Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Chief: Apple, Google Phone Encryption Perilous

Posted by samzenpus on from the lock-it-down dept.

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."

96 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh won't somebody think of the children.

    1. Re:Think of the children by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

    3. Re:Think of the children by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Think of the children by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    5. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Think of the children by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    8. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    10. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like how he tries to make out encryption as though it were illegal or should be illegal, claiming it can ONLY be used by people "to place themselves beyond the law". Uh uh, sort of like how the FBI and his buddies in the NSA and CIA have placed themselves beyond the law.

      I know Jimmy boy won't ever read this, but I only have two words for him: CRY MOAR

    11. Re:Think of the children by byornski · · Score: 2

      Fallacy fallacy

    12. Re:Think of the children by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would give you a mod bump if you weren't anonymous.

    13. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:Think of the children by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      +1 agreed. it's probably better this way. if govt wants access to my phone they can serve me a warrant to take the phone and a warrant for me to give over the pwd. it's like an old fashioned safe. it's not like safe makers built in backdoors into their safes.

    15. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    16. Re:Think of the children by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Think of the children by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2

      It's probably just theater-- they want you to think Android and iOS are secure so we all don't start buying phones with OSes from companies based outside the US where they can't, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, their way into a back door. Or just get rid of the smart phone entirely... They want you to USE it, and think that it's secure, even when it's not. Otherwise they'd actually have to start working for a living again...

    18. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Thankfully, rational people realize that encryption is not a "hidden compartment". The phone is still visible, as is the lock. Instead of attempting to comprehend or address the safe analogy you responded to, you are attempting to introduce another appeal to emotion fallacy analogy.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:Think of the children by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2
      methinks you're being a bit uncharitable. Here's some riposte:

      1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants.
      LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.

      you're mischaracterizing. he's arguing that because ios7 already protected customers while providing LEO access via warrant, the net effect of ios8 is the customer gets the same protection and legal warrants are blocked. This is his thesis for the post, which he goes on to support. you can agree or disagree. it's not fair to call it a lie. He never says that apple's aim is to thwart legal warrants.

      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.

      again, mischaracterizing. The ios8 encryption thwarts warrants served on apple. LEOs are still free to serve a warrant on the individual target. he says this in the post.

      “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.

      can you provide support here? what other competitors are saying that they cannot unlock phone encryption for LEOs? link? also, it looks like you're trying to be a little sneaky about a company that is "developing" something vs apple that has already implemented it.

      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.

      this makes no sense. you're right that LEO can still serve warrants on the user. Can you elaborate if you are trying to say something else?

      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.

      you're just being nit picky here. what tim said is true. he's hammering home that this encryption change is available to every 4s, 5, 5s, 6 user for free right now. this is as opposed to android, where if something is released in the newest operating system it will likely never trickle down to most older phones.

      so, are we good? I look forward to your continued thoughts!

    20. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Apple is a third party, and should not be required to provide the Government with back doors. The encryption, as stated above, removes them as a middle agent. A middle agent does not (and never did) prevent a judge from issuing a warrant nor does it prevent an agency/agent from issuing and exercising a warrant. A warrant is a legal issue between Law Enforcement and a Suspect, and nowhere does the US Constitution imply that third parties are to be placed between those two parties.

      If you wish to pursue an argument of "harboring", please search the thread for another of my posts which provides an analogy for a Safe maker and Apple. If you believe that analogy incorrect I will be happy to debate under that posts section.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    21. Re:Think of the children by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      That's certainly possible. Alternatively, the demand for customer privacy might have ratcheted up enough recently that Apple et al started taking them seriously. Not so long ago, such things were something only cypherpunks and a few other geeks cared about. Now my mother-in-law wants to know if her iPhone is secure. That's a sea change in customer opinion, and Apple's and Google's actions could be chalked up to simply meeting market demand.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Think of the children by s.petry · · Score: 2

      I read your post, every time you make the false claim "you're mischaracterizing" you are attempting to claim that a professional writer, who makes their living by writing, is a failure at their job. It implies that one or more of the following occurred. 1) The author did not intentionally choose their words. 2) The author did not perform proper research. 3) The author unwittingly provided an opinion contrary to what they wanted. Your claim is absolute nonsense.

      I did not make up the quotes provided. I extracted them from the article,in the order the author gave them, to ensure that the message of the document was maintained. Anyone can validate this by simply checking the source next to my quotes.

      Most of your questions seem to stem from that same irrational perspective, that a professional writer is completely incompetent, so will be ignored. The following paragraph covers what remains of your post.

      As to other companies that provide encryption technology, you can search the web and find thousands of examples dating back for decades. As to your implication that encryption is only used to thwart law enforcement, that implication is absolutely false. Lastly, your implication that a phone is somehow different than any other container for data is absolutely false.

      If you wish to debate further I will demand that you follow the Socratic method. Reduce the questions to their simplest forms and debate each question individually. If you can not, or refuse to, do this I will not debate further. It is impossible to debate with someone that refuses to approach a subject rationally.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  2. Rich like the Twinkie Filling by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say that speaking like that will get you on an NSA watch list, except we're already all on NSA watchlists.

    2. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by LessThanObvious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also nonsense. The courts have already determined they can compel a person to provide the means to decrypt the device by court order. Someone sitting in a jail cell for contempt of court or maybe obstruction of justice is not above the law.

    3. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by wallsg · · Score: 2

      I would say that speaking like that will get you on an NSA watch list, except we're already all on NSA watchlists.

      If you've ever used TOR you are.

    4. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I'm sitting in a _public_ court room, and the judge order I hand over the keys -- sure, he can have them. Everyone else can fuck off until that day.

    5. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      If you've ever drawn a breath you are.

    6. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Funny

      At this point i think they look at who is not on a list and watch them. It would likely be more efficient/effective.

    7. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I'm sorry, your honor, but my client is under no obligation to teach you the language that he used to write in his notebook."

    8. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no trial or sentence for Contempt. They just lock you up until you comply.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#In_use_today
      One guy spent 14 years behind bars.
      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by khallow · · Score: 2

      which might only be a few months at most

      And if you still haven't turned over the encryption, then the judge can extend the penalty a few more months and repeat the process indefinitely. The reason contempt doesn't usually last very long is because people get that they'll stay in jail longer, if they continue to remain in contempt of court than if they turn over the evidence that the court demands of them.

    10. Re:Rich like the Twinkie Filling by h2oboi89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you didn't want me to encrypt everything maybe you should not have spied on everything that wasn't encrypted...

  3. Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” --Confucius

    FBI Director James Commie.

    1. Re:Wisdom by Chalnoth · · Score: 4, Informative

      His statements really have nothing to do with communism. His statements were authoritarian, which is a different beast.

    2. Re:Wisdom by Shoten · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” --Confucius

      FBI Director James Commie.

      We are already living in an "inverted totalitarian state". I quote:

      Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.

      There has been a slow motion coup d'etat over the past number of years. Private oligarchical corporations have won. They now openly bribe congressmen, write laws, and underwrite our new NSA surveillance state. You can vote for who you want. It may make some small difference. But you will not substantially influence the levers of power by simply voting.

      This FBI leader is just a mouthpiece for the surveillance state. I don't trust anything he says.

  4. Maybe if they didn't abuse by linear+a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe if the government didn't abuse privacy and freedom at every turn they wouldn't be facing this situation.

    1. Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only we had elected that guy that campaigned on hope and change.

    2. Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They made their bed, now they have to lay in it. Or lie in it (which is more their style)

    3. Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Obama is to blame for everything bad and previous governments did nothing wrong.

      I don't give shit about previous governments. Fuck Bush! He's history... Obama is to blame for what the present government is doing now... Get it?? He was elected president to be responsible, and dammit, he sure is!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Maybe if they didn't abuse by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      Amen!

      Obama has had ample opportunity where bad policies of the previous administration have been brought to light and rather than fix them, he’s repeatedly reaffirmed the bad acts by his predecessors. The buck stops at this desk, ultimately. He gets a tiny little bit of a pass if he could claim he didn’t know about abuses of privacy, but as soon as they’re front page news and he lets them keep going, I don’t care who started it. Obama owns it.

  5. Beyond the law? by Green+Salad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Beyond the law? by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "By "forgetting" the key, you're placing yourself beyond the law."

      Nah, you're simply invoking your rights, as enumerated by the 5th. Disingenuous and illogical court rulings notwithstanding.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Beyond the law? by budgenator · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    3. Re:Beyond the law? by penix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ummm... You need to re-read the Constitution if you think the court ruling on a warrant is "disingenuous and illogical". The courts are simply following the Constitution you deride them for not following. BTW, it is the 4th that concerns this more than the 5th although they do go hand-in-hand most of the time.

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      You are referring to the part "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It is the court that dispenses due process of law. So encryption would most certainly block that due process.

      Lastly, there are remedies to compel a suspect to comply with court orders to include imprisonment for contempt of court. Many have gone to jail for not complying with a legally issued court order to divulge their encryption password. So I don't see what this FBI Chief's issue is. He is using the age old "ticking time bomb" argument that was used to justify torturing detainees in Guantanamo. I don't buy it.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    4. Re:Beyond the law? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      However, if that device is encrypted and the vendor has no way of decrypting it, it's up to you, the accused to provide the decryption key. By "forgetting" the key, you're placing yourself beyond the law.

      Yeah, just like how you're "placing yourself beyond the law" if they get a warrant to search your 100-acre farm and you refuse to tell them where the bodies are buried.

      Oh wait, that's not how it works at all!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Beyond the law? by msauve · · Score: 2

      Nope. The gov't can certainly warrant things per the 4th. But, requiring someone to disclose any info, including an encryption key, is a violation of the 5th - " nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

      Not that the amendments are necessary for those rights - all of them exist completely independently of any enumeration in the Constitution; the Bill of Rights only exists to remind the gov't that that is the case.

      You also have an issue with plain English. "Nor" clearly separates "witness" from all else in the clause. Else, it would read "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Which, of course, it doesn't.

      There's a reason Miranda begins with "You have a right to remain silent," and that's unconditional.

      Finally, fuck the court, I'll always be in rightful contempt of any which would presume to compel anyone to provide information against themselves. Search all you want within the rule of law - but I won't help you.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Beyond the law? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:Beyond the law? by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      You can never prove i know something, or not.

      The difference between manslaughter and negligent homicide is a question of knowledge. Courts prove wether or not people know things all the time.

      "Witness, do you know the encryption password for this phone?" ... "You can't ever prove it one way or the other!" ... "But witness, your girlfriend saw you decrypt your phone on Tuesday." ... "o_0"

      Better, the difference between manslaughter and, say, murder, is strictly an act of the mind, the question of malice. Indeed our entire criminal justice system is founded on the belief that a court can determine the existence of mens rea, an internal subjective state of mind with no falsifiable or physical basis.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  6. Forgot some. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

    No drug dealers? No money launderers?

    Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  7. Law Enforcement is not supposed to be easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. let them suck it by lophophore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:let them suck it by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      "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."

      Don't worry. "Unreasonable" can and is defined however it is convenient for them

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:let them suck it by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And also don't forget:

      No person [...] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

      Which means - and has been tested in court - that not only are we within our rights to secure in our papers, etc. with encryption but We-The-People also cannot be legally compelled to give up the password to said encryption.

      "Beyond the law," Director Comey? We are provably /within/ the law. It is your organization which is pushing the limits of legality, not the citizens it is nominally there to serve.

    3. Re:let them suck it by WorBlux · · Score: 2

      Problem is if you do it right, You can just hand over the keys to a clean container, rather than your realy one.

    4. Re:let them suck it by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      "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."

      Don't worry. "Unreasonable" can and is defined however it is convenient for them

      No matter what, with encryption enabled they'll have to first convince a judge to issue a warrant. That's a respectable hurdle when compared to automated dragnet searches.

  9. Dear FBI and Police forces by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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"
  10. Beyond the law? Unjust law is no law at all by Indy1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  11. Yes, there is a cost by whereiswaldo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yes, there is a cost by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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"
  12. The 4th, 5th... by GoddersUK · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law."

    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!

    1. Re:The 4th, 5th... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2

      I'm amused that it has taken this long for people to start caring about encryption. I remember the mid-late 90s when PGP first came out and those in charge tried very hard to spread the lie that only bad people use encryption.

      Regular people *started* to finally care, at least a little bit, once internet commerce became a thing, but even then SSL was only used to protect credit car numbers in transit.

      The last few years have been interesting - a lot of people are starting to finally grasp the importance of using encryption everywhere.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  13. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on by sinij · · Score: 3

    >>>"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.

  14. Rich words from a peeping tom by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  15. Re:Think of the Constitution?! by RevSpaminator · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  16. same pathetic unsupported excuse to abuse by schleprock63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  17. Re:And thus the balance shifts. by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:And thus the balance shifts. by RevSpaminator · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Encryption is a security issue. by Chalnoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Encryption is a security issue. by swillden · · Score: 2

      These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures).

      And all of their personal and business correspondence, and access to their bank accounts, brokerage accounts, password managers (though access to someone's e-mail is generally sufficient to get into everything else on-line), etc. Your phone can also tell someone where you go (navigation history) and if you have it turned on can even provide them with a detailed account of where you have been, every minute of every day.

      The aggregate content of a smart phone is, for many people, everything about them worth stealing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  20. Re:Think of the Constitution?! by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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
  21. Not Even True by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Not Even True by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Not Even True by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      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.

      The government is under no constitutional or legal obligation to inform you of a warrant on you, no such protection has ever existed in fact or de jure. They can tap your phone without you knowing, they can read your mail, they can install cameras at your home and work; indeed there's this thing called a sealed warrant, which was invented long before information technology and the whole object of which is to keep the subject from knowing about the evidence collection.

      Even better, if the prosecutor has a good reason, he can even have a grand jury indict you and keep the indictment under seal until you're arraigned. If a judge thinks there's a real chance you'd destroy evidence, or flee, or your knowledge of police activity would have sufficiently negative consequences, he's completely within his prerogative to keep his orders secret.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  22. Re:...allow people to place themselves beyond the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  23. Huh? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell did these guys do before smartphones existed? Oh yeah, that's right, WORK FOR A LIVING.

  24. Policin' Ain't Easy! by Baby+Duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Policing is only easy in a police state.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  25. Seriously? by Runefox · · Score: 2

    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!
  26. Statistics by somenickname · · Score: 2

    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.

  27. Mind probes are next by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 2

    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).

  28. partly agree with him by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    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.

  29. Unlike my house keys, sir? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  30. obtain a warrant? by Weirsbaski · · Score: 2

    "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.

    Had "obtain a warrant" been their approach leading up to now, maybe encryption-everywhere wouldn't be gaining traction.

    --

    I am not a sig.
  31. Next: E2E voice encryption by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

  32. Excellent point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points ...:)

    1. Re:Excellent point! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish I had mod points ...:)

      Step 1: Log In
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: Mod Points!

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    2. Re:Excellent point! by rdnetto · · Score: 2

      I have mod points ... oh, wait....

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  33. Valid warrant: no such thing by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    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?
  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Warrant by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    "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?
  38. Muh childrens by Ash-Fox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comey cited child-kidnapping and terrorism cases as two examples of situations where quick access by authorities to information on cellphones can save lives.

    From the article.

    Hmm, where have I seen something like this before... Oh wait, I know!

    The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

    -- Hitler, Mein Kampf

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  39. Stop yelling at me for my electronic fence by edcalaban · · Score: 2

    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