12 ms·

Interestingly, such a law does nothing against proper criminals. People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or u

Interestingly, such a law does nothing against proper criminals. People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or uses some form of steganography to hide it perfectly. In the worst case, they will have some form of wipe-me passphrase that cleans the device before unlocking. Normal people, on the other hand, do not have these kind of (mental, time) resources. They will be forced to unlock their phones and something incriminating (for instance regarding "hate speech" or "intellectual property rights" or just "traffic violations") will be found. I consider this approach one step more in the direction of keeping every citizen an on-demand criminal. There are so many, sometimes incomprehensible, laws nowadays that pretty much everyone is not compliant.

bennyp101 5y ago
Can they use something they find if it's not in the scope of the warrant? (I have no idea?) But yea, your high profile criminal doing the real bad stuff is not going to be walking around with it on something that keeps a record.
- barsonme 5y ago
  Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine mostly doesn’t exist in Europe.
- dkersten 5y ago
  It sounds to me that the warrants are scoped by location, not by purpose.
pavel_lishin 5y ago
> People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or uses some form of steganography to hide it perfectly. I think your point is valid, especially the part about normal people, but you might be overestimating the intelligence of most criminals.
lbriner 5y ago
"Proper criminals"? What does that even mean? There are hundreds of criminals who are not tech savvy (or not tech savvy enough) who will not have any of the mechanisms you postulate, who are frequently caught by the police and are very much "proper criminals". I don't agree with this law but to say it doesn't do anything against proper criminals is patently false.
- dangerface 5y ago
  I think its more that proper criminals have no reason to give up their password and incriminate themselves. Only a "Legal" person would comply.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Can't you say this about all laws? 'What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!'
    - bsd44 5y ago
      Law is more than just Criminal law.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Ok? What difference do you think that makes?
        bsd44 5y ago
        You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them and obeying citizens don't need them. But that's only true for Criminal law, not for other types of law because people might be breaking the law unintentionally that's why we need it. To give a trivial example, killing someone would be an example of a Criminal law and you would be right. But tearing down a supporting wall in a block of flats to expand the living room would be an example of a law that needs to be written down because it's not obvious and clear to everyone.
whoopdedo 5y ago
I think the ANOM case demonstrates that criminals are not sufficiently more technically adept than the general public.
everdrive 5y ago
>such a law does nothing against proper criminals. People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or uses some form of steganography to hide it perfectly. I oppose such a law, as it appears to be very poorly written, but it's pure fantasy that criminals won't do crime via their phones, or will use some sort of advanced steg. Maybe some very talented criminals will do such things, but most criminals are just people: they either don't understand technology well, or else simply engage in risky behaviors.
- ggggtez 5y ago
  I agree. Most criminals are not very bright, and in the case of large organized crime, you still need to be able to communicate with employees that aren't very bright. Custom stenography comes at a cost to your organization in terms of troubleshooting and reliability... The drug dealers are probably just using whatever encrypted app they hear works well, which is why there was that big successful sting using an FBI controlled app recently.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    > I agree. Most criminals are not very bright, The bright ones are not being caught and therefore not on the list of criminals.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      Laws are so arcane and complex that most people have violated some law if you look hard enough. Ex. "More than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-carter/watch-out-70-us-have-done-something-could-put-us-j/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-ca...
      - Krasnol 5y ago
        Alright, let's say: "not on the list of criminals relevant for the topic".
ska 5y ago
> such a law does nothing against proper criminals. Doesn't sound right to me; The intersection between criminals and people with good information opsec is tiny(mostly because the latter category is tiny anyway). I agree the law is problematic, but not for that reason.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Out of curiosity. Why do you mention the latter group (people with good information opsec) is tiny when the former group (criminals) is probably an order of magnitude smaller?
  - mLuby 5y ago
    Honestly I thought you were way off base and that the number of criminals would be orders of magnitude higher than infosec workers, but apparently I'm wrong. "in 2020, there were 1.8 million people in prison" [1] "[in 2019,] the country’s total employed cybersecurity workforce is just 716,000" [2] "There are about 465,000 open positions in cybersecurity nationwide as of May 2021" [3] [1]: https://easyreadernews.com/why-are-so-many-americans-in-prison-in-2021/ https://easyreadernews.com/why-are-so-many-americans-in-pris... [2]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-workforce-gap https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-workforce-gap [3]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cybersecurity-job-openings-united-states/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cybersecurity-job-openings-unit...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwaway744678 5y ago
    (Not OP) It does not really matter: if someone is a criminal (however tiny that group is), and we make the (reasonable?) hypothesis that criminals are not more (nor less) informed that the general population, the intersection is really tiny. tiny * tiny = very tiny
    - deleted 5y ago
chrisseaton 5y ago
> proper criminals Lol now gatekeeping criminality!
dangerface 5y ago
True only normal people will feel compelled to give their passwords to authority. A criminal won't give a shit there is nothing an authority can do to compel a criminal to incriminate themselves. I mean what can they do arrest them? I think criminals have made their peace with that.
knob 5y ago
> an on-demand criminal. Wow. What a phrase.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  It’s an apt description for broadly-scoped criminal laws with highly deferential and selective enforcement. I’d bet a prosecutor could look at any given cellphone and find something to charge the owner with. Edit- It reminds me this first amendment wonk who pissed off local police and was then ticketed for failure to register his bike: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=28w6xvRj9EM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=28w6xvRj9EM

bennyp101 5y ago

Can they use something they find if it's not in the scope of the warrant? (I have no idea?) But yea, your high profile criminal doing the real bad stuff is not going to be walking around with it on something that keeps a record.

barsonme 5y ago
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine mostly doesn’t exist in Europe.
dkersten 5y ago
It sounds to me that the warrants are scoped by location, not by purpose.

pavel_lishin 5y ago

> People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or uses some form of steganography to hide it perfectly. I think your point is valid, especially the part about normal people, but you might be overestimating the intelligence of most criminals.

lbriner 5y ago

"Proper criminals"? What does that even mean? There are hundreds of criminals who are not tech savvy (or not tech savvy enough) who will not have any of the mechanisms you postulate, who are frequently caught by the police and are very much "proper criminals". I don't agree with this law but to say it doesn't do anything against proper criminals is patently false.

dangerface 5y ago
I think its more that proper criminals have no reason to give up their password and incriminate themselves. Only a "Legal" person would comply.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Can't you say this about all laws? 'What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!'
  - bsd44 5y ago
    Law is more than just Criminal law.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Ok? What difference do you think that makes?
      - bsd44 5y ago
        You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them and obeying citizens don't need them. But that's only true for Criminal law, not for other types of law because people might be breaking the law unintentionally that's why we need it. To give a trivial example, killing someone would be an example of a Criminal law and you would be right. But tearing down a supporting wall in a block of flats to expand the living room would be an example of a law that needs to be written down because it's not obvious and clear to everyone.

whoopdedo 5y ago

I think the ANOM case demonstrates that criminals are not sufficiently more technically adept than the general public.

everdrive 5y ago

>such a law does nothing against proper criminals. People that know they have incriminating evidence will either not carry it on their phones or uses some form of steganography to hide it perfectly. I oppose such a law, as it appears to be very poorly written, but it's pure fantasy that criminals won't do crime via their phones, or will use some sort of advanced steg. Maybe some very talented criminals will do such things, but most criminals are just people: they either don't understand technology well, or else simply engage in risky behaviors.

ggggtez 5y ago
I agree. Most criminals are not very bright, and in the case of large organized crime, you still need to be able to communicate with employees that aren't very bright. Custom stenography comes at a cost to your organization in terms of troubleshooting and reliability... The drug dealers are probably just using whatever encrypted app they hear works well, which is why there was that big successful sting using an FBI controlled app recently.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  > I agree. Most criminals are not very bright, The bright ones are not being caught and therefore not on the list of criminals.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Laws are so arcane and complex that most people have violated some law if you look hard enough. Ex. "More than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-carter/watch-out-70-us-have-done-something-could-put-us-j/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-ca...
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      Alright, let's say: "not on the list of criminals relevant for the topic".

ska 5y ago

> such a law does nothing against proper criminals. Doesn't sound right to me; The intersection between criminals and people with good information opsec is tiny(mostly because the latter category is tiny anyway). I agree the law is problematic, but not for that reason.

runarberg 5y ago
Out of curiosity. Why do you mention the latter group (people with good information opsec) is tiny when the former group (criminals) is probably an order of magnitude smaller?
- mLuby 5y ago
  Honestly I thought you were way off base and that the number of criminals would be orders of magnitude higher than infosec workers, but apparently I'm wrong. "in 2020, there were 1.8 million people in prison" [1] "[in 2019,] the country’s total employed cybersecurity workforce is just 716,000" [2] "There are about 465,000 open positions in cybersecurity nationwide as of May 2021" [3] [1]: https://easyreadernews.com/why-are-so-many-americans-in-prison-in-2021/ https://easyreadernews.com/why-are-so-many-americans-in-pris... [2]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-workforce-gap https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-workforce-gap [3]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cybersecurity-job-openings-united-states/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cybersecurity-job-openings-unit...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway744678 5y ago
  (Not OP) It does not really matter: if someone is a criminal (however tiny that group is), and we make the (reasonable?) hypothesis that criminals are not more (nor less) informed that the general population, the intersection is really tiny. tiny * tiny = very tiny
  - deleted 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> proper criminals Lol now gatekeeping criminality!

dangerface 5y ago

True only normal people will feel compelled to give their passwords to authority. A criminal won't give a shit there is nothing an authority can do to compel a criminal to incriminate themselves. I mean what can they do arrest them? I think criminals have made their peace with that.

knob 5y ago

> an on-demand criminal. Wow. What a phrase.

elliekelly 5y ago
It’s an apt description for broadly-scoped criminal laws with highly deferential and selective enforcement. I’d bet a prosecutor could look at any given cellphone and find something to charge the owner with. Edit- It reminds me this first amendment wonk who pissed off local police and was then ticketed for failure to register his bike: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=28w6xvRj9EM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=28w6xvRj9EM