5 ms·

Intelligence agencies != law enforcement agencies The NSA != your police officers Just because encryption is a good technique to use against the NSA's surveil

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.
  - wfunction 12y ago
    > There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't have the password." I think you forget you're living in the real world. There is also no practical difference between accidental and intentional murder, so by your logic we should treat those the same way too.
- amirmc 12y ago
  D'you think such locks (fortresses?) don't already exist?
icebraining 12y ago
Can the two be separated, though? It's not like there's some magic encryption system that only lets LEOs access the content.
- xux 12y ago
  There's no point separating the two technologically, if one can legally say to the other "give me the data you found".
- walshemj 12y ago
  They should be in my opinion keep coppers separate from the spooks split the resposabities of the secret service and the FBI and have a separate service like MI5 and a Purely Police federal force I would merge the BATF into this
opendais 12y ago
Given the police officers and law enforcement agencies are just as bad as the NSA in many jurisdictions, I'm not sure I see the difference. Ever heard of civil forfeiture or someone's camera getting 'broken' after being seized for taking pictures? It is more important the rights of the innocent are protected than the law enforcement system be enabled to catch the guilty. Do realize I say this as someone who has had his home broken into with him in it and the guy was never caught. I've had family members who were robbed and no one was caught either. The cops responses was basically "Eh, we can't take the time to look for your $X,XXX worth of property" essentially and you didn't end up in the hospital.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  The NSA doesn't shoot black teenagers in the back, so I'd say they compare quite well to the police. 9% of homicides in Nevada are police shootings. We don't have figures for the most of the US because law enforcement agencies refuse to provide them. (This is illegal, but because congress did not provide for enforcement, it just goes on.)
  - opendais 12y ago
    No, the NSA just helps target drone strikes and such.... Everyone counts or no one does.
    - Tloewald 12y ago
      That would be the CIA, but fair point.
      - opendais 12y ago
        http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5396920/drone-strikes-have-killed-innocents-with-nsa-data http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5396920/drone-strikes-have... "An anonymous former drone operator for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) told The Intercept — a new publication helmed by Glenn Greenwald, who broke the first of many NSA revelations last year — that the US military and CIA use the NSA's metadata analysis and phone-tracking abilities to identify airstrike targets without confirming their veracity on the ground. The claims were corroborated by documents provided by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden." Eh? You sure the NSA doesn't help provide targeting data?
electromagnetic 12y ago
Except that this kind of encryption is in the public interest in terms of law enforcement. We have rights against unreasonable searches, we have rights to freedom of thought and expression. We would not have had a civil rights movement if the FBI and local law enforcement could have been monitoring everyone's communication. We would not have legal alcohol today were it not directly because of the polices limited effectiveness against crime. Our greatest reduction in crime came directly from legalization of alcohol and that would not have happened if the government had the control we're talking about handing over to police forces. It's in the public's interest to keep the public safe from the government. We have the lowest crime rates in history, this is not the time to hand the police more power. This is the time it will be abused and used to imprison people who do not deserve it. Do we want every college kid going to jail because he texts his friend he's got a fresh Oz of weed? It is every single persons moral duty to commit civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. We will not have civil disobedience without freedom against unreasonable searches.
- wfunction 12y ago
  We have rights against unreasonable searches, not undesirable searches.
  - amirmc 12y ago
    Who defines reasonable? My guess is that it'll be the ones with the power and it'll suit their needs over anyone elses.
    - wfunction 12y ago
      Same kinds of people as the ones the Constitution referred to when it was written?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Our rights are not enumerated.
    - 12y ago
phaus 12y ago
The FBI recently rewrote its mission statement to reflect that fact that it is now an intelligence agency in addition to being a law enforcement organization. It has been operating as an intelligence agency for a long time, they just finally decided to own up to it. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts
Zigurd 12y ago
They are one and the same now. Parallel construction is the fig leaf on that ugly reality.
AlisdairO 12y ago
The problem is that techniques like this appear to be the only reasonable defense against abuse by the NSA. Collateral damage to more legitimate (limited, targeted, warranted) law enforcement is an unfortunate result, but fundamentally it's come about as a result of massive governmental overreach and abuse of trust. If law enforcement agencies want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, they should also be hoping for the overreach to end - not just blaming tech companies.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  It's not a defense against the NSA at all. The iPhone encryption that's being debated only protects data physically residing on the phone itself. When was the last time the NSA had your phone in its possession?
  - AlisdairO 12y ago
    Good point! I was speaking about more pervasive encryption in general, and it's fair to say I didn't consider the topic in question sufficiently before replying. That said, It's worth pointing out that the NSA is known to have been active in exploiting endpoints, not just retrieving data from google/facebook/whatever. Of course it's questionable whether this would provide any substantial protection against such an exploitation.

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.
- wfunction 12y ago
  > There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't have the password." I think you forget you're living in the real world. There is also no practical difference between accidental and intentional murder, so by your logic we should treat those the same way too.
amirmc 12y ago
D'you think such locks (fortresses?) don't already exist?

icebraining 12y ago

Can the two be separated, though? It's not like there's some magic encryption system that only lets LEOs access the content.

xux 12y ago
There's no point separating the two technologically, if one can legally say to the other "give me the data you found".
walshemj 12y ago
They should be in my opinion keep coppers separate from the spooks split the resposabities of the secret service and the FBI and have a separate service like MI5 and a Purely Police federal force I would merge the BATF into this

opendais 12y ago

Given the police officers and law enforcement agencies are just as bad as the NSA in many jurisdictions, I'm not sure I see the difference. Ever heard of civil forfeiture or someone's camera getting 'broken' after being seized for taking pictures? It is more important the rights of the innocent are protected than the law enforcement system be enabled to catch the guilty. Do realize I say this as someone who has had his home broken into with him in it and the guy was never caught. I've had family members who were robbed and no one was caught either. The cops responses was basically "Eh, we can't take the time to look for your $X,XXX worth of property" essentially and you didn't end up in the hospital.

Tloewald 12y ago
The NSA doesn't shoot black teenagers in the back, so I'd say they compare quite well to the police. 9% of homicides in Nevada are police shootings. We don't have figures for the most of the US because law enforcement agencies refuse to provide them. (This is illegal, but because congress did not provide for enforcement, it just goes on.)
- opendais 12y ago
  No, the NSA just helps target drone strikes and such.... Everyone counts or no one does.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    That would be the CIA, but fair point.
    - opendais 12y ago
      http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5396920/drone-strikes-have-killed-innocents-with-nsa-data http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5396920/drone-strikes-have... "An anonymous former drone operator for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) told The Intercept — a new publication helmed by Glenn Greenwald, who broke the first of many NSA revelations last year — that the US military and CIA use the NSA's metadata analysis and phone-tracking abilities to identify airstrike targets without confirming their veracity on the ground. The claims were corroborated by documents provided by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden." Eh? You sure the NSA doesn't help provide targeting data?

electromagnetic 12y ago

Except that this kind of encryption is in the public interest in terms of law enforcement. We have rights against unreasonable searches, we have rights to freedom of thought and expression. We would not have had a civil rights movement if the FBI and local law enforcement could have been monitoring everyone's communication. We would not have legal alcohol today were it not directly because of the polices limited effectiveness against crime. Our greatest reduction in crime came directly from legalization of alcohol and that would not have happened if the government had the control we're talking about handing over to police forces. It's in the public's interest to keep the public safe from the government. We have the lowest crime rates in history, this is not the time to hand the police more power. This is the time it will be abused and used to imprison people who do not deserve it. Do we want every college kid going to jail because he texts his friend he's got a fresh Oz of weed? It is every single persons moral duty to commit civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. We will not have civil disobedience without freedom against unreasonable searches.

wfunction 12y ago
We have rights against unreasonable searches, not undesirable searches.
- amirmc 12y ago
  Who defines reasonable? My guess is that it'll be the ones with the power and it'll suit their needs over anyone elses.
  - wfunction 12y ago
    Same kinds of people as the ones the Constitution referred to when it was written?
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Our rights are not enumerated.
  - 12y ago

phaus 12y ago

The FBI recently rewrote its mission statement to reflect that fact that it is now an intelligence agency in addition to being a law enforcement organization. It has been operating as an intelligence agency for a long time, they just finally decided to own up to it. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts

Zigurd 12y ago

They are one and the same now. Parallel construction is the fig leaf on that ugly reality.

AlisdairO 12y ago

The problem is that techniques like this appear to be the only reasonable defense against abuse by the NSA. Collateral damage to more legitimate (limited, targeted, warranted) law enforcement is an unfortunate result, but fundamentally it's come about as a result of massive governmental overreach and abuse of trust. If law enforcement agencies want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, they should also be hoping for the overreach to end - not just blaming tech companies.

csandreasen 12y ago
It's not a defense against the NSA at all. The iPhone encryption that's being debated only protects data physically residing on the phone itself. When was the last time the NSA had your phone in its possession?
- AlisdairO 12y ago
  Good point! I was speaking about more pervasive encryption in general, and it's fair to say I didn't consider the topic in question sufficiently before replying. That said, It's worth pointing out that the NSA is known to have been active in exploiting endpoints, not just retrieving data from google/facebook/whatever. Of course it's questionable whether this would provide any substantial protection against such an exploitation.