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."
Oh won't somebody think of the children.
"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.
No drug dealers? No money launderers?
Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
See that "Preview" button?
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
Fuck off, I don't give you permission to download my phone contents nor do I give you permission ICE agents to copy my laptop contents. The information on my devices belongs to me and not to you. If you have a suspicion of a crime and need my data, get a warrant fucksticks!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
It is not okay to use the same, tired old memes to justify continued use of Orwellian surveillance techniques.
You TLAs have proven, time and time again, that you cannot be trusted to wield this type of power responsibly. I would prefer a little less safety in exchange for more freedom.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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!
what if a knife company sold a coated knife that nothing would stick to... even blood.
for all the chefs that cut themselves while wiping off knives, they would love it... less reason to have to wipe off the knife, and when they do, less clean up.
would the FBI consider such technology as perilous? blood on the murder weapon is strong evidence for the truth, and to the officers who have planted blood evidence.
If i had any trust left for the government of the usa i might buy into that line about "saving lives". Unfortunately my governdent has gone far too far -and that is said from just what is known, i suspect there is an even darker element to the spying, tracking, analyzing and manipulating. Who watches the watch dog? Lacking confidence in oversight, i say nay to near everything which comes out of this corrupted governdent.
>>>"I like and believe very much that we should be able to take the contents,"
Do you also believe in the Santa Claus?
In closing, fuck you. No.
"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.
Does he really think it's about people placing themselves beyond the law? Is he so dense that he can't see this in the context of recent history? Hell, of current events, really.
The US Federal Govt. has shown that it's happy to ignore the 4th ammendment when collecting information about Americans, to say nothing of the billions of non-Americans who make up the bulk of Apple's customers and Google's users.
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?
I guess they want to make it illegal to protect yourself and your data from intruders and thieves.
Zieg Heil, Mein Fuhrer!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
"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.
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.
"Comey cited damned near every other case as examples of situations where quick access by authorities to information on cellphones can damage lives."
Oh wait.. he didn't mention that part.
You notice lately how serious security flaws in widely used open source libraries have been exposed lately? Google brought the openSSL issue to light and bash's vulnerability was exposed by RedHat. I wonder if there isn't a new push to lock down the obvious back doors.
Similarly, the FBI has indicated its displeasure with the manufacturers of another new product intended to thwart law enforcement officials from keeping all Americans, but especially the children, safe.
"This new product will make our job much more difficult. Honest people, true Americans, with nothing to hide, should have no need for such a product."
Despite such warnings, the sales of drapes and Venetian blinds have been brisk.
I remember when I read in the summary that the FBI chief was all for needing a warrant. I guess the point is that the FBI wants to be able to snoop through a phone with just a warrant and not a warrant *and* cooperation of the phone's owner to provide the decryption keys.
Maybe for a change the police should try "to obtain a warrant from an independent judge". They might discover it's not a difficult as they think it is.
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 are you, some kind of godless communist? "
Of course not. I'm a godless anarchist.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
That "beyond the law" comment is outrageous. For that man, "too much privacy" is "beyond the law."
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril. Sir Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.
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?
There you go!
"The Damn TSA and traffic stops doing warrantless examination of hard drive and cell phone contents have ruined it for the rest of us".
Very sad.
Come(d)y
I know, I know, I won't be laughing when terrorists blow up the moon with ballistic volatile undergarments and the whole Earth is destroyed.
Sure about that?
Citation: Know Your Rights!
If the police ask for my encryption keys or passwords, do I have to turn them over?
A: No. The police can't force you to divulge anything. However, a judge or a grand jury may be able to. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to give the government self-incriminating testimony. If turning over an encryption key or password triggers this right, not even a court can force you to divulge the information. But whether that right is triggered is a difficult question to answer. If turning over an encryption key or password will reveal to the government information it does not have (such as demonstrating that you have control over files on a computer), there is a strong argument that the Fifth Amendment protects you. If, however, turning over passwords and encryption keys will not incriminate you, then the Fifth Amendment does not protect you. Moreover, even if you have a Fifth Amendment right that protects your encryption keys or passwords, a grand jury or judge may still order you to disclose your data in an unencrypted format under certain circumstances. If you find yourself in a situation where the police are demanding that you turn over encryption keys or passwords, let EFF know.
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
So which does he prefer? This way he get to keep the backdoors that have been slipped in - just can't use them for evidence. The alternative is no backdoors. Great publicity for the firms; the FBI complaining they are secure. Anyone would think this has been choreographed...
So he's saying that he's fine with the FBI needing warrants, but when it comes to encryption HO CRAP NO THAT'S ABOVE THE LAW. Next, the FBI will be saying that locks and safes are above the law because they delay law enforcement's access to _______. Great stuff, bravo, good hustle..
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
The thing that always baffles* me about these government agencies wanting to broaden their powers in the name of "terrorists" or "child porn" or whatever the current boogeyman is, is the fact that all of these groups are statistically insignificant. I would guess that you could round up every single child pornographer on the planet and you wouldn't even need a single United States maximum security prison to hold them. They are not a statistical threat to our country, our way of life or, really, our children. They are aberrations. Sure, on a small scale they can cause real and very unfortunate damage, but these are not people that are going to destroy our society. Their crimes are more offensive than that of, say, a car thief but, a car thieves crimes and a child pornographers crimes are about equally as likely to destabilize our society. I can't understand why we need to treat them any differently than a common criminal*.
* It doesn't actually baffle me and I do understand why we treat them differently than a common criminal: Because those in power want to retain that power and the best way to do that is to make sure the unwashed masses don't try to overthrow their masters. A scapegoat that convinces the unwashed masses to submit to ever increasing authoritarianism is the least violent way to enslave them.
I'm thinking of a future sci-fi scenario where a person who refuses to "cooperate" with a federal investigation is compelled to undergo a mind probe to ferret out the "criminal" data in his neurons. Seriously, we're already cybernetic in that a smartphone or PC can already be considered an extension of our brains, an additional storage pool for our memories. Where goes the right to remain silent? At most an uncooperative witness or suspect should be made to choose between jail time or unlocking his smart phone (which I see as the cybernetic equivalent of testifying).
I actually agree with him as the ability to seize information quickly when done right can save lives. HOWEVER, the people to blame for the removal of this ability is the US government for repeated abuses of everyone's rights and privacy. The US has proven they cannot be trusted with the ability to follow due process so you can hardly blame consumers and companies for looking to implement ways to remove their ability to gain any access regardless of process.
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?
Had "obtain a warrant" been their approach leading up to now, maybe encryption-everywhere wouldn't be gaining traction.
I am not a sig.
Increasingly, one's digital devices are becoming an extension of one's memory. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself using your biological memories. Why should you be required to testify against yourself using your digital ones? Encryption and privacy are not crimes.
Yeah, Director Cormey, I'm sure you like the current procedure where you just obtain a warrant from an "independent" magistrate, a.k.a former prosecutor R. Stamp, even after the fact if you need to. Especially if you can do it based on an "anonymous tip" courtesy of your buddies over in the NSA. I'm sure that makes you feel good when you put on your Judge Dredd costume and run around a hotel bedroom screaming "I AM THE LAW" (BTW the "escort" you hired to watch this performance isn't REALLY impressed, you know)
Too bad. Enough abuses by criminals and governments (but I repeat myself) have finally gotten the encryption idea going, even among corporate behemoths. Next will be end-to-end encryption of voice as a matter of course. What will you ever do when you can't just touch a key and listen to anything you want? You might have to do some actual... work!
I wish I had mod points ...:)
... "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. ...
Unfortunately his statement is not reflective of the government's behavior over the past few years.
.
If the government had obtained warrants when they wanted to browse through peoples' emails and conversations (on the phone, on the network, or in the datacenter), then I doubt if google and apple would have seen the need to take this step.
I hope they make it work properly this time. I turned it on and it was unreliable and so I turned it off and still had problems for months until I found the hidden file they hadn't deleted.
There is no way they can come with a valid warrant forcing you to decrypt your phone. If they can prove there's evidence on that phone, they already have it. If they can't prove it, you would be assisting in your own conviction and you can't be forced to do so. Unless the constitution is changed, there can't be a law that will make any warrant to decrypt your phone legal and valid.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
More than half the trouble is that new laws are being passed with little or no public knowledge that are undercutting our democratic system. The Patriot Act made so much of the stuff "legal" without nearly enough scrutiny. Our laws have become perverse, and their enforcement is equally perverse (bye-bye Eric Placeholder). So the 99% rule is being followed more than we would like to realize, thanks to the like of the FISA court. Somehow we need to get our laws to reflect the will of the People again, and not that of the puppet masters (some obvious, many less so).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm having trouble understanding how "device" encryption is supposed to work or why the FBI cares.
Are people going to be entering strong passwords at startup or are decryption keys going to be stored on the device?
If their going to be kept on device then any TLA who cares will have access to them anyway.
If it is going to be something the user enters on a mobile phone with no keyboard it will be brute forced and any TLA who cares will have access to that data anyway.
It's time to demand that Fourth Amendment rights be taken as seriously as Second Amendment rights. That's starting to happen.
"What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law."
I've yet to see any of these devices marketed as allowing people to place themselves beyond the law. Law enforcement are the only ones pushing the idea that the only purpose is to circumvent the law. Of course, the lapdog media has no problem reprinting the "encryption is for criminals" message.
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
"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,"
The citizens would like and believe that very much too
But that isn't really what's happening, now is it?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
From the article.
Hmm, where have I seen something like this before... Oh wait, I know!
-- Hitler, Mein Kampf
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
They can remotely reprogram just about any phone on the market, whether a smartphone or not, and Apple is not going to (be able to) change anything about that. Surveillance is based on traffic analysis and, if necessary for targetted surveillance, on controlling the endpoints.
Remember when the police claimed to have so many troubles in the 90s because criminals were allegedly using "hard to trace" cell phones with throwaway sim cards, whereas in reality they could pinpoint their exact location and turn the phones into bugs at any time? Well, this situation hasn't changed at all.
Authority does not care about saving lives. Authority only really cares about always having the means to be able to catch those questioning authority.
Dear FBI,
Just because I choose to prevent your abusive use of e-binoculars to watch me by putting up an e-fence, doesn't mean I'm a pedophile, child pornographer, or terrorist. It means I value my privacy and that I don't trust you.
Please stop abusing your powers.
Thanks,
Me
All encryption is instantly breakable by anyone in under 30 seconds. Less if you have tattoos.
How do you come to the conclusion that "do not expect" is a refusal? The words chosen for statements are usually intentional, at least try to comprehend their meaning next time.
The majority of the signature has been the same for about 15 years, and its an exceptional troll detector. Trolls that attack people personally instead of arguing points are very easy to spot.
Yes, I detect you as a troll but decided to point out your inability to comprehend a very simple statement.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I am starting to think that all these articles about how worried the U.S. entities are soooo worried about data encryption being turned on by default, are just meant to lull the general public into thinking that they are safe from the NSA spying programs once again. In truth, encryption is just a minor bump in the road for them.
Of course he did.
Because the argument goes that in order to prevent terrorism and protect the children, everybody must give up their existing rights to make it possible for law enforcement.
The problem is that law enforcement is also using these expanded powers for things well beyond that.
When they start throwing police offices in jail for perjury due to parallel construction, I will believe they will only use this power in those two cases.
Otherwise, I have to assume they will simply keep abusing it, and that giving them a blanket ability to get anything is just enabling that.
So, no, probably cause, the 4th amendment, and all sorts of reasons say that if you need this information, you need to go through proper channels, and not just cripple all technology in case you ever need to ... or in case you decide to break the law like you're already doing.
All of these extra surveillance powers and secret laws were pitches as vital for national security, and would only be used as such. Now they're being used for everything under the sun as just another tool.
So, screw you Mr. Comey ... you're lying to us, and you will abuse any tool given to you. If we can't trust you with the tools you have now, giving you even more is a terrible idea.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
and The Market (tm) is correcting your wild-ass over-reaching "National Security" spying on everybody, almost all of whom are not guilty of anything. you guys did more damage than the Wacko bin Loonies. shut up, sit down, think about it.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The FBI is concerned about phones having encryption? Well, maybe if the FBI and NSA and other government agencies were not spying on innocent citizens we wouldn't have a need for encryption?
Apple and Google are simply responding to user demands.
Some people are carrying sensitive information on their phones and should have the option to encrypt the contents if they wish to.
For the "criminals" out there the FBI can simply get a warrant to search the phone.
I don't mind the monitoring of meta and actual data if and only if the data is not kept for more than 10 days.
So, in the event of a child kidnapping, for example, the police could investigate messages within that window.
If the message needs to be kept for a longer period, a warrant would be necessary to retain that message and to search the contents of associated messages.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
"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."
Well, too bad that isn't what actually happens. You guys just take whatever the hell you want, using things like 'National Security Letters', gag orders, and scooping up anything and everything into giant server farms. We don't trust any of you one bit to not invade our privacy. You brought this on yourself.
You can't be convicted by zombie law. The government has to come up with real law (black letter or case) to convict you. (They can of course try to scare you into plea bargaining, but that works just as well with real law.) Has anybody brought any form of legal action against the US Government for those drone assassinations?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Government agencies... time after times after times have abused their privilege to mandate data from US corporations....
Of course I don't have a problem if the police department wants to know what's on a child abductor's phone... but what about those people who legitimately need to be protected? What guarantees do we have that government agencies will not continue using these methods to gain information that have nothing to do with their investigations?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It would probably use something like Steganography.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Good point, to which I would like to add the following:
1). The BlackBerry has been routinely encrypted since forever. On the market for years and years. Where was Director Comey and his commentary back in the 90's? Was it not a problem then? Oh right, the NSA wasn't spying on domestic citizens then, so I'm thinking no?
2). Name one company that "expressly marketed" their smartphone product to lawbreakers. I'm not aware of any, not ever. I've never even heard of a rogue employee marketing to criminals, and certainly not heard of anyone convicted of doing so. Oh wait, it's illegal to market in this manner, so again, what's the issue?
3). We have to admit that encrypted phones are appealing to criminals. So are guns, door locks, protective vests, baseball bats, and knives. Also computers, food, clothing, housing, cars and eavestroughs. Did I leave anything out? Yes, just about everything.
Director Comey outside voice: Think of the children! Terrorists!
Director Comey inside voice: Things were so much easier under Hoover! Dirty Communists and Hippies!
Families have been known to file wrongful-death suits, so they must have the standing to do so. I don't know much about how the secrecy laws affect lawsuits, unfortunately.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The original court decisions that allowed wiretaps did so on the basis that telephone companies were third parties in the cases (so they didn't have standing to make 5th Amendment refuse-to-incriminate-yourself complaints, because they wouldn't be incriminated), and were corporations (so the government has the power to audit their business records, and phone bills are business records.) It was basically a loophole that was allowed because it was new technology and the government's lawyers could make some plausible arguments.
That's totally different from any supposed obligation to continue to provide services in a way that makes wiretaps useful. If Apple and Google want to provide good secure end-to-end encryption, they're allowed to. If they want to provide encryption with backdoors in it, the police can subpoena information they collect through those backdoors (though the FTC may have opinions about whether they're making honest claims about security of their products.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
TrueCrypt already has (or had, since it was shut down) support for doing exactly that.
In unrelated news, the FBI is seeking to ban opaque envelopes and prohibit folded letters inside transparent envelopes.
Postcards are unaffected by this proposal.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.