10 ms·

The FBI Is Wrong: Apple’s Encryption Is in the Public Interest

218 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago
> Comey went so far as to claim that Apple’s new system risks creating an environment in which the United States is “no longer a country governed by the rule of law. That made me laugh. As opposed to a country where several enforcement agencies including cops can spy on masses of people to their heart's content? It wasn't too long ago that cops could get someone's phone and look through it as much as they wanted. It took a battle to the Supreme Court to stop that from happening (hopefully). So I think there's a much higher chance it's them who are violating them law when the devices aren't encrypted, than the other way around. I'm glad at least some journalists are calling out FBI director's BS arguments. Others like Washington Post and NY Times seem more than happy to give him a platform on which he can spread his propaganda to millions. It's a good thing for him that spreading propaganda on US soil isn't illegal anymore, I guess.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  Any arguments about the rule of law from agencies that lie to courts and mislead them about how evidence was obtained so they can't be challenged on using illegal tactics are a mockery.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wnevets 12y ago
has the NSA commented yet?
- moggflunkies 12y ago
  Not yet, but the shilling will begin soon.
tn13 12y ago
What is in public interest is that these people must be fired from their jobs. Worrying about "rule of law" while wasting taxpayers money.
wfunction 12y ago
Intelligence agencies != law enforcement agencies The NSA != your police officers Just because encryption is a good technique to use against the NSA's surveillance that doesn't mean it's in the public interest in terms of law enforcement.
- slg 12y ago
  Completely agree. The tech community (including most HN readers) seems to be too closed minded about this subject. Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape. It means that our property goes from 4th amendment protections to 5th amendment protections. Whether you think that is a good idea is a matter of your own personal politics, but that change can't be easily dismissed. Could you imagine if there was some new lock technology that came along that forced everyone to abide by vampire rules. This lock would required police to obtain your express invitation to enter your home regardless of whether they had a warrant or not. Now imagine the uproar that would cause. That is exactly what this type of technology does for our phone.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Automatic document destruction devices have been around forever without causing a crisis.
  - opendais 12y ago
    Effectively unbreakable encryption [for the statute of limitations length of time] has been around for decades. This just means it easier.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape. It isn't a change at all. You have been able to anonymously rent a locker at a YMCA or a self-storage unit or a cabin in the woods since forever. Evidence of a crime stored there is inaccessible to law enforcement because they don't know where it is. There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't have the password." This is not a new thing.
graycat 12y ago
Ah, let's see: Here in the US we have a Constitution. Now I remember, once I downloaded a copy. Right, here it is. Hmm .... Okay, how about this part: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Note: I added the emphasis. Maybe I'd wish the emphasis would be letters 10 feet high with two pounds of black ink each, but I'm not seeing a way to do that on HN. Seems pretty clear to me. Now when I lived near DC, as I recall, the FBI HQ was not far from the National Archives with the original copy and also not far from the Supreme Court where, maybe, the FBI could get some eighth grade civics tutoring on what that part of the Constitution means. To me, what the part means is, in simple terms, keep your filthy, sticky hands the F off my stuff. That is, unless you have one of those warrant thingies. And I don't even own a mobile device. I sound pissed off? Right: A lot of really good people fought and died to give us the freedom to write and adopt that Constitution. To track mud all over it now is, in a word, a bummer, and that's putting it very mildly. The FBI needs to return and repeat eighth grade civics. I know; I know; apparently some people in the FBI would say that the Constitution was written long ago, and now the FBI has much, much, much more important things to worry about than those old fuddy duddies who wrote that old piece of paper and, besides, they didn't have smart phones then. Some people might say such things, but I don't go along, and we do have a way to get an answer -- that's just what the SCOTUS is there for, in this case for a reading comprehension lesson in eighth grade civics. That text I emphasized above is difficult to read and understand? Ah, now I get it, for some in the FBI, easy to read and understand but difficult to accept and easy to violate.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  This gets repeated incorrectly every time this issue comes up, but data you hand over to third parties isn't black and white and is subject to access from other entities.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    If information resides entirely on a phone which I own, which third party am I handing it over to? Am I handing over information to Moleskine when I write in a notebook I purchased?
jliptzin 12y ago
The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their communications. Default encryption on ios8 now protects the digital trail of an otherwise lazy criminal who is more than likely leaving breadcrumbs elsewhere and is largely involved only in petty affairs. Law enforcement just needs to go back to more traditional investigative tactics instead of invading everyone's privacy for the purpose of making their jobs a little easier.
- opendais 12y ago
  Yep. OpSec is more important than encryption anyway and PGP ahs been around forever. People could just use TextSecure too.
  - Canada 12y ago
    Right, but as it is you can't open an image from TextSecure without writing it outside the encrypted sqlite database. Encryption of all data at rest on the device goes a long way to making good opsec more practical and easily achievable.
    - opendais 12y ago
      If you are taking incriminating photos, you are doing something wrong.
      - erhardm 12y ago
        Maybe today they're not incriminating, but tomorrow they will be. Better safe than sorry, but you still want to live a "fairly normal" life.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 12y ago
  > The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their communications. I'm pretty sure that most people want the non-smart criminals caught, too. I certainly have not heard too many victims or relatives of victims of murder, sex crimes, hate crimes, robbery, gang violence, and the like say that they don't truly want their crimes solved because they were victimized by non-smart criminals.
michaellosee 12y ago
>(iOS 8) virtually eliminates the possibility that the encrypted data can be unlocked without the passcode. I am not the first to point out that it is stupidly easy to bruteforce passcodes that are based on digits (like many phone passcodes are). The FBI lamenting unbreakable phone encryption and the accompanying media buzz borders on farcical and is disingenuous given that there is still a backdoor on the iPhone[1] on port 62078. Am I missing anything? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470
- LeoNatan25 12y ago
  With TouchID in all new Apple devices, it is much easier now to have complex passcodes without sacrificing usability. Also, some of these vulnerabilities are slightly outdated with iOS8.
  - michaellosee 12y ago
    Thank you, I knew I was missing something. Also, I found that iOS 8 (mostly) fixed the backdoor: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820
- bsdetector 12y ago
  The secure area of the CPU contains a key that is combined with the passcode so the passcode by itself can only be tried on the actual device, which has speed and retry limits. If the data is copied off then the key is passcode + unknown number from secure area and the entire key length has to be brute forced (as if the user entered a longest, most random password possible). So even a 4-digit passcode with wipe on too many failures is secure except to hacking the OS from the lock screen, which is pretty difficult to do. Even then the cracking has to be done on the device, so while a 4-digit code could be cracked even a 6 character alphanumeric even will take days and longer passwords are basically uncrackable.
karmacondon 12y ago
The point that James Comey was trying to make is that we don't want to live in a world without warrants. The prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proof. It's difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt if key evidence is encrypted and cannot be retrieved, even with a lawful warrant. This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which means that all of us will be less safe. The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework. An example the FBI used is a stupid criminal kidnapping a child and leaving their encrypted phone behind somewhere. Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations. It's reasonable that the law enforcement should have some ability to access information with approval from the judiciary. We don't want to endanger ourselves in order to protect the banal communications on our cell phones or dissemble our legal system for the sake of keeping our sexting private.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. Sure they could. They might not be able to practically decrypt it, just as legal warrants wouldn't magically make them able to practically decrypt encrypted notes on paper in the same situation. > The bottom line is that our justice system is based around the idea that a lawful warrant allows law enforcement to search or seize anything that could be useful in a time sensitive investigation. Which encryption doesn't change. However, our legal system is not based around the idea that everyone has a positive obligation to surrender tools to a third party so that anytime law enforcement has a valid warrant to search and seize something, they also have a third-party other than the target they can go to in order to get assistance interpreting what they've seized. The fact that they ever had that ability with phones is simply an accident of the fundamentally broken approach to security taken previously with mobile phones, which also made them vulnerable without a legal warrant. The correction of that vulnerability may inconvenience law enforcement, but it does so in a way consistent with the inconveniences law enforcement has always faced with the hardcopy documents that were the primary form of data that they might seize for most of the time our legal system has existed, not in some way that is somehow novel or inconsistent with the history of our legal system.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
natch 12y ago
>...it is impossible to create a back door into an operating system that eliminates the possibility that other unauthorized access will occur... This idea of back doors being opened up to black-hat hackers seems to be the crux of the current leading argument against key escrow. Even the EFF is beating this drum. Bear with me, I'm not disagreeing with that argument, but isn't there another point to be made here? And that is: Key escrow systems ask us to assume that the current "good" guys in positions of authority will always remain good. Isn't that a bit too much of an assumption?
- pat2man 12y ago
  There is always a chance that the key will somehow get into the wrong hands, regardless of how "good" the organization that controls the keys is.
- nickff 12y ago
  I agree with you, but this argument seems to succeed with people of certain political orientations more than with others. Your argument requires a skeptical (or cynical) view of the (bureaucratic and political branches of) government, and possibly the voters; almost all libertarians would agree, while conservatives and neoliberals often do not (, they believe the government is capable of executing their vision of 'what should be').
- jchimney 12y ago
  they are always the 'good guys' until they are coming after you. I can imagine, a time when government would have requested comms from the Occupation movement. The problem is that they get to determine who the current enemy is. We all agree that the extremes are negative (i.e. ISIS, Narc Terr etc.) but what if a government is elected that decides that reproductive rights, equal pay, race equality, pot legalization etc. are an issue...Are you still ok with back doors? There would have been a time in the very near past that these things would have been a very powerful weapon in the authority's arsenal that would have stifled our culture's advancement (imho).
  - mcovey 12y ago
nickff 12y ago
I am not sure that people really comprehend what "the rule of law" means, because the FBI's use of the phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. From the Oxford English Dictionary (also used in the Wikipedia entry): "The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." "Rule of law" is more of a procedural guarantee for the citizenry than an assurance the people will abide by laws.
- davidp 12y ago
  Yes. It is used to contrast with "the rule of men." In Russia, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, the laws don't seem to matter very much; if Putin or the oligarchs/warlords/chavistas want things to be a certain way, there isn't much to stop them despite laws that in theory constrain them. That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society.
  - ethbro 12y ago
    "That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society." Not sure the rule-of-law / rule-of-men dichotomy with regards to measuring a free society is as clear cut. Civil disobedience, corporate political spending, judicial activism, selective legal enforcement at the local level, federal/state disagreement. These are not all good or all bad things.
    - barrkel 12y ago
      Rule of law is generally necessary, but not sufficient, for freedom, so far as we know human nature. Rule of men is capricious. Laws that are written up and known ahead of enforcement, and that are enforced fairly and impartially - that's rule of law. But the laws themselves may be unjust or otherwise problematic. That is, this is a lawful / chaotic axis, not a good / evil axis.
  - atmosx 12y ago
rrggrr 12y ago
One compromise position in this would be to extend the 5th amendment to include decrypted evidence, and to mandate backwards transparency in the FISA warrant and wiretap processes. The advantage would be a solution to law enforcement's 'ticking clock' scenario, and a solution to privacy advocate's concerns about investigative accountability. Some criminals would walk, but they would do so publicly exposed and ostracized for their misdeeds. This would be a bitter pill for privacy advocates and law enforcement to swallow, but the reality is that neither side wins in an environment of absolute privacy or absolute surveillance.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Absolute privacy is the natural order. Absolute surveillance requires suppression of knowledge. One is a lot more brittle and costly than the other.
Rapzid 12y ago
The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones, then smart phones, and then to distribute them to every adult in the country just to protect us all from each other. Before cell phones we were overrun by crimes of all nature; there was no hope and no stopping it. Now Apple has the nerve to implement features that might lock out law enforcement from information they have a god given right to? Information critical to preventing your neighbours from killing your children in the dead of night with impunity. Of all the ways we have to communicate and store information securely, it's cell phones that MUST have a law enforcement back door because reasons! And people have the nerve to COMPLAIN? I bet these same people will be up in arms when law enforcement wants back doors on our 24/7 encrypted voice box recorders @.@
- ziffyiffy 12y ago
  > The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones The government has every reason to have us all use as much technology as possible because whenever our life touches technology, it leaves a trace which will eventually be a part of your personal profile. I doubt that the Apple/Google encryption is a serious hurdle to the government. It's very likely that this is just a campaign to make the consumer trust these brands again because huge tech companies live (some maybe forced to live) in a symbiosis with government agencies. If the government doesn't want tech companies to unite and turn against it, which still hasn't happened yet and probably never will, then they must also give them something after/before they take something.
dustinfarris 12y ago
worth reposting ... """ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. """
mexicofail8888 12y ago
Social Scientist view. allegedly opinions will differ. 1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution 2.)Churches involved in politics 3.)Prohibition against alcohol 4.)rise of Organized Crime and big syndicates 5.)FBI under Hoover avoids Reno, Nevada and Meyer Lansky, Mob accountant. 6.)FUN FACT. Look up the FOIA records of FBI files on Meyer Lansky. that's the reason why Lansky did so much in the open, with few or NO ARRESTS or 'investigation'? 8.)FBI hoover is master of publicity and crackdown on 'bank robbers' who are small and flashy, but not the BIG PROHIBITION GAMBLING and DRINKING by organized crime. 10.)NO ENCRYPTION ALLOWED. Plenty of ID theft, likely money laundering, medical fraud which will bankrupt the country. SO THE ENTIRE WORLD DOES NOT NEED ENCRYPTION, nor basic Internet Security. 11.)Does NO encryption work in Mexico with the Mexico Organized Crime? No, why? a.)plenty of informants inisde the law enforcement b.)buy cheap one or two time use phones, which is too expensive for the average citizen. keep changing phones. c.)set up their own cell phone and radio communication towers. d.)use low tech children to run back and forth e.)other ways that the CITIZEN CANNOT use. .
- EliRivers 12y ago
  1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution Wasn't it that those "pilgrim fathers" who went to the new world at the time (i.e. the times of the colonies) went there because they wanted religious persecution? At the time, there was too much religious tolerance for their liking (particularly for those who had already tried living in Holland, notorious libertines even then) and by establishing a colony they could enforce their correct religion and not have to co-exist with others (which they promptly did, insisting on their own brand of protestantism).
xnull2guest 12y ago
"The defining characteristic and critical role of the state is maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As time progresses, technological advances change the way individuals and states engage in conflict, and it is incumbent on states to adjust their activities and policies to maintain their control over the use of coercive force. In the Information Age, the Department of Defense (DoD) must develop an understanding of cyberspace and determine its appropriate role in this new domain." - Nye, Toft

218 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

> Comey went so far as to claim that Apple’s new system risks creating an environment in which the United States is “no longer a country governed by the rule of law. That made me laugh. As opposed to a country where several enforcement agencies including cops can spy on masses of people to their heart's content? It wasn't too long ago that cops could get someone's phone and look through it as much as they wanted. It took a battle to the Supreme Court to stop that from happening (hopefully). So I think there's a much higher chance it's them who are violating them law when the devices aren't encrypted, than the other way around. I'm glad at least some journalists are calling out FBI director's BS arguments. Others like Washington Post and NY Times seem more than happy to give him a platform on which he can spread his propaganda to millions. It's a good thing for him that spreading propaganda on US soil isn't illegal anymore, I guess.

ObviousScience 12y ago
Any arguments about the rule of law from agencies that lie to courts and mislead them about how evidence was obtained so they can't be challenged on using illegal tactics are a mockery.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wnevets 12y ago

has the NSA commented yet?

moggflunkies 12y ago
Not yet, but the shilling will begin soon.

tn13 12y ago

What is in public interest is that these people must be fired from their jobs. Worrying about "rule of law" while wasting taxpayers money.

wfunction 12y ago

Intelligence agencies != law enforcement agencies The NSA != your police officers Just because encryption is a good technique to use against the NSA's surveillance that doesn't mean it's in the public interest in terms of law enforcement.

slg 12y ago
Completely agree. The tech community (including most HN readers) seems to be too closed minded about this subject. Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape. It means that our property goes from 4th amendment protections to 5th amendment protections. Whether you think that is a good idea is a matter of your own personal politics, but that change can't be easily dismissed. Could you imagine if there was some new lock technology that came along that forced everyone to abide by vampire rules. This lock would required police to obtain your express invitation to enter your home regardless of whether they had a warrant or not. Now imagine the uproar that would cause. That is exactly what this type of technology does for our phone.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Automatic document destruction devices have been around forever without causing a crisis.
- opendais 12y ago
  Effectively unbreakable encryption [for the statute of limitations length of time] has been around for decades. This just means it easier.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape. It isn't a change at all. You have been able to anonymously rent a locker at a YMCA or a self-storage unit or a cabin in the woods since forever. Evidence of a crime stored there is inaccessible to law enforcement because they don't know where it is. There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't have the password." This is not a new thing.

graycat 12y ago

Ah, let's see: Here in the US we have a Constitution. Now I remember, once I downloaded a copy. Right, here it is. Hmm .... Okay, how about this part: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Note: I added the emphasis. Maybe I'd wish the emphasis would be letters 10 feet high with two pounds of black ink each, but I'm not seeing a way to do that on HN. Seems pretty clear to me. Now when I lived near DC, as I recall, the FBI HQ was not far from the National Archives with the original copy and also not far from the Supreme Court where, maybe, the FBI could get some eighth grade civics tutoring on what that part of the Constitution means. To me, what the part means is, in simple terms, keep your filthy, sticky hands the F off my stuff. That is, unless you have one of those warrant thingies. And I don't even own a mobile device. I sound pissed off? Right: A lot of really good people fought and died to give us the freedom to write and adopt that Constitution. To track mud all over it now is, in a word, a bummer, and that's putting it very mildly. The FBI needs to return and repeat eighth grade civics. I know; I know; apparently some people in the FBI would say that the Constitution was written long ago, and now the FBI has much, much, much more important things to worry about than those old fuddy duddies who wrote that old piece of paper and, besides, they didn't have smart phones then. Some people might say such things, but I don't go along, and we do have a way to get an answer -- that's just what the SCOTUS is there for, in this case for a reading comprehension lesson in eighth grade civics. That text I emphasized above is difficult to read and understand? Ah, now I get it, for some in the FBI, easy to read and understand but difficult to accept and easy to violate.

res0nat0r 12y ago
This gets repeated incorrectly every time this issue comes up, but data you hand over to third parties isn't black and white and is subject to access from other entities.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  If information resides entirely on a phone which I own, which third party am I handing it over to? Am I handing over information to Moleskine when I write in a notebook I purchased?

jliptzin 12y ago

The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their communications. Default encryption on ios8 now protects the digital trail of an otherwise lazy criminal who is more than likely leaving breadcrumbs elsewhere and is largely involved only in petty affairs. Law enforcement just needs to go back to more traditional investigative tactics instead of invading everyone's privacy for the purpose of making their jobs a little easier.

opendais 12y ago
Yep. OpSec is more important than encryption anyway and PGP ahs been around forever. People could just use TextSecure too.
- Canada 12y ago
  Right, but as it is you can't open an image from TextSecure without writing it outside the encrypted sqlite database. Encryption of all data at rest on the device goes a long way to making good opsec more practical and easily achievable.
  - opendais 12y ago
    If you are taking incriminating photos, you are doing something wrong.
    - erhardm 12y ago
      Maybe today they're not incriminating, but tomorrow they will be. Better safe than sorry, but you still want to live a "fairly normal" life.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tzs 12y ago
> The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their communications. I'm pretty sure that most people want the non-smart criminals caught, too. I certainly have not heard too many victims or relatives of victims of murder, sex crimes, hate crimes, robbery, gang violence, and the like say that they don't truly want their crimes solved because they were victimized by non-smart criminals.

michaellosee 12y ago

>(iOS 8) virtually eliminates the possibility that the encrypted data can be unlocked without the passcode. I am not the first to point out that it is stupidly easy to bruteforce passcodes that are based on digits (like many phone passcodes are). The FBI lamenting unbreakable phone encryption and the accompanying media buzz borders on farcical and is disingenuous given that there is still a backdoor on the iPhone[1] on port 62078. Am I missing anything? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470

LeoNatan25 12y ago
With TouchID in all new Apple devices, it is much easier now to have complex passcodes without sacrificing usability. Also, some of these vulnerabilities are slightly outdated with iOS8.
- michaellosee 12y ago
  Thank you, I knew I was missing something. Also, I found that iOS 8 (mostly) fixed the backdoor: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820
bsdetector 12y ago
The secure area of the CPU contains a key that is combined with the passcode so the passcode by itself can only be tried on the actual device, which has speed and retry limits. If the data is copied off then the key is passcode + unknown number from secure area and the entire key length has to be brute forced (as if the user entered a longest, most random password possible). So even a 4-digit passcode with wipe on too many failures is secure except to hacking the OS from the lock screen, which is pretty difficult to do. Even then the cracking has to be done on the device, so while a 4-digit code could be cracked even a 6 character alphanumeric even will take days and longer passwords are basically uncrackable.

karmacondon 12y ago

The point that James Comey was trying to make is that we don't want to live in a world without warrants. The prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proof. It's difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt if key evidence is encrypted and cannot be retrieved, even with a lawful warrant. This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which means that all of us will be less safe. The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework. An example the FBI used is a stupid criminal kidnapping a child and leaving their encrypted phone behind somewhere. Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations. It's reasonable that the law enforcement should have some ability to access information with approval from the judiciary. We don't want to endanger ourselves in order to protect the banal communications on our cell phones or dissemble our legal system for the sake of keeping our sexting private.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. Sure they could. They might not be able to practically decrypt it, just as legal warrants wouldn't magically make them able to practically decrypt encrypted notes on paper in the same situation. > The bottom line is that our justice system is based around the idea that a lawful warrant allows law enforcement to search or seize anything that could be useful in a time sensitive investigation. Which encryption doesn't change. However, our legal system is not based around the idea that everyone has a positive obligation to surrender tools to a third party so that anytime law enforcement has a valid warrant to search and seize something, they also have a third-party other than the target they can go to in order to get assistance interpreting what they've seized. The fact that they ever had that ability with phones is simply an accident of the fundamentally broken approach to security taken previously with mobile phones, which also made them vulnerable without a legal warrant. The correction of that vulnerability may inconvenience law enforcement, but it does so in a way consistent with the inconveniences law enforcement has always faced with the hardcopy documents that were the primary form of data that they might seize for most of the time our legal system has existed, not in some way that is somehow novel or inconsistent with the history of our legal system.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

natch 12y ago

>...it is impossible to create a back door into an operating system that eliminates the possibility that other unauthorized access will occur... This idea of back doors being opened up to black-hat hackers seems to be the crux of the current leading argument against key escrow. Even the EFF is beating this drum. Bear with me, I'm not disagreeing with that argument, but isn't there another point to be made here? And that is: Key escrow systems ask us to assume that the current "good" guys in positions of authority will always remain good. Isn't that a bit too much of an assumption?

pat2man 12y ago
There is always a chance that the key will somehow get into the wrong hands, regardless of how "good" the organization that controls the keys is.
nickff 12y ago
I agree with you, but this argument seems to succeed with people of certain political orientations more than with others. Your argument requires a skeptical (or cynical) view of the (bureaucratic and political branches of) government, and possibly the voters; almost all libertarians would agree, while conservatives and neoliberals often do not (, they believe the government is capable of executing their vision of 'what should be').
jchimney 12y ago
they are always the 'good guys' until they are coming after you. I can imagine, a time when government would have requested comms from the Occupation movement. The problem is that they get to determine who the current enemy is. We all agree that the extremes are negative (i.e. ISIS, Narc Terr etc.) but what if a government is elected that decides that reproductive rights, equal pay, race equality, pot legalization etc. are an issue...Are you still ok with back doors? There would have been a time in the very near past that these things would have been a very powerful weapon in the authority's arsenal that would have stifled our culture's advancement (imho).
- mcovey 12y ago

nickff 12y ago

I am not sure that people really comprehend what "the rule of law" means, because the FBI's use of the phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. From the Oxford English Dictionary (also used in the Wikipedia entry): "The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." "Rule of law" is more of a procedural guarantee for the citizenry than an assurance the people will abide by laws.

davidp 12y ago
Yes. It is used to contrast with "the rule of men." In Russia, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, the laws don't seem to matter very much; if Putin or the oligarchs/warlords/chavistas want things to be a certain way, there isn't much to stop them despite laws that in theory constrain them. That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society.
- ethbro 12y ago
  "That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society." Not sure the rule-of-law / rule-of-men dichotomy with regards to measuring a free society is as clear cut. Civil disobedience, corporate political spending, judicial activism, selective legal enforcement at the local level, federal/state disagreement. These are not all good or all bad things.
  - barrkel 12y ago
    Rule of law is generally necessary, but not sufficient, for freedom, so far as we know human nature. Rule of men is capricious. Laws that are written up and known ahead of enforcement, and that are enforced fairly and impartially - that's rule of law. But the laws themselves may be unjust or otherwise problematic. That is, this is a lawful / chaotic axis, not a good / evil axis.
- atmosx 12y ago

rrggrr 12y ago

One compromise position in this would be to extend the 5th amendment to include decrypted evidence, and to mandate backwards transparency in the FISA warrant and wiretap processes. The advantage would be a solution to law enforcement's 'ticking clock' scenario, and a solution to privacy advocate's concerns about investigative accountability. Some criminals would walk, but they would do so publicly exposed and ostracized for their misdeeds. This would be a bitter pill for privacy advocates and law enforcement to swallow, but the reality is that neither side wins in an environment of absolute privacy or absolute surveillance.

Zigurd 12y ago
Absolute privacy is the natural order. Absolute surveillance requires suppression of knowledge. One is a lot more brittle and costly than the other.

Rapzid 12y ago

The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones, then smart phones, and then to distribute them to every adult in the country just to protect us all from each other. Before cell phones we were overrun by crimes of all nature; there was no hope and no stopping it. Now Apple has the nerve to implement features that might lock out law enforcement from information they have a god given right to? Information critical to preventing your neighbours from killing your children in the dead of night with impunity. Of all the ways we have to communicate and store information securely, it's cell phones that MUST have a law enforcement back door because reasons! And people have the nerve to COMPLAIN? I bet these same people will be up in arms when law enforcement wants back doors on our 24/7 encrypted voice box recorders @.@

ziffyiffy 12y ago
> The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones The government has every reason to have us all use as much technology as possible because whenever our life touches technology, it leaves a trace which will eventually be a part of your personal profile. I doubt that the Apple/Google encryption is a serious hurdle to the government. It's very likely that this is just a campaign to make the consumer trust these brands again because huge tech companies live (some maybe forced to live) in a symbiosis with government agencies. If the government doesn't want tech companies to unite and turn against it, which still hasn't happened yet and probably never will, then they must also give them something after/before they take something.

dustinfarris 12y ago

worth reposting ... """ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. """

mexicofail8888 12y ago

Social Scientist view. allegedly opinions will differ. 1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution 2.)Churches involved in politics 3.)Prohibition against alcohol 4.)rise of Organized Crime and big syndicates 5.)FBI under Hoover avoids Reno, Nevada and Meyer Lansky, Mob accountant. 6.)FUN FACT. Look up the FOIA records of FBI files on Meyer Lansky. that's the reason why Lansky did so much in the open, with few or NO ARRESTS or 'investigation'? 8.)FBI hoover is master of publicity and crackdown on 'bank robbers' who are small and flashy, but not the BIG PROHIBITION GAMBLING and DRINKING by organized crime. 10.)NO ENCRYPTION ALLOWED. Plenty of ID theft, likely money laundering, medical fraud which will bankrupt the country. SO THE ENTIRE WORLD DOES NOT NEED ENCRYPTION, nor basic Internet Security. 11.)Does NO encryption work in Mexico with the Mexico Organized Crime? No, why? a.)plenty of informants inisde the law enforcement b.)buy cheap one or two time use phones, which is too expensive for the average citizen. keep changing phones. c.)set up their own cell phone and radio communication towers. d.)use low tech children to run back and forth e.)other ways that the CITIZEN CANNOT use. .

EliRivers 12y ago
1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution Wasn't it that those "pilgrim fathers" who went to the new world at the time (i.e. the times of the colonies) went there because they wanted religious persecution? At the time, there was too much religious tolerance for their liking (particularly for those who had already tried living in Holland, notorious libertines even then) and by establishing a colony they could enforce their correct religion and not have to co-exist with others (which they promptly did, insisting on their own brand of protestantism).

xnull2guest 12y ago

"The defining characteristic and critical role of the state is maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As time progresses, technological advances change the way individuals and states engage in conflict, and it is incumbent on states to adjust their activities and policies to maintain their control over the use of coercive force. In the Information Age, the Department of Defense (DoD) must develop an understanding of cyberspace and determine its appropriate role in this new domain." - Nye, Toft