Slashdot Mirror
FBI Chief: Apple, Google Phone Encryption Perilous
An anonymous reader writes The FBI is concerned about moves by Apple and Google to include encryption on smartphones. "I like and believe very much that we should have to obtain a warrant from an independent judge to be able to take the contents," FBI Director James Comey told reporters. "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." From the article: "Comey cited child-kidnapping and terrorism cases as two examples of situations where quick access by authorities to information on cellphones can save lives. Comey did not cite specific past cases that would have been more difficult for the FBI to investigate under the new policies, which only involve physical access to a suspect's or victim's phone when the owner is unable or unwilling to unlock it for authorities."
Exactly it's not like the government gave away weapons to criminals and then they started shooting people. Oh wait. Never Mind.
Yeah, here for our protection.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
For anybody interested, if you want to have an informed opinion of the topic you should read these articles from WaPo (Volokh Conspiracy) and Cato:
Orin Kerr, how iOS 8 thwarts lawful warrants, and has some goods and some bads. Series of three articles: [part 1] [part 2] [part 3].
Cato institute take: link.
the only thing that Kerr doesn't address is the snowden stuff, and how that may justify enhanced apple protections. apparently he thinks this is still too "tinfoil hat" for a deep consideration. whatever.
What are you, some kind of godless communist? Next thing I suppose you'll expect is the right of free speech and free assembly. We spent decades fighting the Bolsheviks just to have a bunch of lilly livered liberals whining about human rights and personal liberty? What is this world coming to?
His statements really have nothing to do with communism. His statements were authoritarian, which is a different beast.
By "forgetting" the key, you're placing yourself beyond the law.
Well no you might be in contempt of court, possibly you could be comitting the crime of obstruction of justice; if others followed your example it could even be inciting riot, yet none of thes would be "beyond the law". Seems likely that the courts will have to figure out where "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," ends and "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," begins, as how can the government force you to assist in gathering evidence for law enforcement.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Worse, it is not even true. Encryption places nobody above the law all it does do is ensure that you are aware of any legal attempt to access your encrypted data because they will need to get a court order to compel you to disclose the decryption key. Before electronic documents they used to have to do this in more or less the same way (get a search warrant for physical documents) so why can't they manage to do the same now?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
All "communist" countries were all about being authoritarian regimes, not about communism. So what is the difference again?
The same as the difference between communism and fascism. (Mussolini and Franco, both facist leaders, fought the Communists tooth and nail in their day.)
The same as the difference between communism and the Taliban. (The Taliban emerged from the fighters that overthrew the Communist regime in Afghanistan.)
The same as the difference between communism and monarchies. (It bears mentioning that one country...Russia...had its monarchies ended by Communism in a bloody civil war.)
The same as the difference between communism and National Socialism (Nazis..who hated communism pretty hard, by the way, and killed 25 million of them).
Saying that someone is the same as a communist because they are authoritarian is as far off the mark as saying two companies are the same because they are direct competitors in the same market. Communism is a subset of authoritarian government forms, not the same set, and it's not at all compatible or even friendly with most of the other forms of government that share its authoritarian characteristic. I know it feels good to throw words around that make someone sound bad, but really...if you want to be a truly active and useful participant in a democracy, you have to pull your head out of your ass and deal in terms of fucking reality.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
That's right, because Obama is to blame for everything bad and previous governments did nothing wrong. Especially not that shrub guy.
Change the subject to house keys and the company to Master Lock. Does Mr. Comey, who is employed by me and my fellow taxpayers, also disagree with strong locks on houses? "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Yes. That's one application, of many, for locks. They can also be used for securing my person, house, papers, and effects, as is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. I want to lock my house at night, not just to keep out the police but to keep out everyone who doesn't live here. I want to lock my phone at night for exactly the same reasons. Pity if that's an inconvenience to someone; frankly, I don't care.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The fourth amendment gives us the right to be secure in our "houses, papers and effects". Mobile phones contain pretty much everything that "papers" traditionally did.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The courts can not hold Apple in contempt, stop with the bullshit fear tactics.
We can demonstrate the Constitutionality of this with a safe lock analogy very easily.
The Constitution states exactly "Reasonable Search and Seizure". This means that a locksmith should try to open the safe door (at request and pay for services) if asked by the Government. If the owner reworked the lock or a very clever locksmith made the lock (which is exactly what encryption does) then the Locksmith can not be held liable for not being able to open the door. The cops have to try and break in to the door.
Further, if the owner of the safe has a booby trap causing the contents of the house to immediately incinerate when the door is force and the police have no evidence (which is again what Encryption does) that is not the Locksmith's fault.
In neither case can the Locksmith go to jail or be held liable for the lack of evidence.
I have already seen some of our Constitutionally challenged politicians trying to claim that encryption is equivalent to harboring, so sure the fight may come up. The analogy above easily demonstrates that it is not harboring. Assuming a fair Constitutional minded Judge this is a non-issue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The first link the person posted is what I copied the quote from. All 4 articles are fine examples of the continuance of COINTELPRO, and pure propaganda (not that I expect better from the commonly complicit Washington Post). In the first article GP linked, I counted 3 blatant lies in the first paragraphs, and several intentionally misleading statements.
First paragraph
1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.
2. Under the new operating system, however, Apple has devised a way to defeat lawful search warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption does not defeat warrants. Apples encryption removes them as a middle man, but does not defeat the exercise of a warrant in any way shape or form.
3. “Unlike our competitors,” Apple’s new privacy policy boasts, “Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data.”
LIE, Apple is not the only company developing and advertising user controlled encryption.
M-1. Warrants will go nowhere, as “it’s not technically feasible for [Apple] to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”
Misleading. As stated above Apple removes itself as a middle man but does not make execution of warrants impossible.
M-2. Anyone with any iPhone can download the new warrant-thwarting operating system for free, and it comes automatically with the new iPhone 6.
Misleading. Anyone with a supported Apple device can download and install any upgrade. Apple adding encryption did not change a well established practice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Apple has announced that it has designed its new operating system, iOS8, to thwart lawful search warrants.
The piece opens with a blatant lie.
Apple may not have designed it to thwart lawful search warrants but they certainly market it that way.
On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.
Source: https://www.apple.com/privacy/...
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold