Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

mi writes Attorney General Eric Holder called it is "worrisome" that tech companies are providing default encryption on consumer electronics, adding that locking authorities out of being able to access the contents of devices puts children at risk. “It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,” Holder said at a conference on child sexual abuse, according to a text of his prepared remarks. “When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child and to stop those that abuse children. It is worrisome to see companies thwarting our ability to do so.”

Comments

Update to Godwin's law?

[spiritplumber]

Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Scottingham]

Seconded. Maybe Mrs. Lovejoy's law? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[AvitarX]

What I don't understand is the lack of concern about security.

I'm far more afraid of a terrorist/criminal organization getting access to these back doors, and reading all of the encrypted documents that companies (including government contractors) want to secure, than hidden communication allowing them to get away.

How is the government not concerned about corporate espionage, terrorism, and other criminal activity, you'd think from a security standpoint, they would want encryption to be legit.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Tokolosh]

They sow these seeds because there is a vast acreage of fertile ground.

The US is in a complete state of nervous prostration. Home of the brave, my arse!

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[AvitarX]

Even so, a backdoor on full disk encryption, though I suppose requiring physical access, is a security hole. I don't see how that's not a higher threat to national security than the devices that can't be cracked, unless a weak password was used.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Anonymous Coward]

They sow these seeds because there is a vast acreage of fertile ground.

The US is in a complete state of nervous prostration. Home of the brave, my arse!

There's nothing wrong with being a little cautious or careful or nervous. Nature rewards aggression. If you can't see it coming, you're toast.

The problem, though, is that the US government now sees its own citizens as the threat.

It's one thing to defend the US from outside dangers. It's quite another to regard the citizens themselves as the danger.

That's what's changed recently.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[TheCarp]

> I'm far more afraid of a terrorist/criminal organization getting access to these back doors, and reading all of the
> encrypted documents that companies (including government contractors) want to secure, than hidden
> communication allowing them to get away.

Well overall, terrorists are the least concern since there are really so few of them and they hardly need this sort of break. If anything, they are helped more by the encryption than hindered by it....but....who cares? They are a minor concern at best, regardless of what they want you to think.

Criminal orgs however, now we are talking. This sort of backdoor can be used for everything from extortion to corperate espionage. I am far more afraid that this will be used by someone with an agenda to find people in positions of power he can blackmail. I am FAR more worried about the influences of modern day J Edgars than a few organized criminals so despised that they need to hide from everyone at every turn already.

Thing is, we would never really even know the extent of the damage done because so much of it would be so quietly kept.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[gstoddart]

What I don't understand is the lack of concern about security.

Because they don't give a shit about your security or anybody else's, and they're too stupid to realize that by weakening it for them it weakens it for anybody.

They just want unlimited ability to get any piece of data they want without warrant, oversight, or obstacles.

They want it to be illegal for you to have information they can't readily get.

The scary thing is, they couldn't possibly not know that "what about the children" is a bullshit argument designed to get people to go along with it. Every mother in America says "well, if it's to protect the children, it must be good".

In reality, children and terrorism have become the magic keys to unlock the kingdom, and bypass any pesky laws and constitutional protections.

And anybody who disagrees with them is clearly in favor of kiddy fiddlers and terrorists.

If this kind of thing isn't fixed soon, America is marching into becoming a facist state, while pretending to still be defenders of freedom and justice. And people are applauding this as it goes along.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Gription]

I'm wondering if there is an official guideline that the administration has to spin anything into a child safety issue. "Just follow this simple flow chart before releasing to the press."

The whole "safety, safety, safety" bit has gotten so ridiculous and I am endlessly surprised by the fact that a majority of people haven't cried "bullshit" on it. We are in the safest time in history. The thing that has changed is that a single instance of some wack job doing something crazy is blasted out of every media channel and people believe that it is a credible threat. (That explains lottery ticket sales.)

Reality check: When you have 300,000,000+ people in a country every single day there are going to be a multi digit number of them that do something so horrendous as to drop your jaw. That doesn't make it a credible threat. Hell, if you were actually on a US domestic flight on Sept 11th 2001 you would have only have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being on a doomed flight. We aren't at a credible level of risk beyond your chance of slipping in the shower or down the stairs.

The government IS NOT a responsible agency to be given the master keys to your life (or even a valet key!). If you had a teenage child with the same level of fiscal responsibility and the same way of dancing around the truth, you would ground them for life.
Yeah, I will take a .00000001% increase in risk in exchange for .1% increase in safety from being screwed with by a government agency.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[TheCarp]

Almost makes you wonder if it isn't the news reports themselves that are the real terrorist attacks.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[anagama]

As counterpoint, there is nothing liberal about an administration that:

-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;
-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;
-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration
-- redefined "imminent" to mean "maybe possible far in the future" and then used that as an excuse to deprive Americans of their life without due process of law.
-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)
-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries.
-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval.
-- let every single bankster off the hook.
-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out.
-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs.

Democrats: The New GOP.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Skylinux]

Attend public gatherings, preferably once that are not main stream, and compare the "news" reports about the event.
"News Networks" are propaganda outlets. Not as bad as in Nazi Germany but fuck are those reports loaded with agendas at times / most times.

Humans are a product of evolution, so we can not evolve as fast as we like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[magarity]

unreasonable

Right here is the cop out word that allows a government official to suggest backdoors in all consumer electronics. Given enough time one can grind the populace into agreeing that pretty much any search has become reasonable in light of terrorists/children/terrorist children.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Wootery]

Not to mention, the Constitution is really more of a guideline, anyway.

I mean, it must be, right?

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[epyT-R]

Actually there is plenty liberal about them. here's more to your list..

1. Liberal with taking and spending other people's money, taking out massive loans in their name and leaving them and their children with the debt.
2. Liberal with oppressive law, secret watch/black/flight lists, civil rights abridgement (from patriot act to itsonus/dear colleague witchhunts)
3. Liberal with oppressive policies that favor some groups over others based on irrelevant attributes.

Of course, they ruined the word 'liberal.' The correct term for them is 'leftist.' Their goal is to centralize power in the government and force people to keel to their course, and they pander to and inflate single issue social interests to maintain voter interest. They take rights from all, then give back bits and pieces as privilege to some based on those arbitrary attributes they say aren't supposed to matter. The neo-cons counter them just enough to ensure that powerful business interests get their markets guaranteed, though in reality there's plenty of bi partisan lobby donating.

I am plenty safe, thanks. I'd like my freedom and liberty back please.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[cptdondo]

Right, like the uproar against the Patriot Act. Oh wait.....

Let's face it, Big Brother Government knows no political boundaries.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[cptdondo]

Except that.... The "think of the children" thing is BS.

Well over 50% of all child abuse is perpetrated by mothers, another 30% by fathers. The rest is perpetrated by close relatives (brothers, aunts, and such). The actual "stranger danger" stuff is minimal; about 110 cases a year out of what, 30,000,000 minors.

So for 110 crimes a year we're supposed to "think of the children" and let Big Brother into all of our communication.

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[Le Marteau]

> So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.

They are not "removing the rights of the government" to search anybody. They still can. But the people are under no obligation to maintain their lives so as to be ready prepared for a government inspector to drop by at any time and say, "Let me take a look at your paperwork, citizen".

Re:Update to Godwin's law?

[SourceFrog]

The biggest irony is that nobody seems to care about actual dangers that actually harm children - for example, one of the top causes of teen death is suicide, and a major contributing cause is bullying - there is neither an outcry, nor political effort to even try come up with solutions - we cry "ZOMG think of the children oh noes, ban encryption and implement government surveillance" while simultaneously daily shuttling our depressed victimized alienated kids into the very school system that will inflict so much abuse on them that they commit suicide, without thinking anything of it, just telling them to "ignore" what is inflicted on them.

I call BS on this one....

[erp_consultant]

It's all about control. Once the Federal government gets its nose in your business it never leaves.

Re:I call BS on this one....

[jeffmflanagan]

The Democrats are center-right, pro-big business like a Republican before they went off the deep end over the last few decades. The Republicans are far-right, religious lunatic, white supremacists. Huge difference. If we pretend there's no difference, the theocrats win.

Re:I call BS on this one....

[Mashiki]

Seriously? I don't think I've ever read such BS in my life. Can you do us all a favor and tell everyone which between the two parties always falls back on playing the race card on any issue, when something isn't going it's own way. Or uses slanderous attacks in order to try and stifle another persons speech? I'll give you a hint, it's that "center-right party" that you were talking about at the start. I'm not even american, and I can see fundamental differences between the two. You however, with that post simply scream "political shill."

My personal favorite, is when democrats call black republicans "house niggers, and uncle toms" being the most kind of the two that they use.

Re:I call BS on this one....

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

The 'race card' is a phrase which means to point out or discuss racism. The new consensus for Republicans is that overt racism is ugly and unacceptable, as is discussing it, but anything else is fair game.

For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.

I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).

Re:I call BS on this one....

[amxcoder]

If you actually had a clue, you would realize that the voter ID laws wanted by the GOP/TeaParty, and many others in mainstream america has NOTHING to do with black people, and everything to do with the millions of illegal aliens that sneak into our country and vote Democrat because the Democrats give them everything in turn for saying they'll push for an amnesty. Without Voter ID laws, fraudulent voting is a REAL concern, as it means people are voting without being a legitimate citizen of this country (or by people who are still alligent to their homeland) and/or people are voting multiple times. Voter ID's want to curtail that.

Your argument is taken from item #1 of the democrat talking points, just re-iterating that GOP'ers don't want black people to vote. Fact, most black people already have ID's. ID's are not expensive to get in this country, and do not force out the poor. Everyone else (including white and black people) already have to have an ID and show it to do a multitude of other menial things already, and it's not considered a "burden" on blacks for the other ID requirements.

Don't know about you, but I have to show ID if I write a check, or if I cash a check, I have to show ID if I get pulled over driving. I had to show ID to get a passport. I have show ID to get a job. I have to show ID just to gain entry into some of the businesses I do work at (try going to company to do contract work and sign in at the lobby without ID). Want to buy cigarettes or liquor? Need ID. Want to buy spray paint or allergy medicine? Need ID. Want a library card? Going to an airport? Using a Credit Card for purchasing anything? Want to donate blood? Want to go to an 'R' rated movie or buy an 'M' rated video game? Need a hunting/fishing license? Want to take the SAT (or other proctored exam like CPA/MD/etc.)? Applying for food stamps, social security, or medicare? Want to buy a gun? Want to get married? Need to rent or buy a home, or car? If you need to do ANY of these things, then you need ID to do it.

Why aren't these requirements for ID considered "Racist"? The answer to this is because requiring ID is not racist, anyone LEGALLY in the country can get some form of ID. But because some in politcal power, want to pander to a very large number of people who are here illegally (regardless of race) in order to get their vote. It's this group of people who are put out and out-of-luck, which is the exact reason that there is a push for VoterID laws, too keep the system from getting corrupted by outside influence voting in OUR elections and determining OUR fate!

Re:I call BS on this one....

[cptdondo]

In spite of your rant, the actual amount of voter fraud is miniscule, on the order of a few dozen per national election. And no, illegal aliens only vote in the fevered imaginations of the gonzo right, and not in any reality that doesn't involve paranoid flights of fancy.

Re:I call BS on this one....

[amxcoder]

miniscule maybe, but a few dozen, no. The "dead" have been voting for years, every election. On the last election, there were pricincts with over 100% voter turnout. It's a little more than a 'few dozen'.

Since VoterID laws are not implemented, how do you know illegal aliens don't vote? No one is checking ID's, so making that claim that it ONLY happens in conservatives imaginations is completely without basis. You can't prove a negative -- nor can I prove something that isn't tracked because asking for ID is illegal when it comes to voting, but not anything else.

My point was "showing your ID" is not actually racists, we all have to do it on a constant basis for miniscule things.

Save the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

The excused used by dictators since the dawn of time to rob you of your liberty.

Where can I find the except clause?

[ChrisKnight]

"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."

No matter how many times I read that, I can't seem to find the clause that says "Except when..."

Re:Where can I find the except clause?

[BarbaraHudson]

If they really wanted to "think of the children", they'd take a realistic look at where the problems are, and help more children for the same money spent, without invading anyone's privacy.

A parent beating their kids is probably not going to be sending photos or texts bragging about what they did. The same for most cases of sexual assault by parents or relatives. And there's a heck of a lot more abuse by parents and relatives than by child pornographers.

Putting money into raising the standard of living reduces the stresses on parents who are trying to make ends meet and just run out of patience one day and take it out on the kids. Same with equal access to employment so there's no more gender inequality on the job, so that women can more easily leave a bad situation with the kids. Kids who feel more secure, who don't run away from home to escape being abused, are less likely to fall for predators.

Similarly, by reducing the level of domestic violence, kids don't learn by example that it's "okay" for an adult to abuse either another adult or them, so their sense of "this isn't right" when someone else tries to do something to them remains intact, and they're more likely to treat that adult as an anomaly, and seek the help of other adults who they feel they can trust (teachers, neighbors, their parents, a store clerk, even total strangers just passing by on the street), rather than treat all adults as a possible source of abuse.

Additionally, we could work to remove the stigma of depression, so that adults caught in such scenarios can have enough self-actualization to seek help.

Doing more of this would "save more kids" by removing the scenarios that put many of them in harms way in the first place and by making help more accessible. And it will be cheaper, and not involve depriving everyone of their rights.

Ain't gonna happen, though, because politicians like "big and shiny." Why? Because it's easier to point to "we're doing something about it", with yet another big program, than to explain to voters that putting more money into social services, education, and mental health isn't seen as "yet another slide down the road to a nanny state." For some reason, they prefer Big Brother.

The obvious retort

[MaizeMan]

Holder, please investigate why is the NSA putting so many children at risk. But conducting extra-legal (and arguably extra-constitutional) collection of data for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with child abductions, they're driving the adoption default encryption across the US and across the world, making data unavaliable to police and emergency responders in critical situations. Won't the good folks at the NSA please think of the children?

Re:Clipper Chip Anyone?

[itzly]

And those who understand history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

what is this obsession with children?

[Anonymous Coward]

As if any crime becomes less serious if it is commited against an adult. Using the biological urge to protect the young of the species to achieve your goals is just despicable.

Is it "worriesome"? Really?

[JudgeFurious]

I think it's worrisome that my government thinks it should have the ability to get into every single aspect of my life with minimal obstruction because "someone", "somewhere", is doing something they shouldn't be. I am thinking of the children. I'm thinking that unless people stand up to this kind of shit "the children" are going to grow up in a world where they have absolutely no privacy and think it's perfectly acceptable for that to be the case.

Re:Is it "worriesome"? Really?

[Cardoor]

you're not describing their reason(s).. you're describing their cover story.

GTFO.

[vettemph]

When I buy a device, It is I who gets to decide if the device is an open diary for all to see, or an extension of my private thoughts.
Get a warrant you filthy pricks.

How do they say this with a straight face?

[Anonymous Coward]

When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child and to stop those that abuse children.

Because when a child is in danger all our rights go out the window. Next up "when a politician is n danger ...".
How many times has the problem for stopping child abuse been "we can't decrypt these files"?
It seems to me far more often it's "the child is making it up", or no the foster family isn't harming your child now shut up or lose visitation.
Maybe they should take a look at that before putting security holes in every single device for some sort of hypothetical situation.

Not in there to "thwart" law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

They put it in there to thwart *anybody* who might be trying to listen in on private communications or steal information. This is a necessary thing in an age when information is flitting around wirelessly and when physical property containing vast amounts of personal information can be easily stolen. In other words, it's in there as much to thwart would-be criminals as it is to thwart anyone who might have legitimate reasons for access. Illegitimate or legitimate, the technology makes no distinction.

Deal with it. Get a warrant. Legally compel people to provide keys. Whatever. I don't see the justification for intentionally putting in back doors that can be discovered and abused by criminals as easily as law enforcement could use it for legitimate purposes. And never mind the implication that law enforcement or others in the government could themselves be illegally getting access.

What you're talking about is intentionally inserting flaws in a technology that is there for good reasons.

This is why we can't have nice things

[necro81]

If the government hadn't been stomping all over its authority (and limits thereof), then perhaps such measures wouldn't be needed.

Holder contends that "It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy.” that may be possible in theory, but governments everywhere have demonstrated repeatedly that they can't be trusted to protect personal privacy. In other words: allowing law enforcement the ability to search through a phone's contents willy nilly, trusting them not to abuse that authority, is a nice-to-have. And because of their actions, we can't have nice things.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[mi]

You know that FBI Director Comer, the guy that started this BS a couple of days ago is a Republican, right?? The only thing I blame Obama for is appointing Republicans, as cover, to defense, security and law enforcement posts.

Except, the person quoted by TFA is Eric Holder, who is as Democrat as it can possibly get...

Off-topic much?

He's right!

[DigitAl56K]

“It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,”

Maybe it is, when law enforcement isn't brazenly violating every single principle of personal privacy for all persons without redress. You got us here, Bush and Obama administrations. You. Not us. You.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You seriously think that Obama is a victim in all of this after everything that has been exposed under his administration? Wow. Just wow. You are the problem.

Holder wants US tech companies to commit suicide

[Bruce66423]

In an international free market, if US companies are seen to succumb to this pressure, open source and foreign companies will come along and sell items that (they claim( don't have the back doors. Either the US can shut up about this, or it can lose its companies...

Lost Trust

[JimSadler]

I think that the invasion of Iraq and the lies propagated by the Bush administration as well as the Reagan scandal of arms for contras was the last straw for the public trusting the government. Lack of prison sentences for the mortgage scandals haven't helped one bit either. And then there is the issue of the use of torture on POWs. At some point one begins to think of the US as a banana republic that operates without any morality at all.