18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 2, 2014 @05:36AM from the do-you-own-yourself dept.

Cognitive Dissident writes The Register has a story about federal prosecutors using a law signed by George Washington to force manufacturers to help law enforcement access encrypted data on devices they manufacture. The All Writs Act is a broad statute simply authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction. Quoting the Register article: "Last month, New York prosecutors successfully persuaded a judge that the ancient law could be used to force an unnamed smartphone manufacturer to help unlock a phone allegedly used in a credit card fraud case. The judge ordered the manufacturer to offer 'reasonable technical assistance' to make the phone's contents available." What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?

28 of 446 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

5th Admendment? by JustNiz · 2014-12-02 05:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

>> authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction.
Isn't this actually contradictory to the 5th admendment?
1. Re:5th Admendment? by koan · 2014-12-02 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
  Answer: The rooster.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
2. Re:5th Admendment? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 05:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Assumming that you're talking about the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on compelled self-incriminaton, no. If you're suspected of a crime, *you* can't be compelled to incriminate yourself. But third parties that aren't protected by a privilege (spousal, attorney-client, doctor-patient, etc.) can be compelled to produce evidence, testify against you, and definitely to provide technical manuals and expertise. Third parties can be compensated for the cost of complying with subpoenas in cases that they are not party to.
  The protection against self-incrimination isn't well-defined either. There's conflicting case-law as to whether you can be compelled to hand over encryption keys.
3. Re: 5th Admendment? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 05:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nope. The 5th Amendment only means you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Well, some other stuff too, but that is the relevant part.
  You're really looking for the 4th Amendment anyway. It provides for protection from unreasonable search and seizure, not prohibiting all search and seizure.
4. Re:5th Admendment? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I would say no. They aren't forcing anyone to incriminate themselves. It is forcing a 3rd party (the phone manufacturer) to help extract the information. Unless the phone manufacturer was the suspect of the crime, then its not a 5th amendment issue.
5. Re:5th Admendment? by jedidiah · 2014-12-02 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.
  There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
6. Re:5th Admendment? by kruach+aum · 2014-12-02 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The egg. Eggs had existed for millions of years before the first dinosaurs, let alone before the first birds, let alone before the first chickens.
7. Re:5th Admendment? by jbolden · 2014-12-02 06:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The 5th says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. It doesn't say the courts can't drag 3rd parties into being witnesses against you even if they don't want to. There is no conflict.
8. Re:5th Admendment? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-12-02 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And even if you specify chicken eggs, it's *still* the egg. By the process of evolution, the first chicken would have been a mutation from parents that were almost, but not quite, chickens. The almost-but-not-quite-chicken mother would have laid an egg, out of which hatched the first chicken. So the egg came first.
9. Re: 5th Admendment? by roc97007 · 2014-12-02 06:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Still having faith in the constitution? That same one that gets raped on a daily basis? I think you need a new strategy.
  The constitution? Actually, yes.
  The way it's currently being followed? Not so much.
  The constitution isn't going to climb out from under that bullet proof glass in Washington and right wrongs like Batman. It takes diligence and sometimes sacrifice on the behalf of citizens to keep the country in line with the principles on which it was founded. We get the government we deserve, through out inaction, or through voting for free stuff rather than principles.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
10. Re:5th Admendment? by mythosaz · 2014-12-02 06:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The nice man on Sunday told me all the animals were created in one fell swoop, so it's the chicken.
11. Re:5th Admendment? by nedlohs · 2014-12-02 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is a "chicken egg" an egg that could hatch a chicken? Or an egg laid by a chicken? Is an unfertilized egg laid by a chicken a "chicken egg" - that would seem to favor the second case, in which the chicken came first....
12. Re:5th Admendment? by kruach+aum · 2014-12-02 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This, interestingly, runs into the paradox of the heap. 10 grains of rice are not a heap. 11 grains of rice are not a heap. 12 grains of rice are not a heap... and adding grains of rice one by one is never going to end up in a case where X grains of rice are not a heap but X+1 grains of rice are. But now we have a problem, because 1000 grains of rice clearly are a heap! There must have been a switch somewhere from not-heap to heap, but it's somehow untraceable to any particular instance of rice adding.
  The chicken is similar. The archaeopteryx clearly is not a chicken. Slowly, over the millennia, mutation by mutation, we eventually ended up with creatures that clearly are chickens. But when was the first time a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken? Just like in the case of the heap, we can't tell. What's more, not only can't we tell, there may not even be a fact of the matter; that is, it may be fundamentally unknowable.
13. Re:5th Admendment? by BitZtream · 2014-12-02 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Uhm, no.
  Mutations happen all the time in every cellular organism on the planet. There are mechanisms in place to deal with those mutations and squash them in many cases, but not all, this is part of the way evolution works. It does not have to occur only in the initial cellular division or zygote. Even 'identical twins' can have minor cellular differences due to mutations that happen in the process of gestation after the eggs are split into two distinct units.
  Cancer is a very specific group of extremely rare of mutations that isn't detected and stopped by the normal methods cells use to protect themselves. It is in fact a mutation that prevents the mechanism which stops out of control cell growth.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
14. Re:5th Admendment? by smooth+wombat · 2014-12-02 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Citations, please.
  
  I found the following related to the above quotes. The first one I couldn't find anything in context, only that Bush supposedly said it, and the second one is part of the the Constitution being just a piece of paper quote which was false. As to the rest. . .
  
  "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." George W. Bush - Link
  
  "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush - Link
  
  "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - George W. Bush - Link
  
  "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." - George W. Bush - Link
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Then demanding decryption will not be "reasonable" by gweihir · 2014-12-02 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, as long as only "reasonable technical assistance" is required, there is no danger. Good encryption is designed to be (practically) unbreakable unless the key is known, hence expecting somebody to break it without the key is not "reasonable" at all.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Well, obviously by bondsbw · 2014-12-02 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
That is answered by the former quote:

The judge ordered the manufacturer to offer 'reasonable technical assistance' to make the phone's contents available.
Breaking encryption that is not breakable does not fall under any sense of the word "reasonable".

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
1. Re:Well, obviously by Opportunist · 2014-12-02 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And now try to word that in a way that a judge can understand that doesn't make him feel stupid (because judges don't like to feel stupid and will side with the other guy if they do) and doesn't make him think you're trying to bullshit him (which is actually not that far away from the other limitation).
  Good luck.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Well, obviously by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-12-02 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "We manufacture locks where the end customer makes their own custom keys. We don't know what key they might have made."
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The law is valid by aepervius · 2014-12-02 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

"New York prosecutors successfully persuaded a judge that the ancient law could be used"

The law was not sunset-ed, the law was not stricken down by another law, the law itself was not repelled on its own, the law was not stricken down by the supreme court.

So what is the problem ? Until a repell/strick down , ALL those law are still valid. Cue the shooting down welsh with a bow, but this is the basis of our judiciary process. just because a law is old does not make it invalid.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:The law is valid by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-02 05:47 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "New York prosecutors successfully persuaded a judge that the ancient law could be used" The law was not sunset-ed, the law was not stricken down by another law, the law itself was not repelled on its own, the law was not stricken down by the supreme court. So what is the problem ? Until a repell/strick down , ALL those law are still valid. Cue the shooting down welsh with a bow, but this is the basis of our judiciary process. just because a law is old does not make it invalid.
  Correct, until it is repealed (unlikely) or struck down by the Supreme Court it is still the law. This could be a good case to take to the Supreme Court since it highlights the impact of changing technology on the law and could clarify what is required when presented with such a writ.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
2. Re:The law is valid by geniice · 2014-12-02 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You can't force any level of review. It can always be turned into people signing stuff without looking at it. What the UK is currently doing is getting a buch of lawyers to go through and dig out all the laws that don't do anything any more. Every few years they pass a big omnibus repeal bill removing them. 2013 version can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
Old laws are still laws by mi · 2014-12-02 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

that the ancient law
The Bill of Rights is comparably ancient. So what? Old does not mean "wrong" (unless you are a teenager in the rebellious phase)...

The All Writs Act is a broad statute simply authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction.
Makes sense to me. In fact, seems like a good — forward-compatible — law indeed...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:First by BaronAaron · 2014-12-02 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is the reason I prefer Android devices. You can install a firmware that is compiled from the open source you trust. There is still the possibility of hardware level backdoors, but there are a 100 different manufactures of Android devices, many of them have little to no presence in the USA. Google doesn't have to be involved with your device at all.
Versus Apple, Microsoft, etc who are easy targets for US courts orders.
Setting aside that old Constitution by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-12-02 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

America's modern left often argues that portions of the US Constitution can be safely ignored because it's old and was written by white dudes. Here's a (fairly calm) piece that explores that argument. (Also look up "constitution living document".)
"Is the Constitution Still Relevant?"
http://consortiumnews.com/2013...
Unfortunately, this isn't just a fringe belief: in 2010 a USA Today poll showed that 1 in 4 people no longer though the Constitution was "relevant"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Great news by GameboyRMH · 2014-12-02 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This tells us that the cryptography is working and that they're only able to access data with legal power rather than some unknown height of technical prowess.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Then demanding decryption will not be "reasonab by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-12-02 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, as long as only "reasonable technical assistance" is required, there is no danger. Good encryption
The Justice Department feels that having an embedded back door into the devices' crypto is very "reasonable" and has been pushing for just that. Now they need a judge to rule on their version of the word and the corporations will fall in line.
Throw in a Patriot Act gag order and some import/export barriers vis-a-vis patent wars, and let's make a bet about how many 2015 backdoors will be discovered in 2018.
This is the kind of government the voters support.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Jefferson by mx+b · 2014-12-02 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

America's modern left often argues that portions of the US Constitution can be safely ignored because it's old and was written by white dudes. Here's a (fairly calm) piece that explores that argument. (Also look up "constitution living document".)
Thomas Jefferson was concerned greatly about the "Tyranny of the Dead" -- that the laws and debts of dead elder generations will inhibit progress in younger generations that are facing entirely new types of problems not envisioned by the older generations. He wanted the Constitution (or at least federal law) to be effectively completely rewritten every generation -- every 18-20 years or so. You can read about it in his letters.
I would say that probably the results of that poll are not people being "stupid" and "forgetting" that the Constitution is important, but rather, evidence of a yearning that the current system is not entirely working and it needs modification. Just like we have done so 27 times in the history of the US (i.e., the Amendments). It's not relevant today, but we Amend it to be more relevant. For example, the move to get a 28th amendment that strikes down the Citizens United ruling and makes more free and fair elections (see any number of organizations: Move to Amend, WolfPAC, etc.). We know there's money in politics, and here's one proposed solution to it. Not by ignoring the constitution or laws, but actually, working the way the constitution is supposed to work! The people can call for an amendment if our national leaders do not.
I don't think I've heard anyone make the argument that they can ignore laws because old white dudes wrote them. I *have* heard that we need to change laws because they are stupid and we want to make a more perfect union, though. Don't let people like the ones that wrote the article in your link trick you into think their opinion is public opinion (its easy to spot because of the use of words like "The Left thinks blah" and "The Right does blah" -- there is no Left and Right as one huge bloc, but a spectrum of smaller groups with differing opinions, and even if it was one big bloc, who is this author to be able to speak for half the country? I've never heard of him.).
I'm not that worried. I think when our current leaders that have been in office for 30+ years finally retire or are voted out as the younger generation comes up, we will see laws and constitutional amendments that fix problems. Not ignored, fixed.