Slashdot Mirror
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.”
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.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
It's all about control. Once the Federal government gets its nose in your business it never leaves.
The excused used by dictators since the dawn of time to rob you of your liberty.
"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..."
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Who remembers the failed Clipper chip pushed during the Clinton administration and advocated by VP Gore?
Who remembers why it failed?
Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it....even if they have to force it down our throats.
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?
Before the digital age how did the police ever mange to protect the children?
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.
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.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
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.
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.
Person in a position of power says something to convince large amounts of people to undermine their own best interests.
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.
Seems like the WH can't even get that right.
Except, the person quoted by TFA is Eric Holder, who is as Democrat as it can possibly get...
Off-topic much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
These guys have decided to go straight for the "it's for the children" argument.
It's a stupid argument. It says that in order to protect hypothetical children from hypothetical threats, all people must give up their rights to make it easier for law enforcement to get information without cause or warrant.
And since you've already had your rights taken away, we will also use this for plenty of other things. Like parallel construction of what we charge you for, and whatever else we can think of to misuse this information for.
Fucking lying assholes and fascists.
America is pretty much screwed at this point, and unfortunately, that is affecting everyone else on the damned planet.
Obama is just as happy to create the surveillance state as Bush was. Audacity of Hope is such a fucking lie.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
you are a tool of the political machine...a "useful idiot" in Marx's terms.
there is no difference between the two parties...our system is a Plutocracy.
the two party system is nothing but a circle jerk keep people distracted from understanding the true nature of it all.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
“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.
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...
“It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,”
It is if we are permitted to keep our own information secret from law enforcement except when compelled to deliver it by warrant.
As if regular examples of law enforcement taking advantage of their access to data to spy on current and ex-spouses,boy/girlfriends, family, etc aren't enough of a warning to say NO to this, the fact that they wish to have the Fourth and Fifth Amendments circumvented in law should be enough to deny this.
We must say no.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I have kids. I think of them. I have no need for these backdoors Eric Holder wants. I know what my kids do and who is with them. Please stop the "think of the children" excuses for these intrusions.
"Only about 100 missing-child reports each year fit the profile of a stereotypical abduction by a stranger or vague acquaintance." Those are the real kidnapping cases, and there's usually no identified suspect whose phone law enforcement could dump.
Backdoors are a threat to national security; because there is ALWAYS a risk they will be discovered by other parties or that the mechanism for their operation will prove to be exploitable.
That could leave us in a situation where an enemy, very likely even an enemy without state resources could find themselves in a position where they can disrupt/eavesdrop/other wise access just about all non-military equipment. Its terrible idea when we face threats like ISIS to deliberately weaken our information security posture. It could be economically crippling.
I am leaving out all arguments about civil liberties basic freedoms etc because the Intelligence committee types, and the FUCKING FREEDOM HATING ASSHOLES like Holder don't care about those arguments.
It comes down to this while backdoor the whole world might prevent a tiny number of crimes against children it puts the entire American way of life at risk. We had this conversation before in the 90's with Skipjack and our society made the right choice back then, for whatever reasons wrong or right. It was only 20 some years ago, the world has not changed that much; this is not the time to re-evaluate this.
Holder is bad rubbish and its good a thing he will soon be gone.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Devil's advocate:
How do you know that your next phone will have an unlockable/unlocked bootloader, even a way to get rooted/jailbroken? The Samsung S5 took $18,000 in a bounty to get root for, and its bootloader is still locked up tight unless you have the developer model.
I agree that Mr. O flunks civil liberties as much as Bush (and probably Mitt), but there are other categories to consider besides civil liberties. I wish there were federal issue votes on the ballot for this kind of thing, similar to some States' "propositions". That way we don't have to lump bunches of different issues into:
Please select one:
[_] Jerk A
[_] Jerk B
Table-ized A.I.
Any deliberately installed backdoor is usually trivial to find with a forensic analysis and it doesn't take a "licensed" forensic analyst to find it. How long do you think it would take until knowledge of how to use that backdoor to enter your kids' appliances reaches the circles that are interested in peeping into your kids' bedrooms?
Dear Obama administration: Bullshitting people with the old "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" works both ways. In this case, I doubt that you have the better arguments. Faced with the choice of you not having access to their kids' systems and your access offering predators access to them as well, I kinda doubt concerned parents will side with you!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What if the information on my phone could be abused to abduct children? What if Chester Molester figures out the back door? Why doesn't the DOJ care about the safety of children?
Thank you Mr. Holder. I *have* thought of the children.
They have exactly NOTHING to do with my desire not to have my devices and data compromised. Either by tech-savvy criminals, terrorists or a government panopticon run amok.
Ammendment IV
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.
You were hired to do a job. DO YOUR JOB. DO IT THE RIGHT WAY! Stop whining that everything isn't handed to you on a silver plate.
I (and many like me) refuse to abrogate our rights just to make your life easier.
I (and many like me) refuse to be pre-criminalized just to make your life easier.
I (and many like me) refuse to be treated like criminals or monsters simply because you play demagogue when we don't make your life easier.
If you can't do your job without violating the law and people's rights, please quit and allow someone COMPETENT to take up your position. There's nothing shameful about acknowledging your own limitations.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
How is a cell phone different that data at rest on a hard drive? Do they think it's a problem for individuals and businesses to be able to encrypt data on our hard drives? If Holder takes a laptop encrypted with Bitlocker, does Microsoft just happily decrypt it? This is a feedback loop on security paranoia. The government wants to see everything, so the people start encrypting everything. Ultimately they are forcing the hand of those who care about privacy. It's counter productive.
Think of the children when you take away their health insurance.
Think of the children when you tax the shit out of the lower class mommys and daddys.
Think of the children when you declare war.
There are many more, but let's be honest, if anyone in the government gave half of a shit about kids, children wouldn't be molested/beaten as much as they are these days. None of the ridiculous shit that the government can do, not even send someone into your house to monitor you 24/7 would stop child abuse of any kind. Keep alcohol legal, keep taxing the hell out of daddy and mommy, keep the streets as full of potholes as possible, keep the police as nervous as hell, keep the ability of corporations to pay government officials to sway law enactment, and you'll never, ever, ever, ever, EVER keep the children, or the adults, safe.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
âoeIt is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,â
Yes, but the way to do so is to get a document signed by a court and give it to a human being who will then do what it orders, like unlock his phone and give it to you.
It is absolutely, 100% not possible to put a backdoor into a system without compromising the system. If it has a backdoor, the backdoor will be abused. If it is protected by a unique key, the key will be lost. If it is protected by encryption (key/certificate authentication), the signing certificate will be stolen or leaked (it would become the master-key target that every criminal in the sphere would be after, only a matter of time until one of them succeeds).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.