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."
"What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law."
Well that's pretty rich considering the government has allowed lots of federal agencies to place themselves beyond the law.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” --Confucius
FBI Director James Commie.
Maybe if the government didn't abuse privacy and freedom at every turn they wouldn't be facing this situation.
What, exactly is he saying? That the constitutional right to privacy is illegal? Quote: 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." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for granting emergency access when lives are on the line, but I'd think people would be willing to decrypt devices in specific instances where they knew that someone's life was in danger not for some sort of blanket invasion of privacy to hunt for crime.
There are checks and balances in the system for a reason. Rights of every citizen to be protected. I am deeply sorry that the FBI feels that people protecting their data from prying eyes causes them difficulty in doing their jobs. However, it is the job they signed up for, and the laws they swore to uphold.
If the feds come to me with a valid warrant to decrypt my phone -- I'll do it -- rather than risk contempt of court. Their warrant better say what they are looking for.
Anybody else wants to look at it -- they can suck it.
Police & other government agencies have been snooping on suspects' phones for too long, without a warrant, and that is in direct contradiction to this:
"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."
That is the fourth amendment to the constitution, and it remains the law of this land. No, you cannot search my phone without a warrant.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Considering the FBI's long and rich history of fascism and acting against the US Bill of Rights (starting with Hoover, and going downhill from there), not to mention the NSA's rampant (and blatantly illegal) domestic spying....
I'll damn well act against their silly rules and regulations any well damn time I feel like it.
Every American should be encrypting the hell out of anything they own, and demanding that companies do likewise with their products and services. The sooner we render the Gestapo and Stasi impotent, the better.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Yes, there is a cost to privacy. Some lives may be lost as a result of increased privacy and due process. I think most people are okay with that.
Yeah, how dear people use the fourth and fifth amendments, what do they think it's there for?
Seriously, though, how can he stand there and say there's something wrong with companies responding to a market demand for technology that enables people to protect their rights. Encryption is not a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to remain silent, the government has no right to force you to unlock your door (or decrypt your phone) or to know what's inside unless they're able to show probable cause.
It's probably incredibly naive of me to believe in such quaint ideas though... All hail our benevolent overlords, all hail!
Odd that he didn't mention the FBI's past history of spying on congressmen, presidents, cabinet secretaries, etc. for Hoover's personal files. Think of the children, meh. Think of the Constitution.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If it pisses off some FBI Chief, you know it must be good. (Either that or it is vunerable to the FBI and the Chief is just clueless.)
"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"
A better opener might be to point to the cases where NSA, CIA, and FBI employees have been prosecuted for violating the constitutional REQUIREMENT (not just a "like") before whining about some of the gaping privacy gaps getting patched up. Oh, wait, there aren't violators being punished, just whistle blowers? Funny that.
Now please leave us alone as we attempt to regain some of our privacy from you damn peeping toms.
"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" of course he didn't cite specific cases because there are NONE. this is the same pathetic unsupported excuse that law enforcement has been rolling out to put fear in the lemmings of the USA. the founders of this country knew, from past experience with Britain, that the worst enemy of the public is their own government. they put in the constitution and amendments to the constitution laws that "should" prevent the government from persecuting the public. now that the public is finally getting the technology to combat an out of control law enforcement, these clowns are whining that it make their jobs harder. and then make up unsubstantiated stories about how this will "hurt" the general public. get off your butts and get a warrant if you want to invade someone's privacy. warrant-less invasion of privacy is unconstitutional, period.
Yea it's by it's very definition of irony.
"What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.
Really? I'm pretty sure the past year of leaks have showed the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and even local law enforcement are constantly operating above the law! If anything, encryptable cellphones allow people to keep their 4th amendment rights!
The Police (and the NSA) need to follow the 99% rule. Follow the laws always, except in the 1% case where you have a greater need- like catching that terrorist who plants bombs in our cities. When (not if) the people find out about the 1% law breaking they will accept it, as a rare and justified measure to protect them. When the police systematically break the laws without good cause when the people find out they will lose all respect for all the laws. And once the people don't respect the laws they don't FOLLOW the laws, and the government loses their ability to rule.
This isn't just about the government invading peoples' rights. This is also about basic data security.
These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures). If the contents of the phone are not encrypted, then anybody who gets their hands on the phone can access that information. This is extremely unsafe. I could easily imagine somebody building small, hand-held device which will plug into an iOS or Android phone and download its contents within a minute or two (such devices may already exist, I don't know, I haven't looked). All you'd need is for somebody to leave their phone unattended for a short time, and all of their data could be lost.
So what the FBI is really asking here is for people to never be safe with their data. They're not just asking for the ability to look at your information, if they were to be listened to, your information wouldn't be safe from anybody else either.
What the hell did these guys do before smartphones existed? Oh yeah, that's right, WORK FOR A LIVING.
Policing is only easy in a police state.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
If the FBI, NSA et al was really thinking about the children, they would be thinking how important it is for our children to have a constitution that's enforced.
Exactly this! What is frightening in my opinion is that the Director of the FBI can be paraphrased as "Your Constitutional Rights are Above the Law". Before you say it, I agree he is not alone and numerous politicians should be banished for their attacks against our natural rights.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A warrant is the legal right for authorities to search yourself and your possessions at a particular location. Whether successful or not, whether they gain access or not is arbitrary. Just like apparently the requirement they return the searched property to it's original state and not apply a state sanctioned free of court review punishment by 'trashing' the property, especially considering how destructive they could be in the search for a micro SD card (demolition of the property and sifting of the rubble and then walking away with a meh).
So lawful warrants are not thwarted, the right to search does not imply the right to a successful search, that failure to achieve a successful search is an indication that the search warrant was unfairly and falsely granted. Access is the problem of those conducting the search and not the victims of the search. The victim of the search is not required to assist in the search, not required to tear apart their own furniture, empty their own cupboards, smash open their appliances, nor destroy plates their and cups or throw their own clothes on the ground after ripping them open.
The search warrant is a notice to the victim of the search of the right of the authorities to conduct the search. If the victim does not unlock the door, authorities may use other methods, the laws governing minimum force require that they contact a lock smith and not use a battering ram to smash open the door. However, as of course as the search warrant is all to often used as a method of punishment for a perceived lack of cooperation and or perceived lack respect for authorities, any idea of adhering to minimum force laws are corruptly ignored.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Apple has announced that it has designed its new operating system, iOS8, to thwart lawful search warrants.
The piece opens with a blatant lie. Here is your Logic lesson for the day. "If the premise is a lie, so is the conclusion."
Don't waste your time with propaganda, we are smarter than that.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Dear Retard,
The purpose of mod points is to affect the visibility of certain posts for the benefit of Slashdot readership. Whether they are anonymous or not is irrelevant to that stated goal. Mod points are NOT intended to reward or punish user IDs, except for ass masters like you.
HTH
Because it's harder and would require real police work. Without encryption they can look then claim they didn't after they use the information to determine a way to construct probable cause using parallel construction. This is why some people think parallel construction is an end run around warrants and the constitution.
How does a post saying something as ludicrous as: "If the premise is a lie, so is the conclusion." followed by " we are smarter than that." get modded up for anything but "Funny".
"Informative"? The only thing that is infomative is that "S.Petry, Senior System Engineer/Architect" is a nitwit and that at least one moderator is incompetent.
I wish I had mod points ...:)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not sure what the DOJ did over the past few months, but whatever it was must have been seriously heinous to get Apple and Google to work together against them. I mean, we've only been demanding encrypted email communication for what, twenty years? And all of a sudden, Apple's DOJ abuse canary comes down, and Apple and Google are scrambling to encrypt everything.
Why do I have a feeling that Eric Holder's resignation is just the tip of the iceberg?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.