Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'
Jason Koebler writes: Leslie Caldwell, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
Just like that zone of lawlessness inside of peoples minds that the pesky 5th amendment creates, think of all the criminals going free because we can't force them to incriminate themselves! This is a situation that the DOJ and other alphabet agencies have brought upon themselves by thinking they are above the law in the first place.
This was in the context of the Iraq war, when the United States kicked over the anthill that was Saddam's government and suddenly all the factions started tearing each other and their civilization apart.
I do not normally agree with Donald Rumsfeld, and in the context of the Iraq war I definitely disagree with his decision to allow Iraq to destroy itself so thoroughly, but on the other hand if we're extending that freedom to people that we're actively in-confrontation with, then shouldn't we extend that freedom to ourselves?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What would be so bad about that? There is lots of data that could theoretically be provided after a court order, but is not available for technical or practical reasons. So far, it has not destroyed the world. I very much doubt that encrypting personal data by default would suddenly cause major problems.
they can no longer grab everything on everyone and actually have to go back to doing REAL police work. its so hard I tell ya, whatever did cops do about crime before smartphones???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
OMG!!! The pedophiles and terrorists are going to run rampant!! It's not like they used encryption before or anything!
Gotta love the flailing FUD as of late about encryption, reporting police officers on Waze, etc. The police state is definitely in full swing at this point.
I am not so concerned about the lawful access (i.e. not a secret court warrant). It's the abuse of power that continues with the executive agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, local police, etc...) that I am concerned about. Until they are willing to stop the abuses, I have no problem making their jobs harder. Don't blame the tech companies for making your jobs more difficult. If you do it the right way, an encrypted phone won't be a problem during an investigation. A phone should not be the start and end of your case and investigation - it should only be an additional tool.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
It is not just security, it is privacy. It is the freedom from governments and others snooping through my life.
Who started snooping without warrants? Bending rules? Breaking rules? Little sympathy towards authorities is left in the world.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
That would be all the corporate boardrooms, capitol buildings, and city halls, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Guess what, the criminals you were trying to catch were already "flicking the switch" on the encryption before this became the "default" setting.
The default setting came about because of your constitutional terrorism, wielding your Weapons of Constitutional Destruction to the detriment of the common man.
You only have yourselves to blame for this effect.
Too Fucking Bad! Your entire administration and the one before it has demonstrated that you have absolutely no intent of defending the constitution especially where privacy and due process are concerned. To make this kind of statement while new stories of how you're tracking people's everyday movements even more you still complain that you don't get access because people and companies are defending themselves. Lawlessness? Fuck! Where have you been? There's already instances where evidence has been forged in cases to keep secrets of how information was obtained illegally and the DOJ has sanctioned it! Ms Cadwell, you're not the person who should be in the DOJ and you should resign immediately because you have your head right up your ass.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They shot first, they eroded the trust to a point where people, not criminals or terrorists or pedophiles but ordinary law abiding people have stood up and said "we don't trust the government any more, nor the systems in place to protect our privacy, and so we have to take it into our own hands."
The proliferation of wide spread encryption is almost a direct result of actions by the NSA, FBI, and friends. They brought this on themselves. If they want people to once again accept them as partners in protecting their rights rather than adversaries, they need to regain the trust they've lost.
The notion that liberties could be misused and potentially give way to lawbreaking behavior is never a justification for the repeal of liberty.
We are always and everywhere free to break the law. That our social contract with government grants government the ability to prosecute law breakers ex post facto, does not equate to a wholesale license to restrict a liberty prior to its potential abuse.
To jump to such a conclusion would equally justify a national curfew. After all, who knows what we might get up to after dark?
Liberty by definition, always carries with it the potential for individual abuse.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
You aren't allowed to look at just anything! - The Constitution
Perhaps if not for the abuses by governments continually brought to light, companies wouldn't have bothered with this, or not so soon.
Bitch, you own this. Bed, made, lie.
Because it's SUPPOSED to suck. If the Founders intended government to be able to rifle through our affairs AT WILL they wouldn't have put the 4th Amendment into the Bill of Rights would they?
Corporatism != Free Market
This is America, not Turkey, or Australia or Hell. Go there and spy all you want on whoever you want whenever you want.
American Dan
"We understand the value of door locks and the importance of home security," she said. "But we're very concerned they lead not to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness.'"
Yes, you could get a warrant to enter a person's home, but in theory, only with probable cause--although law enforcement doesn't even bother with that anymore, under the guise of "national security" or "defending freedom" or "imminent terrorist danger" or some other vague excuse. Which is all the MORE reason why encryption is necessary, because unlike physical property, digital property deserves even greater protection from government intrusion, especially when the agents of that government--such as this lawyer--dare to openly speak the way they do. It proves the government is not trustworthy. Our private information is a record of our thoughts and actions in a way that physical property does not and cannot compare.
The fact is, I'd rather risk the vague possibility of a terrorist threat than be subjected to the certainty of a tyrannical government. The real terrorists are those who use fear and propaganda to advance oppressive tactics, repeal individual rights and freedoms, all in order to enshrine power and money for themselves. As I have said about law enforcement: if you don't like that your job is "hard" or "dangerous" or made more so as a consequence of technology, that's your problem. It doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens have any obligation to facilitate the rolling back of progress so that you can stay lazy and expend the absolute minimum amount of effort required.
Seems to me they are just jealous that the zone of lawlessness is excluding them from the picture. All was fine in their minds if the main law violators were mostly within the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. Now that they have been cut out of the party they are spreading FUD like crazy.
I hear there are zones of lawlessness in people's homes and in various public spaces such as parks, parking lots, street corners and alleys, where people actually TALK to each other without being surveilled! And bad guys who talk in code so that even if they are being surveilled, it's as if their conversation is encrypted by their brains! Horrors, whatever shall we do! Think of the children!
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
I do not think that phrase means what he thinks that means when the government's position is that all encryption needs a back door - NSA analysts have already shown that they'll use their access to data to invade privacy (i.e. looking up data of ex- girlfriends).
Though I'm pretty sure this is just posturing by the government to give everyone a false sense of security, and that Google, Apple and others have provided secret back doors that they aren't allowed to talk about.
"We are concerned that there are minuscule gaps in our nearly universal panopticon. Therefore we will require that all devices be accessible by duly appointed authorities. We promise that this power will never be abused."
The zone will be one of danger.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
The reason we are using encryption more widely is because the US government has been spying on US citizens without lawful court orders. That is, Leslie Caldwell should be concerned about the "Zone of Lawlessness" at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Justice Department. Fix that, and then the American people might consider not using encryption anymore.
In order to ride everyone's asses, law enforcement wants things that they do not understand, to be served them on a silver platter. The point they are missing is, if the things are so easy that your donut eating run-of-the-mill cop can figure it out at any time they wish, the crooks, who are leaps and bounds ahead of them, as far as computer literacy goes, will do victory dances around those devices and rape the average Joe's privacy. Of course, where there is a choice between the public's privacy and ease of police operation, guess what trumps ? Or in other words, who has the big guns ? The people who have no idea what they are talking about, keep their pie holes shut, in my opinion, and from what I read so far, Leslie Caldwell is one of those people.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Encryption does not prevent lawful access to data. If law enforcement gets a court order they can always go the person and require them to decrypt something for search. What it does prevent is LEO going to 3rd parties and secretly getting unencrypted data, which is only 'lawful' because they have twisted things to do so. But search where the subject is aware and can examine the order? No change there.
All common encryption does is prevent law enforcement from creating all sorts of new abilities and powers it did not have before, which is a very different thing.
If they can't decrypt/crack the encryption, I think they are fantasizing about all the things they aren't allowed to do, and assume everyone in the world is doing those things right this very moment.
France in the 90s tried to legislate and outlaw encryption with only a handful of exemptions allowed. That killed investment in the country. Businesses can't function if you take away their ability to encrypt their data. The government can't allow open access to data. We must have these protections to allow businesses to function. If a company can not protect their data, they will cease to do business there. Think of how many well guarded secrets are out there because of corporate America. Our entire cyber-security industry is built on the idea that ideas can flow from one location to another without everyone prying on what is contained in the message. This should not end. This can't end.
Place something witty here
Your position seems reasonable enough from an ethical/moral standpoint. Unfortunately, in reality, a device or communication channel is either secure against a certain attack or it isn't. There is not and never can be a middle ground of being secure against a certain attack unless that attack has been lawfully authorised by a competent court.
In short, if the government wants access to your encrypted information, even with appropriate oversight, then it must require your information to be insecure and therefore vulnerable to other parties accessing it as well. If the government wants to encourage security in communications, then it must accept that covert interception of those communications will no longer be possible. You can't eat your cake and have it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Most coherent people would say that includes everything inside the Washington D.C. beltway.
It's a zone of "Let's start limiting the power of the government like the Founding Fathers intended because you guys have overstepped your bounds a million-fold!"
Whatever harm comes out of fascist governments (i.e. pretty much all of them) not being able to access the personal data of a bunch of criminals is not even nearly worth sacrificing everyone's privacy for.
There used to be a saying, something about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent one.
Tragically, in today's culture of politics dominated by fear, it almost seems like everyone is presumed to be guilty of something. That means the idea that it might be necessary to protect someone who might actually be innocent, or simply to leave them alone to live their lives without interference, is not given a lot of thought.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You've demonstrated you can't be trusted. The CIA has proven they're willing to lie to Congress.
So the reality is, you're all lying, thieving bastards who ignore the law and our rights.
You got fucking probable cause and a warrant, show it. But you don't get blanket fishing expeditions just in case.
Sorry, but you're asking for back doors to all forms of security ... which defeats the purpose of those forms of security in the first place.
Go piss up a rope.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So I guess they're OK with US companies exposing their corporate secrets to espionage by foreign companies & foreign countries.
Namely the blatant violation of fourth amendment rights by tapping phone & email communications on a massive scale? When they start getting meaningful warrants for individual searches and stop hoovering up millions of innocent peoples information then they can complain about people encrypting their data.
people met on the street and in taverns and in private rooms, completely beyond the ability of anyone to eavesdrop
but enforcement against illegal activity proceeded by infiltrating groups and other methods
it seems the feds are complaining they might have to actually engage in hard work
do your damn job
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Besides it being citizens right to privacy, they should have thought about unlawful spying on its citizens.
Bitch now deal with it.
If you don't know what is going on in a zone of privacy, then how do you know that it is lawless?
Why is it any of your business to know what goes on in private?
Windows blinds also create a Zone of Lawlessness! In the State of Arizona, for example, Windows Blinds would allow people to unlawfully have more than the state mandated maximum of two dildos per household! The sky will fall I tell you! Something must be done!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
And locked doors make it harder for police to enter your house. Ban all locks!!!
So, I'm just curious, since the Justice Department is so concerned about zones of lawlessness popping up due to encryption options, what exactly do they define as the zone of privacy anymore?
Given the concerns from the government, it sounds like we don't have any right to privacy whatsoever, which would directly conflict our own laws.
Either change the Constitutional Amendment(s) that are being violated here, or define exactly what privacy is for every citizen. I feel one of those is necessary at this point to find progress on any front.
They misspelled privacy.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Do you mean a zone of lawlessness where my Constitutional rights are violated in the name of "freedom"? Where law enforcement official engage in criminal acts to "protect" me? Where my privacy is illegally violated as a matter of policy?
No thank you, Oberführer Caldwell.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Too. Fucking. Bad.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Pot meet kettle!
What's happened is the government has changed lawful access to mean secret courts with secret warrants, mass hacking and surveillance of systems we use every day for commerce etc with zero or token oversight. This is the real zone of lawlessness.
These systems can then be used for cyberstalking some ex, data sold to an investigator for profit, used politically to smear opponents etc, and result in innocent people blocked from flying, subject to extraordinary rendition, special measures interrogation techniques (ie, torture) etc without due process. If this happened in another country we'd call it extra-judicial lawlessness and condemn it.
I think many people are supportive of lawful access. This means due process, within the court system, etc etc. Suspected of x, probable cause, warrant issued but briefly sealed, warrant executed and unsealed, ability to contest basis for warrant, knowledge of its execution and existence etc, etc. This system of due process exists for a reason - and is well articulated and well developed going back to our constitution and subsequent amendments etc.
Our economy and society wins if we can rely on these systems to handle our searches for medical conditions, our emails to loved ones, confidential business information etc etc without massive invasions of privacy. Our economy and society win if we can count on the rule of law.
Small wonder Google and Apple are resisting the secret "National Security Letter" no due process system the government has invented, or the direct hacking of their systems.
Law enforcement as in the individuals in our various agencies that decided that no one deserved any privacy. On a related note, every time i read about some government official whinging about terrorism and child predators, I just ignore them. They've cried wolf too many times.
If a criminal steals your data it is a crime and the injustice of that crime must be balanced. If the government performs an illegal search which should be a crime but somehow isnt; the injustice of that crime doesnt seem to matter.
Encrypting everything everywhere is the result of the government being somehow being unable to stop itself from violating its citizens by performing illegal searches.
Heavily encrypting everything means the government actually has to follow their own laws which they are not exempt from. There is one set of rules and the government should never be exempt from them.
> we're prohibited from getting Do solid concrete walls prohibit you from information? Walls be illegal now. They're just mad that break-in solutions don't work. Like paper documents in a flashbox.
Or they actually CAN break in and this is all elaborate fakery.
OMFG Think about the children !
So please let us implant location tracking devices into every human on earth, so they can all be tracked and monitored.
Also we have to track every car and every truck with gps, because they could potentially be used by terrorists.
The goal, if you had missed it, is to pass enough laws you're guilty of *something*. Then, if you get to be a problem, there's sure to be *something* to nail you to the wall with.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
from approximately 2005 to 2015, when the NSA conspired with the FBI and international governments to read all of our stuff, PURPOSELY sidestepping privacy concerns, and ruining any ethical insiders who pointed out the criminal lack of judgement.
Violating the bill of rights created it - not people using encryption software
it tells me to keep doing what I'm doing. Thanks to the Stasi errr NSA, I've learned a HELL of a lot more lately about TLS, and my mail server now only uses the very best possible encryption routines.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
And all the law enforcement, governments and other political organisations decide that privacy is a bit too dangerous. (swear word here) - if we do nothing wrong, we should not be punished for it.
The zone of lawlessness is created when you attorneys general will not indict cops for even the most radical forms of misbehavior. This behavior of course includes offenses that the little people regularly get nailed for, such as choking people to death on the street not in self-defense, plowing into a cyclist because you were texting, or (just this morning!) stealing nude images off women's cellphones and spreading them around for the lulz on social media.
Life imitates Firefly?
Exactly where does this lawlessness exist exactly, perhaps I can move there?
Communication is not illegal! Though is not ILLEGAL. How has encryption created a zone of lawlessness?
Last I checked, stuff was illegal on the Internet as well.......You can't sell cocaine online any more than you can on the street.
Now people have the power to talk to each other on ohhhh noesssss the super nanny police state can't on a whim know what the sheep are discussing...Oh noesssss!!! :(
Yeah yeah I know, think of the children.....
People sharing pedophile pictures as an example is STILL ILLEGAL. The only thing encryption does is make it so nobody can snoop in when exchanging information (or pictures). If you know who the source is and who he is in communication with (which encryption on it's own does not hide), well simple enough investigate and if necessary get a warrant. You know, the WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. Yeah I know actually working for your money is hard to do.....
Also talking about something, even if you are plotting to overthrow the Queen is not a crime if you do not intend to carry it out. It is the action which itself is illegal. If it was the other way around, then any counter-terrorist or defense/security/policing whomever though of how an attack could occur is a criminal and immediately needs to be arrested.
The truth is, those in power (the 0.1% boys club) have always been scared of the rest 99.9% of us. They do not see us as equals, and are terrified that one day we stop fighting over the crumbs they have thrown us and realize where the real problems is. Hence why they sleep better when they can at all times know where we are, who we are talking to and about what.
I do not understand how high placed officials can get away from making stupid public statements, and get away with it. If I made a public statement such as this, I would likely get fired (assuming anybody noticed). These kind of idiots need to be shamed into silence (not as in to silence free speech, but if you say something stupid you immediately lose credibility and people stop listening to you). You are free to have any opinion you want, but if you are going to publicly make a stupid statement without providing facts to back your argument, be prepared to be ridiculed.......
This is easily fixed. They can do it the same way they do every time they think they've got a case against someone, but screw up and realize the prosecution will fail. They just find some other scapegoat and charge them with obstruction of justice. The preeminent example is the Martha Stewart case. The feds were going after Peter Bacanovic for insider trading. When they discovered they didn't the evidence to indict, they looked at all the people they talked to during the investigation and decided Martha Stewart had lied, so they went after her for obstruction.
They can do the same switch in this case. Can't convict a suspect because their phone is encrypted? Charge some high-profile Google or Apple executive with obstruction of justice instead.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
...rape people to death, skin them and eat them. And if they're lucky, they do it in that order.
"Default encryption has created a zone of lawlessness" That is the best news I have heard all day. The law exists to keep the common people in line, and the powers that be in power.
Should not we call NSA that? Zone Of Lawlessness?
is a zone of lawlessness.
It creates a zone of protection from Tyranny...
Something that you guys have been known to practice. Clean up your act first, then come back and talk about encryption.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
apples new iprison will be coming for all of the ios users and it will have apple pricing so about $1.50 for a small coke (a lot when you are working for $0.13 hr)
TiggertheMad, a nobody from the Internet, said Tuesday that the he is "very concerned" by the most of the Internet's decision to not automatically encrypt all data. "We understand the value of legal discovery and the importance of enforcing laws," he said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where the government violates some of our most basic principles in some quixotic hunt to ferret out terrorists and other boogie men. They might actually have to do some actual police work, you know like they did for the last few centuries."
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Has anyone considered looking at this from a Second amendment perspective? If we are not to pass laws prohibiting the right to bear arms in order to establish a proper militia, has it not been considered that the command and control of said militia would also be as equally important? If so, then would it not be fair to assume that military grade encryption standards (read: non-exportable encryption) would by nature also be protected weapons systems? Granted, I know that arms exports has a litany of laws and the average Joe American can't just walk down the street buy an over the shoulder rocket launcher, but one would think that the ability to communicate securely for defensive purposes would in and of itself constitute protection under the Second Amendment? Or am I just reaching here?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
If law enforcement wants access to encrypted data, then the court order must specify that the owner of that data must produce it (or decrypt it).
What if you lived in an impenetrable house? Could a court order force you to open the door? If so, how are encryption keys any different? Does the 5th Amendment protect physical keys? Does the 5th protect the keys in your head the same way?
Let's be honest - the complaint here is that default encryption denies access to data that, up to now, has been obtained via warrantless methods. A court can still order you to hand over your encryption keys.
the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
Perhaps if the NSA, et. al., hadn't chosen to break/skirt the law by violating everyone's privacy to begin with, these companies would not be making these decisions now.
I'm all for law enforcement having the tools to catch bad guys. But that doesn't mean we should give up the fourth amendments protection from unreasonable search and seizure. If I break the rules, I get penalized. Law enforcement has broken the rules, now they have to pay the price for their overreach.
To use a phrase spoken by the president in 2009, this looks like a "teachable moment". For both those in power and those who are being governed, in this case.
Encryption kills people. Come DOJ; at least be f'ing consistent.
Sorry? This is idiotic. In real life, it (is supposet to) go like this:
1) Find signs that something illegal is likely going on
2) Go to the court and get a court order for more investigation, based on these signs.
3) Execute the court order and get the information.
In other words, there IS a lawful access route -- the police get a court order, they approach the suspect and confiscate their phone, and as part of the process, require their password. Suddenly, there's no encryption issue.
The problem here is when police want UNlawful access to someone's device. At no point does encryption prevent lawful access.
without them (Snowden/Manning/etc) and people like them this would still be tinfoil hat territory
"We understand 80 percent of traffic on the Tor network involves child pornography.” - Leslie Caldwell, Ast, Attorney General at the Justice Department
(Drops Mic)
You can lock your doors, just make sure it's not a good lock Fuck the government.
If you don't like it, go back to England.
The 5th Amendment had already been ratified. And if you ask someone in 1790 whether or not the contents of a persons own mind is and also should be beyond the reach of government, even with a court order, an American will tell you Yes, your mind should be a zone of lawlessness.
Secure personal computer storage is "merely"(?) an expansion of that.
BTW, I think it's amusing that Android and iOS are the government's examples. Those are both cases where even laymen (mostly) have few illusions that their handheld PC is truly secure from tampering. I am fairly confident that the government can hold a gun to a person's head at Apple or Samsung (and often the ISP would be in believable position as well) and tell them to push a malware update to the user, which then either discloses the keys immediately, or captures them the next time they're entered.
It's on the desktop where we're more accustomed to being truly the masters of our own machines. You can hold a gun to Mark Shuttleworth's head too (shit, it's probably even easier than that, considering all these damn PPAs I'm running; I really need to start using LXC for some of this shit) but if I opt not to apt-get upgrade, then you better have already backdoored me, past-tense. I don't know, maybe IPMI or vPro is an expoitable option (those things definitely flirt with that edge of cellphone-like untrustworthiness/unauditability) but interestingly that vulnerability tends to be high end, not the low end, so they're not so common.
I guess what I'm saying is that their example is "precisely stupid" in that they couldn't have possibly gotten it more wrong. Or "desperately random" as Hannibal Lecter might say. ;-) That makes me think the statement is intended to deceive. Fuck them.
'zone of lawlessness'
'zone of freedom' - fixed that for you.
Another democrat trying to legislate freedom.
and not have a fucking clue as to the true meaning of the words you literally mouth.
If the only way you can get a conviction is with access to encrypted documents, the law you're enforcing is probably unconstitutional... Or the prosecutor is REALLY bad at their job.
And remember kids, the DOJ is executive, not judiciary. They can think whatever dumb shit they want. That doesn't mean a judge is going to agree with them.
I don't think it is that difficult to decrypt an encrypted phone -- at least on those comes with "touch id". Sir, do you want us to unlock your phone with your own finger prints or you rather do it yourself?
While they are feigning anger they know that the systems that Apple and Google are deploying have already been broken. By acting angry people get a false sense of security and stop complaining about Government intrusion thinking they are now safe.
So you tell me what the difference is between these two scenarios:
... "zone of lawlessness" really is created by the pesky Bill of Rights. We really should do away with it and accept the fact that any idiot with a badge is your "life master", who is always watching and you better behave.
... weed, he seems to like weed, then arrest him and bring him here, he needs to be off the streets.
1-) Knock on the door, "Police! We have a warrant to search your home!"
*Person goes to their room, runs their hard drive through a wood chipper*
2-) Knock on the door (presumably), "Police! We have a warrant to search your phone!"
*Person's phone is encrypted*
Here's what's different. Law enforcement can now see through your walls, reroute your traffic, disrupt your radio communications, hell even impersonate a service crewman (cleaning, cable guy, pest control), ALL without any probable cause or warrant, without ever even informing you. So this
That black, gay, Muslim guy is surely up to something, send John to his uhm... *checks database* 12:00AM Friday night party, with uh... let's see
Ms. Caldwell, I have here a lockbox with one key. Please place a $20 from your pocket in the box, lock it, and you hold onto the key. How secure do you think your money is in that box? Do you want the government to mandate that it must have a key to that box?
Now here I have a second key for that lockbox. I (representing the government) am the only one who has access to that key, so you should still feel relatively confident in the security of your money. \begin{JamesEarlJones}We are the United States Government. We don't DO that sort of thing. \end{JamesEarlJones} Do you still feel confident? Are you more or less confident in its security that you were in the first case?
Whoops, I lost the second key or someone stole it from me. Anyone may have access to the second key now. Now how confident are you in the security of your $20? More or less than the first two cases?
When we encrypt our data, we are basically putting it in a lockbox with one key, like the first case. You may think you're advocating for the second case, but a government-mandated "second key" will inevitably (and quickly) be compromised, resulting in the third case.
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
And yes, it's of course Jefferson.
It's funny how the very own people who founded your country would probably be the ones that would rebel again against the way you fuck it up today!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.c...
"Let's be honest - the complaint here is that default encryption denies access to data that, up to now, has been obtained via warrantless methods. A court can still order you to hand over your encryption keys."
Yes, their chief bitch is they now can't just TAKE your data without you being aware of it.
As to the second part, I don't see how a court can ORDER you to surrender your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. If you believe the contents of your phone (to use an example) might incriminate you, and it's encrypted, you CANNOT be compelled to just give them the key.
And besides, if your key was complex, who's to say the unbelievable STRESS of dealing with the police, being charged with a crime, etc, didn't cause you to forget it? They can't PROVE you actually remember it. A negative CANNOT be proven (or disproven).
Corporatism != Free Market
Obviously only the wealthy aristocrats should be allowed privacy via encryption.
Apple and Google have made a very selfish decision to create a "zone of not doing the justice department's job for them".
and this post is probably recorded too, where is the Slashdod encryption when yo need it? yea bastards redirect you to the plain text... good for nsa and others
N/t
...or plain old lying to get their agenda.
Because only an idiot can ever think a law will apply to criminals. Criminals have to be hunted, prosecuted, and caught. They will hide however they can, including using unlawful encryption.
How can they possibly think making encryption unlawful or uncommon will ever help them catch bad guys?
They cannot think that. The only possible reason for their comments is that they want to catch all information even on law-abiding citizens, for whatever purpose they will not publicize.
IOW, they are the criminals themselves.
The U.S. government is so weak in doing what it ought to do, take care of all citizens, that it can't even stop robo-calling.
The U.S. government is weak in doing what it ought to do, and powerful in doing secret, destructive things that make money for someone, the Bush family, for example.
I'm amazed no one in the articles have ever stopped to think it's not just the government we should worry about? What about criminals who are by no means bound by the law? A dude breaks into your computer (or steals it) and he simply disappears in the shadow. The government steals your data, the spot lights come on, the media is all over it and they justify why and ultimately nothing happens to them. I'm just as worried about the fore.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
BlackBerry smartphones have allowed on-device and media card encryption for years. This has been one of the features along with encrypted email, PIN-to-PIN messages, and BlackBerry Messenger chat which made BlackBerry the preferred choice for governments when activated on a BlackBerry Enterprise Server. Apparently the US Department of Justice is unaware the NSA approved BlackBerry for the President.
Have gnu, will travel.
is there a website somewhere that helps walk people through making sure all their digital communications are as encrypted as possible?
If not, lets make one.
Next thing you know, people will be setting up "zones of lawlessness" in their homes!
Dear God, what if The People start talking about "altering or abolishing" the government in private!
I agree with your basic point about the need for balance. Of course there are bad people in the world and of course we need police and courts and the like.
I think the problem today is that many in our current political class don't recognise that need for balance so much as they see "them and us" and even start to forget whose side they are supposed to be on. The truly evil part of the situation is that this result seems almost inevitable. The people calling the shots are exactly the people who necessarily deal with the worst of humanity as part of their job. How could this not affect their perspective? They naturally want to trust their allies, who are the people who would be empowered under all these proposed security measures and aided by restrictions on the privacy and security of others. And of course being influential figures within the government, it is highly unlikely that they will personally ever find themselves on the wrong side of a government screw-up and unable to get the problem fixed very quickly.
I don't think these people are evil. On the contrary, I suspect most people in government, including their agents in the police and security services, are probably just normal people who have a job to do and who genuinely want to do the right thing. As with any large group, there will eventually be a few bad actors included as well and it is necessary to identify and contain them, but that isn't usually the main problem.
However, I do think we're talking about people who are heavily biased, even paranoid, because it would take a superhuman level of detachment not to be when you look at the kind of people they have to deal with at times. I also think in most cases they are ignorant about the technologies they are dealing with, and therefore unable to make rational, objective judgements about the likely effects of the technical measures they propose as policy. Finally, I think that the more senior these figures get within the government and its agencies, the more detached they tend to be from reality for average citizens and the more ignorant or dismissive they can become of how things tend to play out for innocent people in less privileged positions who are nevertheless caught up by the measures the politicians propose.
As the saying goes, power corrupts. It doesn't necessarily have to be malicious or intentional. Obviously in some cases it has been, but often I think the corruption is more of a slow but almost inevitable change in perspective caused by the situations you find yourself in when you have power to wield.
And so it is necessary for those who are looking from outside, those who don't spend disproportionate amounts of their time dealing with a particularly nasty minority of the human race, those who understand the technical issues, to speak out about what is happening and where it could lead. As with any issue of civilised government, in the long run you're going to get much further by educating people about relevant issues and promoting intelligent discourse than you are with wildly exaggerated rhetoric and extreme positions backed by intimidation and ultimately violence. The latter are seductive, and often appear quite effective in the short term, but I doubt they've ever truly solved much.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
..then only outlaws will have encryption. Just like firearms. Do these idiots really think that getting rid of or putting backdoors into encryption is going to reduce crime and terrorism? They actually think that criminals/criminal organizations/terrorists are going to be polite and use encryption that police and intelligence organizations can easily break? LOL I'm dying of laughter over here!
All encryption, all the time, and NO BACKDOORS in ANY of it. Ever. Suck it, intelligence community and law enforcement, go have your little fantasy police-state somewhere else WE DON'T WANT IT.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/regin-malware-unmasked-as-nsa-tool-after-spiegel-publishes-source-code-a-1015255.html
Destroying the 4th Amendment of the Constitution without comment means ubiquitous encryption is perfectly fine with me.
I've got nothing to hide. Why do you want to look?
The trend towards surveillance is a diversion. The security apparatus is less effective, less capable, and less talented than it has been in the past in identifying real threats vs inventing paranoid scandals. It seeks greater immunity and secrecy from accountability simply because, for all the investment in its promise, it fails to deliver. Every time.
It's called a zone of privacy. There are such zones already.
To make it easy to check for rouge or organized terrorists, is to make the country ripe for attack from large countries.
We assume that our enemy will be terrorists, but that may not me. Out next enemy may be another country. In that case you want all of your web of contractors, which is inclusive of so much more than just the primary contractor, you want them all secure.
Have you heard of: "loose lips sink ships?"
Our nation needs to be secure even at times from itself.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The government want us to trust them to uphold the law and protect us, when sometimes it's them we need protection from. Yet, they are trying to force us into silence against our will and against the Constitution, because they don't trust us.
Have you heard about the LEGAL NAME FRAUD?
More info here http://legalnamefraud.com/
welcome to the age of guilty until proven innocent
Has anyone looked at the possibility this is just posturing for the future? Right now, we already see how easy it is to track, follow, tag, and intercept what a person is doing (with GPS from phones, RFID from cards, online communications, etc).
But lets jump ahead 5-10 years, at what point will we, as a society, start either embedding internet access directly into ourselves and/or have an electronic personal assistant on us at all times? Something that can run off our own bodies, something that we will never take off? If you go back 20 years ago, EVERYONE had a wrist watch that you would only take off every 2-3 years to replace the battery; I can see a similar type situation in the near future but with something that would read your brain waves so you don't have to talk out loud to ask questions and get answers.
Truthfully, I think the technology for this is almost here already. What happens when two people, sitting in the privacy of their own home, have a casual conversation with this device turned on, or active, on even one of those two people? Let alone a group? The idea of privacy, even in our own homes will become non-existant, but worse still, if the laws exist now that say anything on those electronic devices is "public" property, then in the future, even our personal thoughts could become the "crime" and these devices (which, you can bet on it, will be necessary to do pretty much anything) will be a treasure trove of data for anyone that wishes to repress or control any group or individual.
Who needs to know the future (e.g., Minority Report) when your very thoughts are there ready for punishment?
"lawful access" is all well and good, except when "lawful access" is secretly defined as approximately "all access"
'nuff said.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I first read that as: "Justice Department's Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'
The government will never get it. *THEY* are the zone of lawlessness. It is logical that the vast majority of those outside the zone, READ most of the users of this technology, want to protect themselves from those zones no matter where they are.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
If the DOJ or any other policing authority in the USA obtains a search warrant, they can legally compel a person to turn over encrypted data or the encryption keys to data. This sounds to me like a way to circumvent our constitutional rights in the name of protecting us from ourselves and those nefarious criminals.
The ones I've seen are ALL "better to let one guilty man to go free...".
The zone of lawlessness was on the other side. All the TLAs have been of a free for all, grabbing everything they can, using however they want, laws be damned.
Informants with the slang, background story, paperwork and history that was created and correct for a group, cult, political event or other gathering.
Creating informants. Disrupting any real gatherings and recreating the members in a new front group as bait.
Computer networks attract like minded people to post and chat about their interests. At that stage their anonymity and privacy is fair game.
Encryption will not protect the origin of the message from a domestic system like Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Privacy is gone when interacting with over time with interesting, creative strangers.
Encryption protects the message along the network. If the end site is a trap or has malware? The users origin could be traced with creative code on a site.
Keep a person of interest posting, making friends, invite them to help with very simple admin work. Turn them, track them or just use their content as bait.
Thats why encryption never worried the NSA or GCHQ. The encryption sold or offered was a junk standard or the entire surrounding network was tame.
The origins or and color of law that followed the The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... should allow some insight into the tame networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The biggest zone of lawlessness centers around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...
...A ZONE OF LAWLESSNESS!!@11!!1!11!!1!
Your move Uncle Sam.
Give up yours first, and then maybe we can talk about what Apple and Google are up to.
Classified secretivegovernment programs breed lawlessness, and these two bit fucks are protecting it.
Here they are tho trying to attack the public right to privacy and freedom from it tho.
visit obamasweapon.com
If you believe the DOJ is your friend you haven't been paying attention.
Don't believe me ?
Wait a few more years and see.
But not having any encryption by default kept the citizens lawful and the government acted lawlessly. I prefer this way where my personal information is a little safer form criminals and the government.
Really, the government's just mad they can't break the law and monitor us without a warrant.
Her contempt for our right to privacy makes her morally unfit to practice law in the United States.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
These days our issues are not about knowing what is going on but not having ways to deal with what is going on. I'm certain that law enforcement already could sweep up a couple of millions criminals with information easily at hand but what the heck can you hope to do with all that get arrested? And frankly I do not trust the system when it comes to defining who is or is not a threat. We already have people in prison for utterances that I would not consider a threat. One remark that sent a man to prison was "If I knew then what I know now I would have had a gun in my hand.". In other words even remarks about a situation in the past can be considered a threat in the present if a judge is paranoid and on the evil side of the coin.
building a house with opaque walls did not entitle the government to search your house or be granted keys to your door?
I guess when the Justice department starts complaining about a 'zone of lawlessness, I start thinking... Hmm,, I bet they now have access to that email we all think is encrypted.. "It's _so_ encrypted. We just can't break into it. It's a safe zone for criminals. "
umm.. ookkaaaaaayyyyy....
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
If there was technology that could scan your brain, and know everything you know, you can be damn well sure the US government would be the first purchasers. A country of simpletons lead by sociopaths, so sad.
They hate the "lady" too ... ... she's a winner, she sounds like she's on a crusade and nothing's going to stop her, not even being provably wrong:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062614-706434-a-godzilla-is-turned-loose-from-the-justice-department.htm
I can hardly decide what to include in my quote or not
Politics: After she destroyed Arthur Andersen in a flawed and subsequently overturned prosecution, the Senate has confirmed Leslie Caldwell to lead the DOJ's criminal division, giving her a mandate for even more mayhem.
You'd think someone who had thrown 85,000 people out of work, as this former Enron task force chief prosecutor did in her indictment of Arthur Andersen, before the whole thing was thrown out by a 9-0 Supreme Court, would go quietly from the public spotlight. Not so with Caldwell, a notoriously anti-business activist who in concert with the Obama White House is instead failing upward.
Her appointment over 700 Justice Department lawyers is bad news for an already beleaguered private sector, given her "wise guys" view of Wall Street.
Sidney Powell, former Justice Department counsel, sounded the alarm first. "Americans should brace themselves for an unprecedented assault on businesses, banks and political opponents of this administration — regardless of law or facts," he says in the New York Observer.
"Expect increasing use of the Department of Justice as an instrument of 'terror' to extort large civil penalties or fines from businesses under the threat of criminal prosecution and the death penalty that Ms. Caldwell and her cronies dealt Arthur Andersen."
It's not just that the woman has a record of doing anything for a conviction — including concealing exculpatory evidence, as her task force did in the Enron case. She's also a political animal who specializes in high-profile cases and handles political pressure with no sweat.
Combine that with recent statements by Attorney General Eric Holder, who vowed he would not leave his Justice Department post until he can prosecute Wall Street over the 2008 financial crisis, as has long been demanded by Occupy and other elements of the far left.
The five-year statute of limitations for such prosecutions is set to run out in the next few months — making Caldwell so valuable.
It doesn't help that Kathryn Ruemmler, until recently a White House counsel who helped select and vet Caldwell, was also an Enron task force member whose prosecutions of four Merrill Lynch officials were thrown out because the task force hid evidence.
Another task force member that Caldwell mentored, Matthew Friedrich, led the baseless prosecution of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. That case was also thrown out but not before the Republican lost his seat.
All in all, it looks like Obama, Holder & Co. are lowering a political blunderbuss at the private sector as the election season heats up and the White House pulls out all the stops to whip up populist support.
soaiduaosiduovp izu9er8t0ozxkv opizj9v9z8xuijzxfuigs90ef9x8cv98xc....
Key not available....
"From 2002 to 2004, Ms. Caldwell served as the director of the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force"
Now you know how the public feels when they want to make fair use of some video on a DVD or Bluray.
Yeah, the "zone of lawlessness" is the United States, where a well-connected mentally disabled person can steal two presidential elections, permit the two worst terrorist attacks in our history, start two wars and two recessions, kill anyone who might talk, and get away with it all so his brother can do it over again. You can't have a "zone of lawlessness" inside of a nation whose laws are selectively enforced in favor of child-killing cops and Republican Presidents. The whole damned place is that zone.
With no rule of law, agency statements like these are just the gripes of our oppressors, complaining that the victims insist on fighting back. Just wait until the victims get just a little bit poorer, and have to start killing and murdering in order to get ahead....
Las entidades de Seguridad se han acostumbrado tanto a mirar la correspondencia y mensajes privados que pensar en un envío encriptado ahora para ellas es delito, será bueno entonces empezar a construir casas sin muros pues detras de ellos se escondera la ilegalidad. La ley en los paises civiilizados presume la inocencia no el delito y no al contrario.
Our kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, cars, desks, etc.
EnOne, a US citizen living in the US, wrote Wednesday that he is "very concerned" by the governments decision to automatically search all data on Android and iOS devices without a warrant.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
https://protonmail.ch/
How the fuck are we supposed to do business without encryption? First Cameron, now this. Leaders of the free world MY ASS.
You know... like your HOME. Your business. Your personal effects.
There have always been "zones of lawlessness" because to intrude upon those Zones is to damaging to personal liberty.
The modern "phone" is such a zone in every sense. So is your computer.