Slashdot Mirror
FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
apexcp writes Following the announcements that Apple and Google would make full disk encryption the default option on their smartphones, FBI director James Comey has made encryption a key issue of his tenure. His blitz continues today with a speech that says encryption will hurt public safety.
Please think of the children!
The issue is the balance between public safety and personal privacy. Denying the citizen of any democracy the right to encryption of their personal communication is not an appropriate response to the perceived threat to public safety that same encryption would bring.
More like help protect us from the prying eyes of big brother.
just that simple, Director.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You don't deserve privacy because criminals don't deserve privacy.
Anyone wanna bet that they have no trouble breaking this encryption, or they have secret backdoors? This is just a big advertising campaign to get people to think they can't break it.
I suspect, he is right — it will hurt public safety.
But it will improve individual privacy and America has always valued the cantankerous Individual above the glorious Collective, that other cultures prefer...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Unless, they think they deserve privacy but don't want to give it to other people.
What about reporters investigating corruption among FBI? Will they be allowed encryption? Will the reporter have to admit they are investigating FBI, or will all reporters be allowed encryption?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
When the people and organizations in government demonstrate trustworthiness, we will trust them to keep the keys.
Choice #1: my smartphone isn't encrypted, the FBI "protects" my safety
Choice #2: my smartphone is encrypted, the FBI can't get to my data.
I choose #2 thank you very much.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
~pinky to lips~
every time you encrypt a file, I will kill a kitten~
Muwhaa haha hahaaaaaaa!!!
The Digital Sorceress
no more encrypted data streams. Watch identity theft skyrocket. Man in the middle attacks intercepting cleartext transactions and account info of every kind. Destroying everyone's livelihood. How is that public safety?
Don't criminals already use encryption? Am I supposed to, out of pure love for the government, not encrypt my devices so that if I ever become a criminal the FBI can more easily find me? Wouldn't that just make me a more likely target for crimials? Or perhaps the FBI is suggesting that companies should not provide encryption by default, causing customers will choose a competitor's product instead? This is silly: the only reason to start this campaign is if the end goal is to convince legislators to make encryption illegal.
This is the same imbecile that told Congress that Americans who are known to have fought for ISIS cannot be immediately arrested or denied entry--they'll just be "closely monitored"--cuz they're US citizens with valid passports.
As we Americans all know, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. So come now, you know you don't have to worry about your "elected officials" and they're appointees doing bad things. I mean after all why would you want to impede them in anyway at all?
Though on second though, you know what? I'm just going to keep on encrypting my phones, hard drives, anything I can. Partly because of this, and partly because you know... I might somehow lose them, and not want anyone to access _my_ data.
if my wife asks a question, and I'm not paying attention, and then I answer wrong does it still count
These government employees have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. Many in government seem to have lost sight of who they serve. Citizens should not accept the argument that it is easier for them to do their job by collecting and analyzing the communications of US citizens without a warrant. Encryption protects US citizens against criminal activity by making it harder for the criminals to do THEIR job. The FBI can always get a warrant when they need one.
It is not our job to make his job easier or effortless.
Amendment 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.
Our phones and computers are the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects".
Encryption affords us the security promised by this amendment.
Does this make the collection of data by various "letter agency" and police law enforcement departments tougher? YEP!
Does it raise the possibility of criminals "slipping through the system"? YEP!
I, for one, REFUSE to be pre-criminalized , simply because I don't choose to automatically drop trou whenever someone demands to see "ze papers". The only appropriate answer for this sort of thing is "Fuck you. Get a warrant."
I also refuse to abrogate my rights and privileges due to an idiotic appeal to emotion (think of the CHILDREN!)
*I* am not victimizing children. But, the way law enforcement wants to set things up, EVERYONE gets lumped in as would-be rapists, molesters and murderers.
Jim Comey needs to be told to shut the hell up, do his job *RIGHT* and be a good little soldier.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
FBI director James Comey has made encryption a key issue of his tenure.
That was a fight that was 'lost' in the 90s. Too many large companies now rely on encryption......as in every bank, every for-profit website, any website that has the IT department using ssh to manage servers, every company that uses remote desktop to manage servers.....and soon every company that accepts credit cards.
Sorry man, encryption is here to stay. Learn to pick your battles because nothing's going to happen with that one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To effectively violate the 4th amendment as it is. I have a great deal of trouble believing his concerns are legitimate and complete.
What's more the greatest problem with a full on surveillance state that can and does relentlessly bring the full weight of the state against people without the means to properly defend themselves is the number of false positives can easily exceed the number of actual criminals.That would be actual crimes, not the simple fact the complexity of our legal system renders most people guilty of something.
It's a good thing that government demanding and getting limitless, secret access to every accessible detail of everyone's life has no history of being used for political vengeance and oppression, otherwise he'd be advocating for policies that have an unbroken, horrifying, outrageous, infamous track record.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Seriously. By a large margin I am most likely to die due to an age related illness.Somewhere after that are non-age related illnesses. Then accidents.Then Suicide. Being killed by "bad people" is WAY down the list. Why on earth should I give up my rights to protect myself from a tiny chance of death?
Obviously people in power would like more control over me, but why should I agree to it?
History shows that this mentality is not permanent. British rule over the US is a prime example that every US student should learn in public schools. People took a lot of crap from the Brits for a long time, and there was a point where momentum changed and we had a revolt.
The US is not very far from this today.
On the momentum behind the pro nanny state, most of the people in this movement are on the government dime (either work for the Government or receive some form of Welfare). It does not take a very big event to change this. If something happens where the Government can not handle the welfare, those receiving it will quickly change sides. Again, a historical normal which is easy to find.
The big question for most of us is how long they can procrastinate the collapse of the dollar, which has been looming for at least a decade. The US will run out of credit at some point, and when that happens the proverbial shit will hit the fan.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No, the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment. Trying to stretch the Founding Fathers' words of over two centuries ago to your pet cause in 2014 is a can of worms that no one should want to open.
It's like you don't understand what "effects" are.
Our phones and computers are the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects".
No, the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment. Trying to stretch the Founding Fathers' words of over two centuries ago to your pet cause in 2014 is a can of worms that no one should want to open.
"papers and effects"
Your personal effects include your smartphone. If the government wants to peek at it or seize it, they need to get a warrant.
Also, they want people to NOT use encryption at the same time that they're warning companies of the attacks by Chinese cyber-hackers. Someone needs to tell this guy "You can't have it both ways, dude."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Public safety is hurt by cars, since over 30,000 people die in car crashes every year in the US. Not only that, criminals use cars. Does the FBI Director think you should not have the right to use a car?
How many people are killed by encryption?
If the FBI director is claiming to be so staunchly against something, I'm quite apt to be pleased and support this.
But let's not forget that encryption hasn't stopped government surveillance as seen in the various leaks over the past year. This is likely double-speak and for all we know, the FBI and other agencies could already have the keys needed to override the encryption. Google, Microsoft, Apple, et al have proven already that their customer's privacy, whether from the government or another third-party, is something they happily ill lie about all the while saying "we had to do it--they made us!"
Less-geeky computer repair alternative for Lansing, MI
FBI / NSA: Dude, you're becoming a monster.
Citizen: You made me this way...
All encryption does is protect the individual from self incrimination and prevent them from using illegally captured traffic and metadata to do parallel construction a.k.a. lying about the source of evidence.
In addition to the other responses, have you never heard of the spirit of the constitution? There is more to the constitution than just interpreting everything 100% literally; you can take intent into account.
between banning encryption and banning banks, safes, and safety deposit boxes?
Because that's who the FBI work for... our precious Jewish 'masters'...
Can't have people finding out that the 'holocaust' was a lie, can we...
www.nazigassings.com
Quick, mod me down, don't think for yourself! Don't question what the JEWS have been telling you all your life, they'd never lie to you, would they...
As an atheist of Jewish extraction, I can tell you that the dues I pay to the International Jewish Conspiracy don't have the same benefits they used to have. It used to be that we'd get to choose from at least half a dozen christian babies for our blood drinking ceremonies. Now, we're lucky if we get two. Also, the royalty checks (you know, the one that's our skim) from all the world's economic output) have been down quite a bit since 2009.
It's getting harder every day to be the masters of the world. Sigh.
I'm usually not the religious kind of guy, but it fits far too well to just let it slip.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nothing like a spook whining about encryption.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the only winner is another state.
deserver neither.
Locking everyone in a jail cell would increase public safety greatly as well.
I'l take my chance and live life, rather than cower in some hole.
Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
I guess you're not aware of this year's Supreme Court decision, Riley vs. California, in which they determined that police require a warrant to search your phone. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...
Why?
Papers... and effects. Do you know what "effects" are? Here's a quick google search that turns up an answer right in the search results, no further linking needed. And it's right there, under noun, definition 3. That's the one the constitution meant. It says:
So a phone or computer is quite literally (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense) an effect.
Warrant or GTFO.
Only if it can be reasonably assumed that these things can pose a threat to officers...a cell phone doesn't meet that requirement. Are you supposing it's some sort of IED?
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
The public backlash to such a model is the result of people not trusting their government (and by extension the police).
Tackle the lack of trust and these problems go away. This is a social problem, not a technical one.
If all browsers in November will have SSL3 turned off by default, then he won.
All because the NSA wanted a crypto back door.
Note: fixing SSL won't fix the other methods, which involve spoofing cell and provider feeds and using the other computing devices inside your cell and network like your printers and GPUs and (long list).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Have gnu, will travel.
He used an example of how data on a phone was used to exonerate teens of a crime to strengthen his case against encryption. If you have evidence on your phone that will help prove your innocence you're far more willing to give up the password. The only instance that encryption would ever be a problem would be when gathering evidence to prove guilt.
For that, you'll have to talk to Motorola and the FCC.
Most p25 traffic isn't encrypted anyway. There is no need and some definite disadvantages to p25 as well. And there are cryptographic weaknesses.
Apple's leverage of open source encryption concepts will always be a few years more advanced, if not decades more, than embedded p25-compliant radios.
Fact is the law has broken the trust of the American people. They are getting caught lieing just as mush as criminals are. I have NO trust in our police, i have NO trust in the NSA,I have NO trust in the FBI,I have NO trust in the CIA, I have no trust in our lawmakers. Because they have all broken the laws of our land. Its time for a clean sweep people, Vote them all out and start fresh this November. Get out and Vote or shut up.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The long, long history of American jurisprudence has determined that your effects are materials held at home.
Judges are often complicit in the crimes against the American people.
The FBI's abandoning its primary task of watching the watchers and instead invading the privacy of every American is PRECISELY why Google's and Apple's taking a stand is needed.
Now with the FBI sucking up to Congress rather than scrutinizing them and instead continuing to defile our constitutional rights, who is left to watch the watchers? That WAS the job of the FBI.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Also, why are we so hung up on "papers"? I'm pretty sure our founding fathers didn't care about dead tree pulp and were more concerned about protecting the information on the paper. In that light, why would it matter what medium the information is contained on? Be it chiseled stone, carved wood, or a cellphone?
I have nothing to say to this but "the chair is against the wall". Also. "John has a long mustache" and X35DNK685.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Kids these days... encryption didn't just arrive with the latest iPhone release, you know.
The Founding Fathers were well versed in ciphers. If they did not outlaw encryption of personal effects and they did not grant special powers for the state to force you decode them, one has to conclude that they had their reasons.
I'd like to know how Jim Comey reconciles his position on encryption with the requirements set for in the CJIS Security Policy
Because he isn't saying people can't encrypt, he is saying the keys must be available such that the government can get in if needed, even if the owner would like to block the access. The CJIS Policy allows for escrow as well.
What he doesn't seem to get (though I bet he actually does), and where some of the arguments here are missing the mark, is that if someone else holds a key that will grant access, even if the holder is the government, that provides a path for a bad guy to abuse the ability to access. The bad guy(s) can be hackers/attackers from down the street, on the other side of the planet, employees of our government, etc.
And the issue regarding the 4th amendment is somewhat misleading because he is saying a REASONABLE search is what is being prevented, namely one where conditions like a valid warrant exist or an imminent physical threat is present (I am not going to argue the problem here about anything can be claimed as an imminent threat). So the question is does the Constitution allow a person to use technical means to prevent the government access to data even when a valid warrant is presented? Many here obviously believe the answer is yes, mostly for reasons like those I gave above, but understand that this doesn't appear to be a protected right under the 4th since the 4th only says you and your effects are secure until a warrant is issued, not after.
In Alabama every drug warrant has article "G" attached to it that gives the officers the right to search all files and computers, for drug records. If you keep your records in, let's say French, then the police can take them to a translator. If you keep your papers in some kind of "encrypted" scheme that requires some mechanism to decrypt, then it's evidence enough that you deal drugs. I hope encryption on phones doesn't have the same effect.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Time for popcorn!!!
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
What he doesn't seem to get (though I bet he actually does), and where some of the arguments here are missing the mark, is that if someone else holds a key that will grant access, even if the holder is the government, that provides a path for a bad guy to abuse the ability to access. The bad guy(s) can be hackers/attackers from down the street, on the other side of the planet, employees of our government, etc.
And the government can be the bad guy. It often is, in fact.
And the issue regarding the 4th amendment is somewhat misleading because he is saying a REASONABLE search is what is being prevented, namely one where conditions like a valid warrant exist or an imminent physical threat is present (I am not going to argue the problem here about anything can be claimed as an imminent threat).
I think this is a good thing, as it causes them to focus on the most important cases and protects you from rubberstamped warrants.
So the question is does the Constitution allow a person to use technical means to prevent the government access to data even when a valid warrant is presented?
The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't. So of course it does.
With lithium batteries? Anything is possible. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
You know tat amendment gives the government the right to search your papers and effects as long as they follow procedure.
What he wants is the ability to get a warrant and carry out a search; which is a reasonable.
And the reason he uses are legitimate reasons.
People commit crimes, he wants to be able to find evidence and build a case is evidence is found.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't. So of course it does."
and on the white list is the right for the government to search you if it follow procedure.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I, for one, REFUSE to be pre-criminalized...
Too late... already happened
The only appropriate answer for this sort of thing is "Fuck you. Get a warrant."
Enjoy your stay in government housing while we wait...
Jim Comey needs to be told to shut the hell up, do his job *RIGHT* and be a good little soldier.
Remember who gives the orders. He is a very good little soldier, getting up there and barking like a dog, very well trained. And maybe he too, will write a tell-all confession after he reties, if the right book deal comes along.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'd be a little more sympathetic to his position if it were not for the massive abuses of various govt. agencies which were recently revealed.
Others have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong and explain why. However, even if your argument was correct, you reach the wrong conclusion because the Framers of the Constitution addressed the issue of technology that did not yet exist in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution did not explicitly grant the federal government the power, that power is denied to the federal government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't get how encryption can hurt public safety. The courts have been quite clear the government can get a warrant and force you to unencrypt your files. So the only thing the FBI has to fear here is if they were operating outside the bounds of the constitution and trying to avoid judicial scrutiny.
The actual question "So the question is does the Constitution allow a person to use technical means to prevent the government access to data even when a valid warrant is presented?"
Also, governments don't have rights; they have powers. The government cannot stop you from using a tool merely because it makes getting information from you hard/impossible if it gets a warrant; it simply has no such power.
Wow.... Had the FBI and NSA followed the law to the letter, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. Now they've f**ked up and made their jobs harder. It's just so sad.... cry me a river. They've proven the FBI and the NSA *CAN NOT* and *SHOULD NOT* be trusted. By anyone. And for the record, you don't get to tell software vendors or users what they can and can't do with their property. Comey can go f**k himself and the horse he rode in on. We don't need him or the FBI.
Don't tread on me. 'nuff said.
I think you are missing his sarcasm. As in the 1st am protects internet free speech tv speech etc and the 2nd am protects modern firearms, he is suggesting that the same exists for the 4th am.
... with separation of powers, the police have the good decency not to engage in matters of political policy, and on the occasion they do, they get slapped on the wrist.
So, open season on the homeless. Good to know.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I am literally a terrorist for not letting an FBI agent walk into my apartment at will and dig through my fridge. Same logic.
Used and implemented properly, encryption can also provide protection against fraud. It would seem though that the FBI would prefer to encourage agencies around the world to snoop rather than actually *prevent* crime.
Still, I've heard that cops aren't exactly fond of doing the hard work of following proper protocols and procedures, opting for short cuts. It's a bit insulting that they constantly claim they don't have enough search and seize powers however when they start criticizing the one method that may protect my property from a criminal activity they will have no interest in pursuing, I'd give them the advice that any other employee would get:
Stop complaining and do your job.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
OK, try to go buy a thank or an F-16 and tell me how that works out for you.
Had the goobernmint not let the NSA run roughshod over the constitution and the rights of people both foreign and domestic, the general public would not be baying for the means to keep them out.
The goobernmint brought this upon themselves through their abuses.
Screw 'em.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why not "Obama Admin Continues Its Campaign Against Encryption"? If the Obama admin was against it, they'd fire him. Obama or Bush, the result is the same, the government does not want encryption.
You are aware that owning those as a private US citizen or resident is perfectly legal, right? They're just expensive as hell. You can also buy a decommissioned helicopter.
Of course its right to use technical means to stop the government accessing your files. It always has been like that, you could always write you documents in code, or hide them and you where under no obligation to reveal the code or location, you have the right to remain silent.
The government has the ability to watch us more than it ever has in history, but it will never be enough.
I think it is less about allowing encryption on cell phones as opposed to having it on by default. Most people will not bother (mainly because they don't understand how easy it is to monitor someone) so it is an indicator to look further if your phone is encrypted, once everyone has encryption turned on it will no longer be an indicator.
Really its the spy agencies own fault they overstepped their bounds, by issuing secret warrants to companies and monitoring everyone, now they get the backlash.
When something you had is taken away it feels much worse than if you never had it in the first place.
More often than not, I'm happy to hold dialogue on Philosophy and try to teach people. In this particular case, I see no benefit for doing so. Your comment is a tangent which won't invalidate any of my points. Therefor, I lack the energy to even try. That said, I'll give you a few points of history to study which will put you on the path to my perspective.
1. Plato's The Republic. The whole thing, not just a single allegory or book. I don't expect you to get it at the first read, but rather grasp basic concepts and definitions. No offense is intended, I still learn new things every time I read the book. Frankly I have read at least 5 translations and each of those several times. I prefer "The Cambridge Text" version since it includes most of the historical references you need. As you suggested earlier, this requires a scholarly approach, not a glance or glimpse of the book. Main goals are to understand the definition of Justice, and "The Allegory of the Cave" completely. From Socrates's perspective it is the duty of the enlightened to free the masses from the cave, and that people will fight and to the death to remain in the cave.
Next, study history. Start with Athens and it's fall and follow that up through the US Revolution and find the root causes for the revolutions. While surely we can find numerous corollary explanations, a main theme is that the masses are oppressed to a point where there is no choice but to revolt. If you don't like US History, try the French Revolution from roughly the same time period. If you don't like Western history, try the Bolshevik Revolution where again the oppressed masses was the theme of the revolution (with obviously different results than a Republic). More recently, we have the Ukraine which revolted for the same reasons, though in fairness quite different extremes. Constant revolutions in Africa and the Middle East over the same theme again. The difference in stability between the US and Egypt for example, is that Egypt's revolutions were not successful in removing entrenched people who behave as an oppressive oligarchy where the US built in numerous protections (which continually been revoked over the last couple of decades).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
What he wants is the ability to get a warrant and carry out a search; which is a reasonable.
Where have you been the last ten years? What he wants is to get rid of the 4th amendment and have his goons able to search whomever they want without having to get a warrant, because that requires evidence of a crime and probable cause that you committed it. The article states that encryption was a problem a whole NINE times last year and "the investigations proceeded in some other way.”. This is not the catastrophe that the government is claiming it is.
The FBI is plain out lying in order to social engineer public hatred of encryption.
No, the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment.
Or we could just encrypt our data.
If you want the government to have the additional authority to deny people the right to a new technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for a constitutional amendment.
Not on the whitelist is the right of the government to people people from using encryption or compelling companies to develop their products in a way that aids the government in performing it's searches.
I, for one, REFUSE to be pre-criminalized...
Too late... already happened
Touche.
The only appropriate answer for this sort of thing is "Fuck you. Get a warrant."
Enjoy your stay in government housing while we wait...
If necessary. I will. Part of the reason that the government gets over so much nowadays is that people are TERRIFIED of being seen as a criminal, and they're scared shitless of ANY form of incarceration.
Jim Comey needs to be told to shut the hell up, do his job *RIGHT* and be a good little soldier.
Remember who gives the orders. He is a very good little soldier, getting up there and barking like a dog, very well trained. And maybe he too, will write a tell-all confession after he reties, if the right book deal comes along.
Even the best trained dog gets a rolled up paper across the snout once in a while.
I have no problem being such. As there's nothing in my life I couldn't stand to lose.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
No they clearly didn't care about stone tablet bearers.
The thing is, if they need a warrant, they will produce one. If they don't like you, you are screwed.
Even the best trained dog gets a rolled up paper across the snout once in a while.
What would you punish this guy for? He's doing exactly what he's told, and I'm certain he's not peeing on the carpet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And not just a victim of fanatics that see terrorists and child-abuse images everywhere (apparently, pictures are now more evil than actually abusing children...), but also a victim of any better-equipped criminal hacking enterprise.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Alcohol consumption hurts public safety. Firearms hurt public safety. Tobacco hurts public safety. Irresponsible drivers hurt public safety. The Koch brothers hurt public safety. Influenza hurts public safety. Anti-vaxxers hurt public safety. Obesity and the food industry hurt public safety. This sort of public shit kills hundreds of thousands of your citizens a year, and you're worried about encryption on my smart phone?
DaveyJJ
I see this same reasoning used by the anti-gun crowd. They want to say the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to things that didn't exist at the time the document was drafted. Let's take that to it's logical conclusion then, shall we?
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Using the "no unforseen technology" argument, that means the only thing covered by freedom of the press is exactly that. A hand-cranked printing press. That was the technology of the time. That's why it's called "freedom of the press." It gave people the right to print books and documents without the government having a say in what was allowed. Freedom of speech at the time was speaking in the town square without being arrested, or publishing documents via freedom of the press. Therefore, using any of these "new fangled" technologies to exercise your free speech is not protected, because they didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted.
By your logic, telegraphs, radio, telephones, faxes, photographs, photocopies, computers, the Internet, etc. are not protected via the First Amendment, because those technologies didn't exist at the time, and could not have been forseen that long ago. So I guess we need an amendment to allow those things to be used as well? Unless you're saying that your argument only applies to your favorite amendments and not the others, in which case why even have the Bill of Rights to begin with, or indeed the whole Constitution?
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
do these people not understand?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The long, long history of American jurisprudence has determined that your effects are materials held at home. Your smartphone travelling in your pocket as you go out in public, just like your wallet, is not an effect. Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
So if they bust through your door when you're sleeping looking another (probably innocent) guy 2 streets away, is your phone safe then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Phone theft is a pretty common issue around the world. Smart phones have a lot of confidential personal and business information. They can also be used to compromise many online services used by the device that use email or SMS verification. Smart phones are very attractive targets for criminals.
Encryption is one sensible precaution to reduce the damage done if a phone is stolen. Remotely wiping a stolen phone is another sensible precaution. These measures can be effective against criminals but can also make the job of law enforcement more difficult.
Law enforcement seems to want us all to be less safe so their job can be easier, while they fail to deal with the criminals that we are trying to protect ourselves from. The FBI seems to be stating that they want to continue to be lazy and incompetent.
It doesn't really matter what law enforcement wants anymore. Public awareness is increasing with leaking of nude celebrity pictures and other breaches that made the mainstream media. People want to be able to protect their data. Even if Google and Apple fail their customers by backing down there will be other commercial and free options for users to protect themselves.
What would I punish the guy for?
Oh. Let me count the ways.
And seriously. You're allowing him the Nuremburg Defense? ("I was only following orders")
Sorry, NOT a good reason for violating people's rights.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Your point regarding REASONABLE search being at issue is well taken. However, I don't think that the US Constitution gives the federal government blanket authority to ban practices that would make the federal government's exercise of constitutional powers easier. One could easily imaging a clause in the constitution saying something like "The federal government may make laws restricting the people's exercise of their rights when such restrictions are necessary to make the federal government's exercise of duly constituted powers easy/efficient/effective." I think the founding fathers would have quailed at the rather trivial potential for overreach in such a clause. Since the so-called Bill of Rights is not meant to be strictly enumerative of rights held by the people, but rather examples of the restraints on the federal government's powers, the fourth amendment's example of what is protected clearly can be extended to cover information held in newer technologies than existed in the 1700s. Since the US Constitution doesn't provide the power to restrict the people's exercise of their rights except in very specific ways, the use of encryption to protection information is a right, just as would have been the use of a safe to lock up information, or the use of a box of papers hidden in a burlap sack buried in the middle of the woods.
"You hold a [search warrant] on everyone on Earth and call it protection," he says. "This isn't freedom, this is fear."
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
James Comey is more dangerous than ISIS.
A long history of jurisprudence that existed long before the internet was invented or even widely adopted. When that happens I think instead of trying to force modern technology to conform with outdated laws we should instead look at why our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution.
The government having the ability to unreasonably search your information of any kind allows them to build a narrative about your behavior using cherry picked evidence. At the drop of a hat your entire history, and every little mistake along the way can be used to demonize even the greatest saint. It was by using tactics like this that corrupt governments would silence dissent. Kings would craft a narrative to discredit opposition and lock them away never to be seen again.
This is the behavior that our country has engaged in, and regardless of whether your "papers and effects" are emails, downloads, or letters the consequences of a government spying on those communications are the same: that the government can use your entire life to criminalize you when you are not in fact a criminal. That is what you should be looking at, not jurisprudence from judges that are mostly tech illiterate or that predated the technology that it is being used as precedent to rule on.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
It might be harder to make the "using encryption = conspiracy to commit a crime" when the judge's phone is encrypted too, and so are the phones of all the jury members.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I nkow someone with a tank, and I know another person with a working fighter jet.... Its not as difficult as you seem to think (if you have the $$$)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think the 5th amendment would say yes. you have the right not to incriminate yourself.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, I am not allowing the Nuremberg defense. You just have to vote more carefully to make sure people like him are never appointed to the position. The people you put in charge like his work. I' sorry. That's just the way it is.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
OMG! Where are my mod points???? Shout this from the freaking rooftops! The tenth ammendment is the most definitive and important of them all, IMO, and the one that is the most frequently forgotten or ignored. I honestly wish it had come first in the Bill of Rights just to make it harder to ignore.
The Tenth Ammendment applies in just about every situation. It is the recognition that the citizen is the supreme soveriegn in this country and that the citizen allocates some of his powers and rights to the state, and then a further, smaller subset to the Federal government. Somewhere along the way we seem to have gotten this backward. We have been living as though the Federal government is the supreme sovereign which allocates some of its powers to the states and then a further, smaller subset to the people. THAT is the real tragedy of the US.
Please continue to spread this message. Make bumper stickers. Make T-shirts. I wish people would champion the Tenth Ammendment the way they do the First or the Second.
This space intentionally left blank
...
The statute, outlawing the provision of “material support” to designated terrorist organizations, does not violate free-speech and free-association protections of the First Amendment, and it is not unconstitutionally vague, the majority justices declared...
That doesn't come close to addressing encryption, warrants, or search and seizure. What The Hell?
Can you quote that right? Because all I see in the 4th Amendment is that they're not allowed to arrest or search unless it is reasonable; it doesn't say anything about being granted a right to search things successfully.
So far as I can see, 4A is not relevant to this discussion at all. It does not grant people the right to be completely secure from any search (as it specifically excludes reasonable ones), nor does it grant the government the right to force people to make said search easier.
Didn't one of Google's founders buy an old jet? Don't know if it was a F-15 or F-16 or what, but it is stationed at Moffet Field was the rumor I heard a few years back. Obviously I would assume it doesn't have or carry any ordinances on it, just the jet.
Amen, would mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread. The government has been usurping our individual rights on a daily basis, and through court decisions and other magic hand waving tries to get us to buy into their BS that we 'the people' never had those rights to begin with.
It's the government who never had those rights to begin with, until they stole them from 'the people'. And they continue to do so.
Let the butthurt flow through you, James Comey!
And the very next amendment protects the right of people not to be compelled to aid in the production of evidence used to prosecute them. The government cannot compel me to divulge what is in my head.
I don't think that heavily armored vehicle without a functioning gun on the front qualifies as a tank. I also can find nothing about privately owned air-ready F-16s, but even then, it would have no weapon systems. And I was talking about these systems as weapons, not expensive toys.
I'm talking about these items as weapon systems. I also doubt that they jet is at all recent (or if it is, that it could fly in US airspace).
It was a European trainer jet.