Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Want to Keep Messages From the Feds? Use iMessage

Posted by timothy on from the disinformation-brought-to-you-by-the-afl-cia dept.

According to an report at CNET, "Encryption used in Apple's iMessage chat service has stymied attempts by federal drug enforcement agents to eavesdrop on suspects' conversations, an internal government document reveals. An internal Drug Enforcement Administration document seen by CNET discusses a February 2013 criminal investigation and warns that because of the use of encryption, 'it is impossible to intercept iMessages between two Apple devices' even with a court order approved by a federal judge." The article goes on to talk about ways in which the U.S. government is pressuring companies to leave peepholes for law enforcement in just such apps, and provides some insight into why the proprietary iMessage is (but might not always be) a problem for eavesdroppers, even ones with badges. Adds reader adeelarshad82, "It turns out that encryption is only half of the problem while the real issue lies in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed in 1994.

9 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by T-Bucket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I had just figured out how to eavesdrop on imessages, this is JUST the sort of thing I would make public....

  2. A state where police work is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is also known as a "police state."

    1. Re:A state where police work is easy... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, let me introduce you to the Patriot Act.

  3. Easy Police Work is not a Constitutional Right by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A security hole left open for the good guys is also a security hole left open for the bad guys.

    1. Re:Easy Police Work is not a Constitutional Right by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And "law enforcement" can be either.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  4. Seriously now by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you believe, even for a second, that the feds can't read iMessages, you are just the deathstick dealer they are looking for.

    Y'all know about this, right?

    Here a money quote from an article in Wired:

    the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US

    Yeah... that really fits in perfectly with "can't read iMessages", lol.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Seriously now by Old97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology available to intelligence agencies like NSA is not always made available to law enforcement.

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    2. Re:Seriously now by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology available to intelligence agencies like NSA is not always made available to law enforcement.

      Exactly, if the NSA does have the ability to crack encryption thought to be uncrackable by the rest of the world, there's no way they'd let that ability be used for any public law enforcement cases -- they'd keep it closely guarded and would only use it for top-secret intelligence gathering.

    3. Re:Seriously now by rhekman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While nothing technical is stopping an intelligence agency from passing on criminal tips to LEOs, there are legal road blocks to doing so. At least in the U.S. there are supposed to be restrictions on federal agencies spying on private citizens. More importantly though, our federal Constitution, state laws, and over 900 years of English common-law heritage guarantee one's right to face your accuser. Unless the originating agency can prove where and how they intercepted some communication, and it wasn't obtained as part of an unreasonable search or seizure, any such evidence is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

      --
      I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.