Use of Encryption Foiled the Cops a Record 9 Times In 2013

realized (2472730) writes "In nine cases in 2013, state police were unable to break the encryption used by criminal suspects they were investigating, according to an annual report on law enforcement eavesdropping released by the U.S. court system on Wednesday. That's more than twice as many cases as in 2012, when police said that they'd been stymied by crypto in four cases—and that was the first year they'd ever reported encryption preventing them from successfully surveilling a criminal suspect. Before then, the number stood at zero."

Comments

First post!

[GameboyRMH]

Rapelcgvba SGJ!

I smell a rat.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are obviously thousands of people using encryption because they have a legitimate reason to hide something, and criminals also have something to hide, so it stands to reason that they'd also use encryption.

So why aren't there more cases of encryption impeding an investigation? Possibilities:

1) Only stupid people (who don't use encryption) are caught - yeah, not with numbers /that/ low;

2) The numbers are being deliberately under-reported;

3) A lot of encryption is breakable or has backdoors;

4) Most people under investigation have software planted on computers or hardware keyloggers.

Re:I smell a rat.

[JimFive]

You forgot:

5) Most crimes leave evidence that is not on the criminal's computer.

Re:I smell a rat.

[rogoshen1]

that oblig xkcd comic about a heavy wrench defeating encryption is more likely.
"we'll drop the sentence to 1 year in prison if you give us the keys, or you can fight us, and we'll go for 25 to life."

(protip: the wrench can be a metaphor)

Re:I smell a rat.

[Shakrai]

There are obviously thousands of people using encryption because they have a legitimate reason to hide something

My hard drives are encrypted simply because my entire life is on them and I'd rather not have everything you need to steal my identity fall into the hands of whomever broke into my house and stole my PC. I take similar precautions with physical documents that could be used to the same end. My SSA card and Passport are kept in the Safe Deposit Box except when needed, other forms of ID are always kept on or near my person, so they're not apt to be stolen in a burglary.

I don't know or care if LUKS and Truecrypt are secure enough to resist access by a well resourced and competent government agency. They provide ample security for the threat vectors that I care about.

Most people under investigation have software planted on computers or hardware keyloggers.

This, along with other side channel attacks (social engineering, or even simply guessing the password, remembering that most people use easily guessable passwords) is the most likely explanation. If the United States Federal Government has ways of breaking modern ciphers they're not going to throw it away to secure mundane criminal convictions.

Re:I smell a rat.

[davydagger]

that is somewhat bullshit.

9 times out of 10, someone trying to crack your encryption is not going to be someone who is able to use that amount of leverage. Most likely they are going to subversively copy your data, or

As far as I am concerned, I don't need my encryption to completely uncrackable. If all encryption does is provide tamper evidence, and doesn't allow undetectable snooping I am OK.

Also, ability to crack encryption in an investigation/forced to decrypt for trial, is not the same as undetectable mass survailence. If all encryption does is force cops to go back to needing warrants and subopeanas, and due proccess, I think its done its job quite well.

Re:I smell a rat.

[Anonymous Coward]

>
> have a legitimate reason to hide something
>

A person does not ever require a "legitimate reason" to use encryption. A person can transmit information in any way he may see fit or in any way he may simply desire without needing a reason or explanation.

If I want to strongly encrypt a cooking recipe that I email to my grandmother, then it is my business and my business alone.

The point is that criminal intent or any other intent cannot/should not be inferred solely from the act of encryption.

Re:I smell a rat.

[roc97007]

> 6) The encrypted cellphone is thrown into the evidence bag and never looked at again because the arresting officer couldn't get it open.

Beat me to it. I'd put it more generally as "the police were stymied by encryption 2,316 times last year, but only recognized the fact nine times".

Re:I smell a rat.

[roc97007]

> 9 times out of 10, someone trying to crack your encryption is not going to be someone who is able to use that amount of leverage.

It's not about having that kind of leverage. In an interrogation, a cop is not required to tell you the truth. Never forget that.

Re:I smell a rat.

[nospam007]

"It's not about having that kind of leverage. In an interrogation, a cop is not required to tell you the truth. Never forget that."

It doesn't matter what the cop says, YOU have to shut your mouth.
Don't talk to the police, ever!
It can only hurt you.

Re:I smell a rat.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Your "burn safe" is vulnerable to denial of service. Say you lose the key, or the keypad is damaged; How do you get your documents? What if someone just hits it with a hammer until the system is activated, just to piss you off?

Scare tactics

[fustakrakich]

Public opinion needs to be turned against anything (such as the bill of rights) that could hinder the authorities.

They'd be stumped more often

[l0ungeb0y]

But so far, the only criminals using encryption are the smart ones who take precautions not to even become suspects in the first place. And just because the authorities were stymied by encryption, or that the suspects used encryption does not mean that the suspects were actually guilty of any crime. Personally, I'd much rather a few crimes go unsolved than live in an authoritarian Police State.

ItsATrap

[mysidia]

With 90% confidence; I estimate this is a trap. Police can defeat encryption, no problem, usually by coercing the defendant. The reports by the police themselves are geared at getting tougher anti-privacy/anti-encryption legislation and giving bad guys a false sense of security. The feds could likely have broken the encryption, no problem, the issue at hand just wasn't important enough to reveal the capability. Pretending not to have the capability gives politicians better ammunition when improving state powers for legal surveillance, and for forcing the hands of software providers to secretly include specified backdoor tech.

when police said that they’d been stymied by crypto in four cases—and that was the first year they’d ever reported encryption preventing them from successfully surveilling a criminal suspect. Before then, the number stood at zero.

Re:Correction...That you know of...

[wiredlogic]

I prime all my drives with GNU shred since its PRNG is faster than /dev/random and good enough for creating background noise. I've considered writing a program that exhibits statistical anomalies such as Benford's law or randomized MPEG blocks for kicks. Or maybe even valid MPEG encoded noisy frames of Goatse zooming in repeatedly.