an image shows it has three camera lenses on the back of the device. Only Apple’s top of the range iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max models have three cameras. Love this speculation about a non-existent mystery iPhone model when a quick search reveals that yes, iPhone12,5 is the model number for 11 Pro Max.

skrowl 7y ago

Does "warrant-proof" here just mean that Apple doesn't have the keys? Wouldn't that make ANY end-to-end encryption "warrant-proof"?

shakna 7y ago
> Wouldn't that make ANY end-to-end encryption "warrant-proof"? Yes. And the legislative community around those involved in the intelligence service would rather cripple e2e with magic keys than allow it to continue to protect everyone.

mindslight 7y ago

Apparently that assault includes getting Forbes to frame the issue as "Warrant-Proof" encryption, rather than using the straightforward term: secure encryption. This is especially funny given the mainstream media's enthusiasm for talking up the necessity of security when the topic is security for the government itself. By this disingenuous framing, a pad of paper is also "warrant-proof" - after all the government is unable to issue a single directive to the manufacturer and obtain a copy of everything written on pads they produced, or prevent their pages from being hidden or burnt. Society has gotten along just fine with the police having to do policework, rather than being able to just set up a panopticon.