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.
Warrantless surveillance just like they do now. It's scary just how correct Senator Frank Church was about the surveillance state after the Church Commission ended:
In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[9][10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
"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.
That is usually the only thing that keeps governments in check: government gridlock and incompetence are the friends of liberty. That's why calls from both the left and the right for more streamlined government, executive power grabs, etc. are so dangerous.
When you vote, vote with an eye towards maximizing gridlock in Washington.
The direct quote is from William Gladstone "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... points out that the idea is way older than that (quoting from the biblical book of Genesis)
Actually the reason the Constitution originally didn't have a Bill of Rights is that the people who drafted it were afraid that if they did so it would be interpreted to mean THIS IS ALL THE RIGHTS CITIZENS HAVE.
Which was not their intention. The Constitution is supposed to be an EXHAUSTIVE enumeration of all the power the Federal Government has. The rights of the People are supposed to be undefined and MANY.
This is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were part of the Bill of Rights to clarify that:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(the rights of the people are MANY and INDEFINITE)
Amendment X
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.
(the powers of the government are FEW AND WELL DEFINED)
Corporatism != Free Market
The Russians did exactly that after the Snowden revelations. They even bought up a bunch of typewriters.
Anyone with any sense knows that if you put it online, it's available.
Corporatism != Free Market
I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?
I graduated in 2009 from a public school in New Jersey. To answer your question, no. There were no civics classes. Not even available as an elective. We were however required to take a mandatory class on Microsoft Office. Our priorities are completely screwed up, aren't they?