8 ms·

They are going straight into "think of the children mode" " Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We

They are going straight into "think of the children mode" " Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities." Apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore. Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points.

earless1 12y ago
Yeah, I let out an audible WTF when I read that. I wish this argument would stop.
- legomylibrum 12y ago
  Oh, it gets better. "The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened – even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order – to me does not make any sense."
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Seriously. Perhaps one would call this sort of exotic and nefarious contraption a "safe"?
    - earless1 12y ago
      Well we all know that law enforcement gets a copy of every safe key made. you know just in case
brational 12y ago
I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't law enforcement still be allowed to access phone records unecrypted if they have an actual suspect and court order?
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  Yes but they want the data on the mobile device. For example, I use textsecure when texting my friends. Its encrypted locally and over the wire so the records would only help them show who not what I was talking about.
- rscott 12y ago
  Probably harder and takes longer than searching through a confiscated phone from a suspect.
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    Bingo! You can, as far as I know, confiscate and search a suspect just based on probable cause, whereas you'd need to have at least a subpoena if not a warrant to get wiretap authorization or phone records.
    - plorg 12y ago
      A recent Supreme Court ruling[0] makes it unlawful for authorities to search confiscated cell phones without a warrant. They could, theoretically, confiscate your phone based on probable cause, but searching it would be a different matter. [0] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
      - scott_karana 12y ago
        Oh, excellent! At least that prevents overt searches.
- williamcotton 12y ago
  With end-to-end encryption where the messages are encrypted and decrypted on the client it would not be possible for anyone with access to phone records or central servers to read what was said. They would need to obtain the private keys that are generated on the client devices themselves.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I'm surprised they even admit it's mostly used in the war on drugs. As if we want the US government to help [1] the Sinaloa cartel dominate even more - sorry, I meant to "win the war on drugs" (ha ha!). [1] - http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-...
- Roboprog 12y ago
  Hmm. Kind of like the reverse of the bit in Charles Stross' "Merchant Princes" novel series where the trans-dimensional smugglers donate to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America to help keep drugs illegal and the price up. Except your example is real, just like back in the 80s when the govt (CIA?) helped smuggle in cocaine.
sixothree 12y ago
Hmm sounds to me like they are trying to convince people to use their phones for illegal doings. Also, all of the comments in this thread (not this one specifically) make me wish HN threads root comments defaulted to collapsed so people might avoid duplicate root comments. Maybe...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jcromartie 12y ago
  That's an interesting idea. It's not often that people in law enforcement or military intelligence will come out publicly and say "if such-and-such adversary were to use this widely-available technology we'd be stymied!"
  - sixothree 12y ago
    Possibly reminiscent of the Freakonomics suggestion for terrorists to buy life insurance from their bank.
brandonmenc 12y ago
Quote from Cathy Lanier, the police chief whose ridiculous uniform resembles that of a four star general. fwiw my friend's dad was our chief of police for years, and he only ever wore a shirt and tie.
- GHFigs 12y ago
  For what it's worth -- and here I have to wonder how much it's worth to criticize someone's point of view based on a photograph of them -- that's a dress uniform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Dress uniform for police? That's not quite as bad as the paramilitary BDUs, but, really?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Police do have official events to attend. In my state capital there is a yearly event to honor fallen officers where representatives from every police force in the state show up in their dress uniforms for a mass memorial service.
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        They could wear suits. That might remind them they are of the people, and their first priority is to serve the people. They might also consider attending the memorial service for Mike Brown. In suits.
        pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        They'd have to only attend if off-duty then wouldn't they? One point of police uniform is to identify a person as being a warranted police officer on duty (then there's the appearance of officialdom and the sense of inferiority it breeds in others, the camaraderie, ...). You'd probably need to change the law if you want to allow regular warranted officers to be on duty in civilian clothing, jurisdiction dependent of course. I don't really understand why you don't want to be able to identify your police officers though - even the UPS drivers wear uniform.
codyb 12y ago
They talk about a balancing act and a criminal underworld free for all but I haven't seen too many complaints from the FBI about the millions of Americans whose constitutional rights are infringed upon every day during the NSA's total government free for all (as well as the wide variety of stories pertaining to other agencies and local law enforcement which are abusing various forms of intelligence gathering).
GHFigs 12y ago
They are going straight into "think of the children mode" ... apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore. "They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say? If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone to a counter-terrorism official, just like they rang someone at the DEA for a "but drug organizations!" quote. You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda. Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points. You (and most HN commenters) didn't. Why should they? e.g.: a) "Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action." b) "A half-dozen police and federal officials interviewed said that Apple, in particular, was taking an aggressive posture on the issue." When you take away the outrage-kindling, the gist of the article is that the stodgy old Washington government is incompetent and hip California tech companies are glorious. Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > "They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say? You're saying "pedophiles and drug dealers" as if it wasn't 99% drug dealers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  If anything I'm more prone to believe this is disinformation meant to allay our fears and draw us into a false sense of security when using our smartphones. xnull's comment nailed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150
  - 12y ago
dragontamer 12y ago
Law Enforcement (aka FBI / DEA) battles pedophiles and drug dealers. These guys typically make the "think of the children" arguments. Defense (Army / CIA / NSA) battles terrorists. Keep an eye on the names of the agencies involved. This is an FBI / Law Enforcement story, so the excuses are going to be different than the NSA-case a few months ago.
droopybuns 12y ago
Remember how iOS 6 stopped all child pornography? What a great operating system.

earless1 12y ago

Yeah, I let out an audible WTF when I read that. I wish this argument would stop.

legomylibrum 12y ago
Oh, it gets better. "The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened – even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order – to me does not make any sense."
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Seriously. Perhaps one would call this sort of exotic and nefarious contraption a "safe"?
  - earless1 12y ago
    Well we all know that law enforcement gets a copy of every safe key made. you know just in case

brational 12y ago

I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't law enforcement still be allowed to access phone records unecrypted if they have an actual suspect and court order?

gnarbarian 12y ago
Yes but they want the data on the mobile device. For example, I use textsecure when texting my friends. Its encrypted locally and over the wire so the records would only help them show who not what I was talking about.
rscott 12y ago
Probably harder and takes longer than searching through a confiscated phone from a suspect.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Bingo! You can, as far as I know, confiscate and search a suspect just based on probable cause, whereas you'd need to have at least a subpoena if not a warrant to get wiretap authorization or phone records.
  - plorg 12y ago
    A recent Supreme Court ruling[0] makes it unlawful for authorities to search confiscated cell phones without a warrant. They could, theoretically, confiscate your phone based on probable cause, but searching it would be a different matter. [0] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
    - scott_karana 12y ago
      Oh, excellent! At least that prevents overt searches.
williamcotton 12y ago
With end-to-end encryption where the messages are encrypted and decrypted on the client it would not be possible for anyone with access to phone records or central servers to read what was said. They would need to obtain the private keys that are generated on the client devices themselves.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I'm surprised they even admit it's mostly used in the war on drugs. As if we want the US government to help [1] the Sinaloa cartel dominate even more - sorry, I meant to "win the war on drugs" (ha ha!). [1] - http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-...

Roboprog 12y ago
Hmm. Kind of like the reverse of the bit in Charles Stross' "Merchant Princes" novel series where the trans-dimensional smugglers donate to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America to help keep drugs illegal and the price up. Except your example is real, just like back in the 80s when the govt (CIA?) helped smuggle in cocaine.

sixothree 12y ago

Hmm sounds to me like they are trying to convince people to use their phones for illegal doings. Also, all of the comments in this thread (not this one specifically) make me wish HN threads root comments defaulted to collapsed so people might avoid duplicate root comments. Maybe...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jcromartie 12y ago
That's an interesting idea. It's not often that people in law enforcement or military intelligence will come out publicly and say "if such-and-such adversary were to use this widely-available technology we'd be stymied!"
- sixothree 12y ago
  Possibly reminiscent of the Freakonomics suggestion for terrorists to buy life insurance from their bank.

brandonmenc 12y ago

Quote from Cathy Lanier, the police chief whose ridiculous uniform resembles that of a four star general. fwiw my friend's dad was our chief of police for years, and he only ever wore a shirt and tie.

GHFigs 12y ago
For what it's worth -- and here I have to wonder how much it's worth to criticize someone's point of view based on a photograph of them -- that's a dress uniform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Dress uniform for police? That's not quite as bad as the paramilitary BDUs, but, really?
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Police do have official events to attend. In my state capital there is a yearly event to honor fallen officers where representatives from every police force in the state show up in their dress uniforms for a mass memorial service.
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      They could wear suits. That might remind them they are of the people, and their first priority is to serve the people. They might also consider attending the memorial service for Mike Brown. In suits.
      - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        They'd have to only attend if off-duty then wouldn't they? One point of police uniform is to identify a person as being a warranted police officer on duty (then there's the appearance of officialdom and the sense of inferiority it breeds in others, the camaraderie, ...). You'd probably need to change the law if you want to allow regular warranted officers to be on duty in civilian clothing, jurisdiction dependent of course. I don't really understand why you don't want to be able to identify your police officers though - even the UPS drivers wear uniform.

codyb 12y ago

They talk about a balancing act and a criminal underworld free for all but I haven't seen too many complaints from the FBI about the millions of Americans whose constitutional rights are infringed upon every day during the NSA's total government free for all (as well as the wide variety of stories pertaining to other agencies and local law enforcement which are abusing various forms of intelligence gathering).

GHFigs 12y ago

They are going straight into "think of the children mode" ... apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore. "They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say? If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone to a counter-terrorism official, just like they rang someone at the DEA for a "but drug organizations!" quote. You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda. Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points. You (and most HN commenters) didn't. Why should they? e.g.: a) "Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action." b) "A half-dozen police and federal officials interviewed said that Apple, in particular, was taking an aggressive posture on the issue." When you take away the outrage-kindling, the gist of the article is that the stodgy old Washington government is incompetent and hip California tech companies are glorious. Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> "They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say? You're saying "pedophiles and drug dealers" as if it wasn't 99% drug dealers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
gnarbarian 12y ago
If anything I'm more prone to believe this is disinformation meant to allay our fears and draw us into a false sense of security when using our smartphones. xnull's comment nailed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150
- 12y ago

dragontamer 12y ago

Law Enforcement (aka FBI / DEA) battles pedophiles and drug dealers. These guys typically make the "think of the children" arguments. Defense (Army / CIA / NSA) battles terrorists. Keep an eye on the names of the agencies involved. This is an FBI / Law Enforcement story, so the excuses are going to be different than the NSA-case a few months ago.

droopybuns 12y ago

Remember how iOS 6 stopped all child pornography? What a great operating system.