Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 1, 2014 @07:12AM from the let-us-in dept.

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.”

38 of 575 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Update to Godwin's law? by spiritplumber · 2014-10-01 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Scottingham · 2014-10-01 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Seconded. Maybe Mrs. Lovejoy's law? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by AvitarX · 2014-10-01 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Tokolosh · 2014-10-01 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
4. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by AvitarX · 2014-10-01 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
5. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Verdatum · 2014-10-01 07:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Perfection. I'm now considering this as a perfectly cromulent term. I look forward to using it in conversation.
7. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by TheCarp · 2014-10-01 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > 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.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
8. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by gstoddart · 2014-10-01 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Gription · 2014-10-01 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Frobnicator · 2014-10-01 07:55 · Score: 4
  
  I don't know, we call just about everything a terrorist act these days. Anything high profile they try to announce that it WASN'T called a terrorist attack. Look at the Chicago airport issue last week, many news outlets lead with "In what is not a terrorist attack, a fire in an ATC building..." I've seen news reports that call simple street vandalism and muggings "domestic terrorism".
  However, I completely agree with you. Holder's statement basically says personal devices should be inherently insecure, but it is okay for corporations to have a little bit of security. How many companies have BYOD policies? How many companies buy consumer parts?
  Is he thinking the government can compel Apple to make "iPhone 7 Unencrypted Consumer Edition", and "iPhone 7 Corporate Secure Edition"? Or similarly force Android, with Google and LG and Samsung and others to split into an insecure consumer version and a more secure corporate version? I don't know, maybe they could. Of course, even the non-technical sheep could be taught to notice and push back.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
11. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by TheCarp · 2014-10-01 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Almost makes you wonder if it isn't the news reports themselves that are the real terrorist attacks.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
12. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-10-01 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "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."
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
13. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Gription · 2014-10-01 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Excellent point. I did a search on the definition of terrorism and found this FBI page: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...
  
  The first bullet point of the domestic section reads: - "Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"
  
  News flash! Base jumping is accurately described as domestic terrorism. Good to know!
14. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by anagama · 2014-10-01 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
15. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by magarity · 2014-10-01 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
16. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Wootery · 2014-10-01 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not to mention, the Constitution is really more of a guideline, anyway.
  I mean, it must be, right?
17. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by jae471 · 2014-10-01 09:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Think of the children" Godwin's itself. It's not Reductio ad Hitlerum if Hitler *actually* said it: 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.
18. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-01 09:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "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. Of course, if an argument can be made that terrorists will be stopped or children will be protected by doing so, anything goes."
  FTFY
  Signed,
  - Your "Friendly" National Government
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
19. Re:Update to Godwin's law? by SourceFrog · 2014-10-01 12:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
Save the children! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The excused used by dictators since the dawn of time to rob you of your liberty.
Where can I find the except clause? by ChrisKnight · 2014-10-01 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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. --
1. Re:Where can I find the except clause? by itzly · 2014-10-01 07:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Apparently, the Founding Fathers didn't think of the children. We're fixing that now.
2. Re:Where can I find the except clause? by aaron4801 · 2014-10-01 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." "Unless it's politically expedient to change the rules, in which case, fuck you."
3. Re:Where can I find the except clause? by Connie_Lingus · 2014-10-01 07:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  nothing passes congress today.
  
  --
  never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
4. Re:Where can I find the except clause? by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-01 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Clipper Chip Anyone? by Ronin+Developer · 2014-10-01 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Clipper Chip Anyone? by itzly · 2014-10-01 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And those who understand history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
2. Re:Clipper Chip Anyone? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-10-01 07:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it....even if they have to force it down our throats.
  Holder doesn't fail to understand it - he and his ilk are back for Round 2. They will persist until the liberty is removed, however many rounds that takes. Then they will move on to the next liberty that still stands. If they can't win at the Federal level, they will get it done at the State level (e.g. California's back door requirements for cell phones).
  That's how government works; I guess your point is well-supported by the history after all.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The obvious retort by MaizeMan · 2014-10-01 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
what is this obsession with children? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by JudgeFurious · 2014-10-01 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Is it "worriesome"? Really? by Cardoor · 2014-10-01 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  you're not describing their reason(s).. you're describing their cover story.
GTFO. by vettemph · 2014-10-01 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:GTFO. by jerquiaga · 2014-10-01 07:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem though, and the point people are missing (I think, though maybe I'm giving Holder too much credit) is that when they do get a warrant, they still can't access the data. Again, maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but law enforcement should be able to get a warrant and then access that data, through a legal search and seizure. At least the way it's being reported, with iOS 8 even if law enforcement brought a legal warrant to Apple, Apple wouldn't be able to decrypt the data. Won't be long before Google and Microsoft follow suit.
  I know, I know, the Slashdot response will be "but NSA!" So be it.
Not in there to "thwart" law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by necro81 · 2014-10-01 07:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
What about Front Door Security? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-10-01 07:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Seems like the WH can't even get that right.