6 ms·

I don't see why it's such a big deal for law enforcement investigators. They'll still be able to force Apple and Google to send trojan clients to targets, as h

I don't see why it's such a big deal for law enforcement investigators. They'll still be able to force Apple and Google to send trojan clients to targets, as happened with Hushmail, won't they?

meowface 12y ago
Yes, but it still makes their jobs a lot more difficult. I'm of the opinion that this is not a ruse or scheme, and that law enforcement are genuinely dissatisfied with this. Note that law enforcement and the NSA have a tenuous relationship at best. Even if the NSA still do have privileged access after default mobile encryption is fully rolled out, law enforcement generally will not be able to tap into that except in extreme and rare cases.
- deciplex 12y ago
  >law enforcement generally will not be able to tap into that except in extreme and rare cases Like when they pull someone over for having a tail light out? I can't reconcile your statement here with what we already know about parallel construction.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Okay... so I guess someone here knows more about parallel construction than I do, however while they were kind enough to let us know this by downvoting my apparently wrong post, they were not kind enough to share their thoughts. Are law enforcement agencies not getting data from the NSA to use in arresting and prosecuting defendants via parallel construction?
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      According to Binney they almost certifiably are. I think they downvoted because Binney cites the DEA, CIA and FBI - which are law enforcement - however in this thread posters have taken law enforcement to mean your friendly neighborhood municipal police officer.
- ruloo 12y ago
  Law enforcement is far over reaching in my opinion. This data is still hackable because all data is hackable. the fact it is inconvenient is a good thing. This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. They can still acquire the data but they will need to spend significant resources to do it. Invading your citizens privacy should be difficult!
  - meowface 12y ago
    I agree.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    > This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. Well... there's no real need to say that, because it's already the case. If they want to open your locks, they will.
    - ObviousScience 12y ago
      You're not obligated to make the lock unlockable for them, though. The government can probably break many consumer-grade encryption schemes if they so choose to as well, but much like having to break in to your house through your locks instead of merely unlocking them, it raises the cost of law-enforcement doing so, and incentivizes them to make more restrained choices (eg, not taking literally everything they can get their hands on).
    - pmontra 12y ago
      They can ask. A court order to reveal your password is enough. If you don't comply you usually run into troubles. This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law explains how it works in some countries. There has been a ruling about that in the USA recently http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defendant-must-decrypt-computers-for-police/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defen...
      - 12y ago
- 7952 12y ago
  The tech crowd always seem to come to the conclusion that because the powers are over-reaching and bad that they must be unecessary in a partical sense. It is perfectly possible that the surveillance powers really are needed to fight crime. Maybe organised crime and terrorism would increase if all the vulnerabilities that the government use are patched. Technology will undoubtly have a profound impact on crime, and the consequences could be a technical arms race between the public, governments, and criminals. A frightening prospect!
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  “What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said. Sure, they're dissatisfied. But the roots of their dissatisfaction seem to be that they've tasted the forbidden fruit, and now believe that they have a fundamental right to watch our communications. Their fundamental attitude is that they should have visibility, and that anyone who wants privacy must be trying to hide something. It's just the old saw "you don't need secrecy if you've nothing to hide", restated from the law enforcement perspective.
Varcht 12y ago
I have to wonder if this is in part driven by a disdain for civic observance. Seems like every week I hear about instances of people getting their phones taken away at least temporarily for video taping police actions only to receive their phones back with the video deleted.

I don't see why it's such a big deal for law enforcement investigators. They'll still be able to force Apple and Google to send trojan clients to targets, as happened with Hushmail, won't they?

meowface 12y ago

Yes, but it still makes their jobs a lot more difficult. I'm of the opinion that this is not a ruse or scheme, and that law enforcement are genuinely dissatisfied with this. Note that law enforcement and the NSA have a tenuous relationship at best. Even if the NSA still do have privileged access after default mobile encryption is fully rolled out, law enforcement generally will not be able to tap into that except in extreme and rare cases.

deciplex 12y ago
>law enforcement generally will not be able to tap into that except in extreme and rare cases Like when they pull someone over for having a tail light out? I can't reconcile your statement here with what we already know about parallel construction.
- deciplex 12y ago
  Okay... so I guess someone here knows more about parallel construction than I do, however while they were kind enough to let us know this by downvoting my apparently wrong post, they were not kind enough to share their thoughts. Are law enforcement agencies not getting data from the NSA to use in arresting and prosecuting defendants via parallel construction?
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    According to Binney they almost certifiably are. I think they downvoted because Binney cites the DEA, CIA and FBI - which are law enforcement - however in this thread posters have taken law enforcement to mean your friendly neighborhood municipal police officer.
ruloo 12y ago
Law enforcement is far over reaching in my opinion. This data is still hackable because all data is hackable. the fact it is inconvenient is a good thing. This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. They can still acquire the data but they will need to spend significant resources to do it. Invading your citizens privacy should be difficult!
- meowface 12y ago
  I agree.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. Well... there's no real need to say that, because it's already the case. If they want to open your locks, they will.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    You're not obligated to make the lock unlockable for them, though. The government can probably break many consumer-grade encryption schemes if they so choose to as well, but much like having to break in to your house through your locks instead of merely unlocking them, it raises the cost of law-enforcement doing so, and incentivizes them to make more restrained choices (eg, not taking literally everything they can get their hands on).
  - pmontra 12y ago
    They can ask. A court order to reveal your password is enough. If you don't comply you usually run into troubles. This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law explains how it works in some countries. There has been a ruling about that in the USA recently http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defendant-must-decrypt-computers-for-police/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defen...
    - 12y ago
7952 12y ago
The tech crowd always seem to come to the conclusion that because the powers are over-reaching and bad that they must be unecessary in a partical sense. It is perfectly possible that the surveillance powers really are needed to fight crime. Maybe organised crime and terrorism would increase if all the vulnerabilities that the government use are patched. Technology will undoubtly have a profound impact on crime, and the consequences could be a technical arms race between the public, governments, and criminals. A frightening prospect!
CWuestefeld 12y ago
“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said. Sure, they're dissatisfied. But the roots of their dissatisfaction seem to be that they've tasted the forbidden fruit, and now believe that they have a fundamental right to watch our communications. Their fundamental attitude is that they should have visibility, and that anyone who wants privacy must be trying to hide something. It's just the old saw "you don't need secrecy if you've nothing to hide", restated from the law enforcement perspective.

Varcht 12y ago

I have to wonder if this is in part driven by a disdain for civic observance. Seems like every week I hear about instances of people getting their phones taken away at least temporarily for video taping police actions only to receive their phones back with the video deleted.