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
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!
"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.
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?
"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.
His statements really have nothing to do with communism. His statements were authoritarian, which is a different beast.
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
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?
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.
Policing is only easy in a police state.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
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.
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?
I wish I had mod points ...:)
“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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.