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.

Comments

Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Or the Fourth Amendment. Or the Second. Or the First.

The situation is clear. We must take care to ban this subversive document now. For the children! For the Feds! For great justice!

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[hodet]

It is amazing how they keep talking out both sides of their mouths. We believe in encryption, we just don't like when everyone uses it. The more they talk the more I am careful to use encryption for almost everything.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Sarten-X]

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!

Well, yeah. Remember that the Constitution's version of "due process" is not supposed to actually restrict the government, so much as it protects the people from the historical (at the time) abuses governments had commonly employed.

The 5th Amendment protects against defendants being forced to create evidence against themselves. Remember the fun of the Inquisition, where the accused would be tortured or killed if they didn't confess? The 5th Amendment is a counter to that, and not much more. It's not a magic wand that allows you to hide crimes you actually committed. Notably, it does not allow you to hide evidence that already exists.

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[pr0t0]

The DOJ made their bed.

They continue to hoover-up massive amounts of data on everything from telecommunications to, as recently reported, vehicle movements, on everyone within and outside US borders. We are meant to trust that this data will not be abused by those who collect it, and that it cannot be hacked/modified/stolen by anyone else.

We have no choice but to encrypt our data. We seemingly have no way to stop it's collection, and those who collect it have repeatedly shown themselves to be poor stewards of that data (lack of protection, accessed without warrant, etc.). They've transitioned their methodologies based on that data being available and unencrypted, and failed to prepare for the inevitable fact that data encryption would eventually become commonplace...with or without Snowden...because there are lots of bad actors in the world.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Radish03]

You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Solution: include a confession in your password itself. And then hope it was properly stored...

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

100% wrong. If I have a physical, paper notebook, and inside it I wrote using a completely made-up language known only to me, it is not my fucking job to teach the police how to read that language. And that fact does not change just because the notebook is composed of spinning metal disks and was written to using magnets.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[im_thatoneguy]

The DOJ always hoovered up massive amounts of data. Metadata collection is absolutely nothing new. It's interesting watching The Wolf of Wall Street and reading up on the case that it's based on--call logs were prolific in the case. "It says here that you called so and so at 8AM and talked for 45 minutes."

The problem isn't so much in my opinion the mass collection it's the fact that the collection isn't encrypted. The software should be designed and audited such that the info can only be searched with an encryption key issued for a limited time. And then all searches and results should be logged and reviewed by an independent body.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Githaron]

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.

Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.

Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.

If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.

What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Triklyn]

isn't a confession typically a signed document or a recorded verbal admission of guilt? regardless of what it says a password is just a collection of letters and numbers and symbols.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[dcollins117]

Well, yeah. Remember that the Constitution's version of "due process" is not supposed to actually restrict the government, so much as it protects the people from the historical (at the time) abuses governments had commonly employed.

Then what protects us from the abuses governments currently employ? Oh, encryption.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[BronsCon]

Yup, this is going to come back and bite them. Their "only criminals, security agencies, and banks encrypt everything" attitude means that anyone who encrypts everything they possibly can is a person of interest. As more and more people begin encrypting by default, they're gonna need a bigger net in order to catch all of that data, and the SNR just keeps getting lower and lower.

My old laptop, which crapped out last week, had no trouble keeping up with me, I never found myself waiting for it, and I'm not a gamer, so when I ended up with a new machine that was roughly 20% faster, I decided to enable FileVault on it. I figured, worst case, it'll slow the new laptop back down to what I'm used to. And now, if my laptop is every analyzed by a law enforcement agency, I'll just become another bit of noise the NSA has to filter out.

And Apple has made FileVault a "checked by default" option when setting up a new Mac, so the same class of user who would end up with every toolbar and fake anti-virus in Windows (e.g. average or below average) will have FileVault enabled on their Mac. if Microsoft takes the same route (I haven't installed Windows 8 or newer recently, so I don't know, they may have already), we're looking at something like 2/3 of computer users with file encryption enabled by default, without even knowing it, and some portion of the remaining 1/3 who enabled it purposefully.

I can imagine the high-ranking NSA official who instituted the "record all encrypted data we find" policy, on the basis that only people with something to hide would bother, is sweating right now, as his colleagues are starting to realize he's just made all of their jobs that much more difficult; it has come to pass that only a handful of criminals, and no known terrorists, have made effective use of encryption, but they're still having to sift through all of the metadata recorded along with all of that encrypted data.

Also, before someone else makes the joke: "only criminals, security agencies, and banks" is redundant.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[CrimsonAvenger]

Isn't a signed document just a collection of letters and numbers and symbols?

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[gnasher719]

Solution: include a confession in your password itself. And then hope it was properly stored...

That wouldn't work, because it would just be a password, not a valid confession. You could use the GPS coordinates where you buried your murder victim; that might work.

The usual exception is when the fact that you know the password is evidence in itself. Let's say there is a hard drive with absolutely vile child porn. It's encrypted and password protected, but the encryption is weak. and has been cracked. All the porn has been found, but there is not the slightest evidence who put it there. If the police asked you for the password, then they cannot use it to find any data on the drive that they haven't got yet, but they can use the fact that you knew the password to nail you. So in that case, giving the the password would be self-incrimination.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[suutar]

"We grant you immunity for the contents of your password." Which does not mean that whatever your password is confessing to is now safe, it just means that the password isn't usable as probable cause to investigate it. What's behind the password, on the other hand...

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[gnasher719]

Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.

That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong. The only exception is a situation where your ability to give them the password incriminates you. Let's say someone got his head smashed in with a portable hard drive. The hard drive is encrypted. The contents of the hard drive is of no interest whatsoever, but if you are the one who has the password, then it is quite likely that you were the one who used the drive to kill someone. That's when giving the password is self-incrimination.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[WCMI92]

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Compelled to hand over a PHYSICAL key, I can see that. But a key that exists only in your head? Nope. The 5th Amendment would have to be itself amended to add that.

And I don't see 2/3rds of the States ratifying THAT without some capitol buildings burning to the ground.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Githaron]

That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong.

How so?

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[WCMI92]

"We grant you immunity for the contents of your password." Which does not mean that whatever your password is confessing to is now safe, it just means that the password isn't usable as probable cause to investigate it. What's behind the password, on the other hand...

Nope. Immunity would have to cover whatever that password led to.

Otherwise the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" is meaningless.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[tombeard]

FWIW, they are not just collecting metadata, at least not under the common understanding of collect. Remember the Boston bomber? One week after his arrest they were discussing having just listened to his families calls to overseas. They had the calls recorded, collected to everyone else, but didn't listen to them till after the bombing. They are wanting the ability to retroactively listen to everyone this way. Later they will do it proactively, but baby steps. With this understanding, the warrant process is worthless.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[gfxguy]

I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[spire3661]

I disagree with your analysis. The 5th is intended to prevent the government from presuming anything from my silence. It also prevents them from punishing me for that silence. It should shield me from divulging ANYTHING in my head, without limit.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[stephanruby]

This is what happens when your job is with the Justice Department and when you only talk to other people within the Justice Department. It's like an echo chamber on to itself. You and your colleagues evolve a sense of tunnel vision and anyone who suggests a stupid idea that will make the job easier for the Justice Department will be considered an absolute genius by his colleagues, thus increasing the incentive for coming up with even more similarly stupid ideas.

And no, the Justice Department is not the only organization guilty of this. This type of thinking can evolve in any type of organization or business sufficiently focused and sufficiently insulated from the market or the people themselves.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[nobuddy]

Want to bet every single electronic device in DOJ is heavily encrypted?

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[davecb]

Ironically, the opposite seems to be true in the NSA, who didn't even use the orange-book security systems they paid (us) to develop. So they got sysdamins walking out the door with thumb-drives of incriminating evidence.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[suutar]

The right to remain silent is (construed as) a right to not be forced to _generate_ evidence against yourself. It is not a right not to be forced to _produce already existing_ evidence against yourself. Papers in a safe already exist. Files on a hard drive already exist. If they can't prove the drive/safe is yours, then revealing the password/combination could be used as evidence that it belongs to you, and in that case you could argue that revealing the password/combination would be self incrimination. But if they already know and can prove it's yours, then they can require you to hand over the password/combination and punish you for refusing.

The difference is that it's a lot harder for them to get into your files without a password than to get into a safe without a combination.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[nobuddy]

In one case, "I do not remember the password" was upheld as a valid reply to a warrant to provide password. The computer had been confiscated more than a year prior to the warrant, so the claim was plausible.
They can require you to provide information you have. they cannot punish you for not providing information you do not have.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[nobuddy]

There have been dozens of cases where a warrant for a password was upheld. No need to pass a new law, existing laws are sufficient.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Triklyn]

true enough, but for some reason society has agreed collectively that a signed document... with you know, some other things, is also legally binding. yay for that i guess.

when you can't use the argument that, hey, my password doesn't mean anything... then we'll see using a confession as a password be a valid scenario.

Re: Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

if they simply acted on the russian warnings and common sense (mohammedism is an ideology of war and terror) nothing would have happened. instead they listened to merkel. and other vasalls like myself.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Fire_Wraith]

Possibly the better analogy would be if you had a safe in the closet in your house. They have a warrant to search the house, and that warrant covers the safe (or they get a specific warrant to search the safe). The question then becomes whether they can compel you to open the container, or provide the passcode. With a safe, though, they can always threaten to physically break it (no safe is completely secure, they're rated by how long it takes to break them). With robust encryption, that's generally not plausible (or even possible). Furthermore, what happens if you produce the wrong password - either deliberately or because you forgot? What if the data locks/erases/irretrievably scrambles when the wrong code is put in? At worst, they can hold you in jail for Contempt of Court, dependent on the judge. I suppose a lot of it comes down to how good of a job you (and your lawyer) can do of convincing a judge that you really did forget, or get it wrong, rather than did it deliberately. I know I can barely remember my home router's password, or any number of other ones. Hopefully I'm never in that situation.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Sarten-X]

If the court orders you to teach the police how to read your language, then yes, you are in fact required to do so.

You could try teaching them incorrectly, but that's effectively obstruction of justice and/or perjury, depending on how it's handled.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Sarten-X]

Not really.

With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash.

With a suitable search warrant, the police can tear your house apart to find your stash. You cannot legally prohibit them from opening your house, and you cannot stop them from executing the search warrant to the full extent of its authorization.

Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house;

And likewise, you cannot prohibit them from opening the encrypted volume.

What if...

Then it's a decision for a judge to make. The judge would be the one to decide if, by not providing a password, you are violating the court orders. You can provide evidence for your story, and the police can provide their own evidence. If you claim that somehow you had a 50-gig corrupt file, and the police show encryption software and logs of file access on volumes that don't exist, you're going to have a hard time convincing a judge of your story.

A better analogy would be evidence locked in a safe. The police can see the safe and can infer that it holds evidence, but you can claim to have forgotten the combination, or claim it's an antique to which you never knew the combination, or claim that it broke. If you can make a convincing case, you have a shot. If the police have evidence that you opened the safe a day earlier, you're pretty much screwed.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[dave420]

The vast majority of the cameras in the UK are privately-owned, and governed by strict data protection laws. Just saying.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[dingleberrie]

Supporting and using encryption is my form of protest. It seems that marching and voting for any of the options put in front of me has little effect.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[cassador]

"I can imagine the high-ranking NSA official who instituted the "record all encrypted data we find" policy, on the basis that only people with something to hide would bother"
There are so many legitimate relationships that rely on this. How can the catchall approach not violate HIPAA, doctor-client, lawyer-client, and other such legally protected relationships/mandates? How do you claim compliance? Seems like an easy out for security officers: "We don't patch our systems for things like POODLE in order to help the NSA/CIA identify terrorists."

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Agripa]

You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you.

Assuming for the moment that you can be compelled to reveal a password that you know, one just has to arrange to not know the password or plausibly not know the password before the court orders it revealed. This is surprisingly easy to do leaving law enforcement to use other means like requiring key escrow.

This will not help in the UK but it might in the US. Contempt charges assume that the court orders you to do the possible.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[Agripa]

I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.

Arrange to plausibly not know the password. Leave it up to them to prove that you know it.

Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness

[BronsCon]

It can only crack the pre-Lion FileVault. FileVault 2 uses AES encryption, which VileFault will decrypt, given the password, but it does not yet support cracking that encryption. That means your FV2 encrypted disks are still as secure as the passphrase you choose. The other project, linked from this one, has better support for FV2, but doesn't crack anything; you still need the passphrase or recovery key.

A quote

[TWX]

Rumsfeld [said], "Stuff happens... and it's untidy and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here."

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?

Re:A quote

[Bob9113]

I have mod points, but you're going to make it to +5 anyway, so I'd rather be more explicit: Thank you for such a poignant juxtaposition of our ideals with our weakness and susceptibility to fear.

Re:A quote

[darkmeridian]

Rumsfeld said that the Iraqi people can do bad things to each other, and I'm sure that he would allow Americans to do bad things to each other as well. I will bet you, however, that he's against TERROR and TERRORISM.

Re:A quote

[TWX]

Isn't terrorism still fundamentally people doing bad things to each other, or threatening to do bad things to each other?

Re:A quote

[Bob9113]

I'm sure that he would allow Americans to do bad things to each other as well. I will bet you, however, that he's against TERROR and TERRORISM.

So you're saying that Rumsfeld would oppose the most common use of our terror laws, which is DEA enforcement of victimless, consensual, domestic marijuana crimes?

Re:A quote

[TWX]

It didn't help that they also failed to disarm the army as they disbanded it, and they disenfranchised Ba'ath party members, even though to advance in Iraqi society and government pre-invasion one basically had to join the Ba'athists...

Re:A quote

[HiThere]

You are making the assumption that they didn't intend this result. Or at least that they weren't aware that this would be the result. I find that quite dubious. As you say, it was obvious by inspection

OTOH, what would have been the result of disbanding the Iraqi army? You've created a bunch of people trained in violence suddenly out of work. I'm not convinced that it would have resulted in a better situation, though clearly it would be a different situation. And long term occupation would also have tremendous probabilities for disaster.

The real mistake was deciding to invade. After that I don't think there was a decent exit strategy...not if you are counting human cost. But this *must* have been obvious ahead of time, so clearly that wasn't their consideration. Who benefited? Who expected to benefit? How? It strikes me as a clearly political decision with only political gains.

Re:A quote

[HBI]

Rummy has been demonized, and there's no question but that he's a dick and steamrolls people, but he's always been a pragmatist and relatively non-ideological. He always gets conflated with neocons, but he is not one of them.

I don't think he'd argue all that much with your characterization.

Re:A quote

[nobuddy]

What, alienate and shame a trained military force? No way that could backfire.

Re:A quote

[TWX]

They actually DID disband the army. The GP's post included two negatives that cancelled.

By disbanding the Iraqi Army they not only got rid of personnel that could have been used in the projects to rebuild the country, but they released tens of thousands of armed men with at least nominal training in the use of common weapons in the region. With no way to make a living or to feed their families, they resorted to either criminal enterprise, banding into factions with others based on religious lines for support, or to insurgency in order to fight against the occupying force.

If they'd kept them intact taken over control of them and continued to pay them, my guess is that a lot of these problems wouldn't have manifested so strongly. If the goal was to try to transition to a stable country under other leadership anyway.

Re:A quote

[erapert]

Sure, because Rumsfeld would allow free people to defend themselves.

His point was that if Iraq was to be truly free then we would have to take our hands off and let them pedal their own bike without our hands holding them up. Anyone who grows up and moves out of mommy's basement is tacitly agreeing with what Rumsfeld said.

Re:A quote

[HiThere]

I think what you are proposing is "long term occupation", and I agree that *can* be made to work. It does, however, have significant costs, and opportunities for disaster. The US occupation of Japan, and the Allies occupation of Germany were examples of successes, but it's not clear that this either could have been done in Iraq, or that there wouldn't have been intolerable costs. And there clearly wasn't the long term political will to accomplish it.

Re:A quote

[david_thornley]

It didn't help that they disbanded the army period. AIUI, the original plan was to keep it around and use it for stability (provide employment for millions of young men, have native troops to keep law and order, etc.), and it was disbanded for no clear reason by the authorities there.

The army itself was mostly apolitical. The Republican Guard was not, and that should indeed have been disbanded (and disarmed).

Re:A quote

[Fjandr]

Yes, but those terrorism things are SuperBad®!

poor cops have it so hard

[ganjadude]

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???

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Lunix Nutcase]

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...

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yep, beat them, deny them access to lawyers, make sure they aren't aware of their rights, etc. The people who have been try to dismantle the Warren Court rulings these last few decades have been increasingly successful as of late.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[jythie]

It is kinda sad how it has, in many ways, crossed that bridge,.. and the only thing that seems to stop it from going down a really dark path is the amount of infighting between the various institutions who want to be the winner in such a situation. Our government's own self destructiveness partisanship might be the only thing preventing a dictatorship at this point.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Lunix Nutcase]

It is kinda sad how it has, in many ways, crossed that bridge,..

It was inevitable. It's just like the plot of "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie". There was no way that giving the surveillance state just "a little power" was going to be all they ever wanted. Give the NSA an inch and they'll take a dozen miles.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[silfen]

Our government's own self destructiveness partisanship might be the only thing preventing a dictatorship at this point.

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.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[fustakrakich]

That only stops the trivial shit.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Marginal Coward]

I just realized that the common practice among current dictatorships regarding the Internet seems to be limiting access more than monitoring. We hear about this recently in North Korea and Cuba. It seems that they prefer that people not be able to communicate electronically at all rather than to allow them to communicate but monitor (and presumably go after) people who communicated the wrong thing. I can see the logic of that: it's much cheaper to limit access than it is to monitor what's communicated.

That's in stark contrast to the "Big Brother"-style monitoring that folks have become afraid of post-Snowden. Still, if a country already has a widely available system of electronic communication that The People aren't going to give up, I guess monitoring is the only thing that can be done by the would-be Big Brothers of the world.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[rickb928]

A. The Internet permits people to organize faster than the oppressors can react to prevent it.

B. The Internet permits people to discover like-minded others. They will find each other offline if necessary, putting to death the lie that 'everyone is happy'.

C. Encryption will at least complicate the oppressors' surveillance.

So denying access at least serves the oppressors. And denying access is the foundation of efforts against child pr0n and other 'undesirable' activities.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[silfen]

That only stops the trivial shit.

You'd be surprised to how much non-trivial stuff this extends, as people thumb their noses at ineffective and bumbling state and federal governments and do what they damned well please.

And, in any case, it's the best we got, so you better deal with it.

Voting for one or the other party because you delude yourself that they are going to fix it, on the other hand, is making the problem worse.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Warantless is a problem. It's an explicit violation of the Fourth Amendment- out of box (I don't give a damn about it's the Supreme Court's role...show me where they get to interpret the Constitution or Amendments in the same... I won't wait...you'll take until the heat death of the Universe trying to find that... Quite simply their job is to deal with that which is at-controversy. There is NOTHING at-controversy about the Constitution or the Amendments. That's bedrock. Absolute. Meaning of what is required is in the terms of when it was enacted- if it needs to be adjusted because of changed meaning or intent, AMEND IT.)

As such, most of this crap goes bye-bye if you apply the proper intent and meaning of the Constitution as Amended by the Amendments- and do it precisely and explicitly. Want to get a search/seizure of something- get a fucking warrant the right way. None of this "no-knock" bullshit. None of this "warrantless" crap.

Either you have something that you can minimally convince a Judge you've got probable cause or you don't DO it. PERIOD. You can't be a fucking criminal in the process of "enforcing" the law.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[Lunix Nutcase]

Either you have something that you can minimally convince a Judge you've got probable cause or you don't DO it. PERIOD. You can't be a fucking criminal in the process of "enforcing" the law.

What's even worse is when they bypass the FISA court rubber stamp to do things warrantless. The FISA court even lets you backdate things by like a couple of days. If the government can't even convince the FISA court then you know they are doing something they definitely should not be doing (not as if the stuff FISA does approve is always above board).

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[pisces22]

And, chances are, they'll want a glass of milk to go with it.

Re:poor cops have it so hard

[fustakrakich]

That's why I never vote for 'one or the other' party. People who do that are wasting their votes, no worse, they are selling their votes to the highest bidder with the flashiest suit, and who can move the most pork their way. We are bumping up against the limits of majority rule. We shouldn't allow the 99% who vote for 'one or the other' party screw over the 1% that knows better.

FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

Re:FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

Using Waze to enable reckless driving is nowhere even near the same thing as protecting privacy with encryption.

Wow, it's almost like you completely missed the point of my post. *golf clap*

I never report police on Waze and flag them as "Not there" whenever possible.

Awww, what a good little bootlicker. Good thing all the other people will undo your action.

Re:FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

Oh and just to let you know, you hitting "not there" only hides it for yourself without sufficient voting from others. You didn't actually think your single "not there" hid those reports from everyone did you?

Re:FUD

[lister king of smeg]

Using Waze to enable reckless driving is nowhere even near the same thing as protecting privacy with encryption. I fully support speed traps and I wish there was much more enforcement of traffic laws. I never report police on Waze and flag them as "Not there" whenever possible.

No waze will show you where cops are not where cops aren't. Driveing recklessly because an app says that there is a cop a mile away is stupid because it does not mean there are not any in between or that the cop hasn't moved since he was last seen and reported on waze.

Re:FUD

[fisted]

No waze will show you where cops are not where cops aren't.

Please learn how to use basic punctuation, at least in sentences like this.

Re:FUD

[DroolTwist]

I can't stop reading this sentence. I almost feel like a person who was looking out a view port when a vessel jumped to hyperspace in the Ringworld series.

Re:FUD

[WCMI92]

I would say he's a cop, but that is unlikely as he at least wrote in complete sentences.

Lawful Access

[UconnGuy]

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.

By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment

[QuietLagoon]

"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.

Re:By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment

[Lunix Nutcase]

But you might be a pedophile or terrorist, Citizen. Big Brother knows you're a criminal they just haven't caught yet.

Re:By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment

[bkr1_2k]

Bah, they don't need that data. They just have to look at posting history on slashdot. Of course [he] is.

Re:By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment

[ZeroWaiteState]

"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"

No, they don't. The hearings regarding the rollout of healthcare.gov provided clear evidence of that. At best, you could say they care about their own security.

Some Nobody On Earth: Who Started?

[SpaghettiPattern]

Who started snooping without warrants? Bending rules? Breaking rules? Little sympathy towards authorities is left in the world.

Re:Some Nobody On Earth: Who Started?

[tnk1]

Sympathy for authorities, if something like that has ever happened, is an oscillation rather than something lost permanently.

This tends to change based on perceived need for more control to protect against threats. If we all feel in danger, we'll go along with, or even celebrate certain activities that might be considered to be unacceptable at some other time. If we feel safe, then the imposition of authority on people will chafe, because it is intrusive and there is no counteracting threat to make it necessary.

Re:Some Nobody On Earth: Who Started?

[CrimsonAvenger]

If I were guessing, I'd say J. Edgar Hoover, FDR's FBI chief. Hoover was apparently pretty bad about thinking that bending the rules was just fine as long as the FBI (read: J. Edgar Hoover) got good publicity out of it.

'Zone of Lawlessness'

[fustakrakich]

That would be all the corporate boardrooms, capitol buildings, and city halls, right?

Re:'Zone of Lawlessness'

[jythie]

Nah, those are 'alternative law zones'. The law when you can fight back is very different from the law the rest of us live under.

Pfffff, morons in the justice department...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dear DOJ

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Dear DOJ

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

There was ever an administration that actually defended the Constitution, privacy and due process? This shit has been happening since at least John Adams.

Re:Dear DOJ

[kilfarsnar]

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.

There was ever an administration that actually defended the Constitution, privacy and due process? This shit has been happening since at least John Adams.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean we should stop speaking out for our ideals.

Re:Dear DOJ

[Lunix Nutcase]

I don't disagree, but we should stop pretending that any politician in the history of this country has actually cared about protecting the rights of anyone but their wealthy, powerful base.

Re:Dear DOJ

[Virtucon]

I think it went downhill with Teddy Roosevelt.

Re:Dear DOJ

[RabidReindeer]

The main difference was that before, people at least tried to pretend that that wasn't proper behavior, and maybe just occasionally thought before they violated it.

Now they don't even care or try to pretend.

They shot first

[Anrego]

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.

Re:They shot first

[Kazoo the Clown]

Yes, we're trying to address the "zone of lawlessness" inside the NSA...

Re:They shot first

[Qzukk]

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."

If they're looking for a zone of lawlessness, they should check under their own feet first.

Re:They shot first

[Lunix Nutcase]

Ahh, but they are the "good guys". The rest of us are all just criminals that haven't been caught yet.

Re:They shot first

[RabidReindeer]

The whole idea of a "zone of lawlessness" has it all inside out.

The law is supposed to exist to protect and to serve the people, not something that the people are there to serve and protect.

In other words, you make and enforce laws when the lack of law causes problems. Not build laws and then expect people to move into them like they're a house, a reservation or a "free speech zone".

Re:They shot first

[Anonymous Coward]

They shot first...

This is soooo true. The timeline sort of splits at FDR in the 30's. Gov't was more or less a happy servant of the people before then. Then all of a sudden it somehow grew wings and horns and became self aware and started on it's path of 'defensive' power grabbing and money shifting. Just exactly as all governments in history have done before.
From there it's all just downhill until a lot of people die in revolution or the contry gets taken over in war.
Either way, history tells you two things with certainty...
1) A reboot is coming.
2) It won't be pretty.

Another thing history says is they do in fact shoot first. Look at the cops of today... prophecy fulfilled yet again.

Isn't freedom itself a potential lawless zone?

[popo]

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.

Re:Isn't freedom itself a potential lawless zone?

[captnjohnny1618]

The notion that liberties could be misused and potentially give way to lawbreaking behavior is never a justification for the repeal of liberty.

This (and everything you said) times infinity. The logic they're using to defend their arguments around spying on citizens and why they need to backdoor all encryption and security leads to such absurd conclusions that it's mind boggling. God forbid they actually have to go after the bad people (and work a little bit for it) and not just the normal folks.

I'd rather live in a world where crime exists and happens than sacrifice the rights of the rest of the population. These organizations are like leukemia: they are growing and growing and growing out of control, and when there's no longer any viruses (real criminals and crime) to attack they start damaging the rest of the body.

Re:Isn't freedom itself a potential lawless zone?

[Mr.CRC]

There is no "social contract."

orly?

[slashmydots]

You aren't allowed to look at just anything! - The Constitution

Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[WCMI92]

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?

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[Lunix Nutcase]

A contingent of the Founders were more than willingly to write up and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts only . Seems they were quite as dedicated to that ideal as they have been made out.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[Lunix Nutcase]

Seems they *weren't* that is.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[tnk1]

The Founding Fathers individually had different views.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would not have agreed on this, for instance.

The Bill of Rights was a compromise requirement attached to the initial Constitution. The original Constitution has no such rights in it, although the amendments were added so immediately afterward that the Constitution proper has no historical significance on its own except to show that not everyone in the Convention was as concerned about those rights as others were.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[Immerman]

In a monarchy power is presumed to flow from the king - the police are his *enforcers*: his word is law, and justice be damned.

In a republic, or any other form of government which presumes that power flows from the citizenry, the police are charged with being *protectors*, and are severely limited in their interactions with the citizenry who grant them their power.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[WCMI92]

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)

Re: Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

Patriot Act... constition superceeded

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[dryeo]

In a monarchy power is presumed to flow from the king - the police are his *enforcers*: his word is law, and justice be damned.

That's only partially true, at least in the British Parliamentary system. The King was traditionally as much King at the pleasure of the people. The King had to have the consent of the people to raise taxes, which is where Parliament originated. More the once the King was forced to agree that the people had rights, eg the Magna Carta. While the King did try to usurp more rights, sometimes successfully such as in the times of the Tudors when they started to claim Divine Right, Parliament reacted by convicting the King of treason and executing him (Charles I) and later by simply replacing him (James II). After the revolution of 1689 Parliament was Supreme in a partnership with the Crown and as recently as 1936 fired a King, including disinheriting any successors, for having fascist tendencies and even today if the crown gets too political will force him out, a real possibility if and when Charles ascends to the crown.

In a republic, or any other form of government which presumes that power flows from the citizenry, the police are charged with being *protectors*, and are severely limited in their interactions with the citizenry who grant them their power.

That is not really true either as many republics have a government that is as bad as the worst monarchies. East Germany is an example of a Republican government that was totally focused on the police having endless powers over the people. Lots of other examples, both on the left and the right of the spectrum.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[sjames]

And as a direct result, Adams lost the next election and 2 of the 4 (the most egregious ones) were expired the very next year.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[Immerman]

I think your history is a little off - as I recall, traditionally the king had absolute power, it wasn't until the nobility strong-armed him into agreeing to the Magna Carta, essentially at gunpoint, that they (not the people) got a guaranteed voice in government. It wasn't until much later that the peasants got a voice as well.

Basically, UK "monarchy" is an anomaly, not the norm, and today is really a monarchy only in name. The royal family long since signed away all their political power, except for that which they can exercise by way of cultural influence or threats to reclaim their vast wealth held in trust by the British government on condition of certain considerations - a canny maneuver to make sure the family would maintain a special influence with the government that replaced them.

Certainly republics can descend into police states as well - but that requires that either the people support such a maneuver, or that the government has violated it's trust and you don't actually have republic anymore. Single-party systems (or two-party collusion) are probably the most common way to maintain such a farce.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[dryeo]

The King having absolute power was more of a feudal thing, especially as the feudal era ended and the King consolidated power, taken to the extreme in places like France. Early feudal era the King needed the support of the nobles and clergy to govern and even earlier, at least in Germanic culture, the King governed and was elected by, a council eg the folkmoot or thing or witengemot. See for examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[blackanvil]

Unfortunately, because unenumerated rights are unbounded, the assumption is that if Congress passes a law against something, the President ratifies it, and the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, then that wasn't actually a right, even if the knot of pretzel-logic required to pass Constitutional muster is nigh Gordian.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[dave420]

You seem awfully confused. A monarchy might be constitutional (as in the UK now), or a dictatorship (as was in the UK ages ago). A republic might be a dictatorship, or it might be a democracy. Using "republic" to talk about a system of government is pointless, as it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The UK, for example, is a monarchy, yet the power comes from the people - the Queen is merely a figurehead, and can make no laws. The British police seem to be doing a far better job of protecting the people than the US's police do, so your argument seems entirely false, and based on nothing but wishful thinking and ignorance.

If you want to bang on about things and use these words, it might help to know what they actually mean, so you don't look really foolish in the process.

Re:Sucks to be law enforcement in a Republic

[david_thornley]

The Divine Right of Kings is a modern phenomenon, mostly the 1700s IIRC, which is post-feudal (except in Russia, which was progressing into feudalism at the time). It continued into the 1900s in many places, in somewhat modified form.

If the King has all power, then a constitution, if granted, is limits on the royal power and prerogatives, and the government may do anything not forbidden to it. If the government is formed with a constitution as a charter, the government may only do what is allowed.

Government lawyer = power hungry idiots

[wickerprints]

"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.

Jealous much?

[Moof123]

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.

Re:Jealous much?

[tnk1]

I don't think that this has to be a FUD scenario. I think law enforcement has a job to do, and they get to use certain tools to do it. If one of those tools becomes ineffective, then they have more trouble doing their job. Then they will complain because they are still expected to do their jobs.

We can certainly look at it from the approach of seeing all of the ways that power can be abused, but we have to balance that by pretending that there is a non-corrupt cop out there who needs to build a case against someone who they legitimately believe to be guilty of a crime. What happens if pervasive encryption now permits that criminal to get away with something that could have been detected by a properly executed wiretap in the past?

I'm not saying that we take away encryption, but pointing out the problem and looking for a solution is not FUD, its a legitimate concern that needs discussion. You can't just tell the cops, "you can't tap us anymore? Too bad, so sad," unless you also accept the relative step down in their ability to prosecute certain crimes.

Re:Jealous much?

[sjames]

They were allowed to borrow the family car on weekends. Then one night Dad saw them drag racing and trenching yards in the family car. Now they are not allowed to borrow the family car.

This is just them whining that they can't go to work now (if they had a job, that is) or the library to study (The 4 Ds on the report card suggest that wasn't likely to happen anyway).

Perhaps one day, when they are behaving responsibly and have built up trust again, they might occasionally be allowed to borrow the car again, but they will be checked up on and it won't be this year.

Re:Jealous much?

[tnk1]

Yeah, except that doesn't work well for a service. If they have people abusing it, they fire them, and/or prosecute them. And that is what needs discussion.

Its more like if an adult got some DWIs and they took their license away. Yeah, they can't be trusted with a car, but they still need to get to work because it isn't a matter of not getting their allowance money, they need to do their job to support their family and even their job place will suffer if they can't work.

In that case, the solution is public transit, or taxis, or someone driving them. Or in lesser cases, they still let you drive with an interlock device.

You really can't just say the law enforcement can't do something like this and take it away for awhile. Otherwise, you can't enforce laws and regulations. And when that happens, people get hurt, physically and financially. They either need it or not. If they need it, they can abuse it just as well later as they can now. We need a real solution other than taking it away.

Re:Jealous much?

[sjames]

I argue that they don't need it. They need it the way a 5 year old will claim that chocolate deficiency is an actual medical problem.

I could use a Ferrari but the price is too high. They could use the ability to snoop into people's phones and PCs but the price is too high.

Like your DUI analogy, we tried the ignition interlock, but they hot wired it and got another DUI. Now they will have to walk (get it? LEGWORK!). Back in the before time, they brought down notorious mobsters and bank robbers by pounding the pavement. Ness didn't hack Capone's PC. Capone kept his books locked in a safe in his office The office was guarded by men with Tommy guns. Many crooks kept the real books in code.

Re:Jealous much?

[sfcat]

I don't think that this has to be a FUD scenario. I think law enforcement has a job to do, and they get to use certain tools to do it. If one of those tools becomes ineffective, then they have more trouble doing their job. Then they will complain because they are still expected to do their jobs.

Every year the city of Philadelphia along seizes $5.8m in civil forfeitures. Less than what robbers steal in that city. Right now, I'm more scared of being robbed by cops than by crooks. That's because cops are currently stealing more than the criminals on a dollar for dollar basis. Stuff like this...http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-14/news/52772884_1_forfeiture-program-drug-trafficking-property

Can you see why we don't trust them? Now tell me why again I should expose my personal information to them, (and ID thieves) to make their job easier? Maybe I'm not certain who I'm more scared of? And maybe I'm not sure them doing their job making my life better or safer. Maybe I think they are worse than the criminals. And it doesn't seem to matter what level of government we are talking about, local, state, or federal. Might be time to start over again with LE, and this time not exclude people with an IQ higher than 102.

Re:Jealous much?

[tnk1]

Ness didn't have to hack Capone's PC.

Legwork worked in the 1940s because the criminals were on the same level. Your mobsters were generally within reach because to remain in control, they had to remain in communication range, which was usually in person.

Today, criminals can sit in Afghanistan and manage loose groupings of local networks very effectively. Drug cartels operate from Mexico. Criminals have the same capabilities that states had in the 1940s. Did we expect legwork to break codes? There is always legwork involved, but we were using SIGINT to get good information even then.

And bear in mind that we used to have the option of the wiretap, even in the days of Capone. Useless now with encrypted communications.

Re:Jealous much?

[sjames]

WITH a warrant, a pentrace is still available. That is, who did this phone call and where was it at the time. But note they're not complaining about phones that encrypt voice communication. Neither Google nor Apple are proposing to do that. They're complaining that they can't read your address book or paw through your email and photos. They're complaining that your papers might be secured nearly as well as Capone's (but not quite as well unless you have a tommy gun).

The thing is, most crimes eventually come down to some sort of physical activity somewhere that can be observed or to money moving from one place to another which can be traced (yes, including bitcoin).

A zone by any other name...

[Kazoo the Clown]

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!

Re:A zone by any other name...

[Lunix Nutcase]

This is just the natural outgrowing from ridiculous things like "Free speech zones" that too many people were more than willing to support.

Non sequitor

[hawguy]

"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.

Re:Non sequitor

[fustakrakich]

...Google, Apple and others have provided secret back doors that they aren't allowed to talk about.

There is insufficient demand from all of us that they do talk.

Orwell Translation Matrix v1.2

[DoktorMidnight]

"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."

Archer:

[Libertarian_Geek]

The zone will be one of danger.

worry about the other "Zone of Lawlessness"!

[silfen]

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.

Re:worry about the other "Zone of Lawlessness"!

[dbc]

And where are my mod points today. Yes. This. The Zone of Lawlessness is mostly inside the DC beltway.

Re:worry about the other "Zone of Lawlessness"!

[StormReaver]

Fix that, and then the American people might consider not using encryption anymore.

That ship has sailed, and is not coming back. When the American Government is indistinguishable from any other type of criminal, you are well advised to protect yourself from them all.

It is not just a company's choice

[nomad63]

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.

Lawful access is uneffected.

[jythie]

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.

Re:Lawful access is uneffected.

[linuxrocks123]

It is unsettled law whether the 5th Amendment protects against subpoenaing someone for their disk encryption keys, without giving them immunity for whatever they find. Current case law seems to be leaning toward that it is.

Note that after the final case discussed in that presentation was decided, a state supreme court decided opposite. But federal circuit court decisions are probably more compelling than state court decisions.

State courts do stupid shit pretty frequently.

Re:Lawful access is uneffected.

[jythie]

True, this really has not been settled yet.

Re:Lawful access is uneffected.

[WCMI92]

It is unsettled law whether the 5th Amendment protects against subpoenaing someone for their disk encryption keys, without giving them immunity for whatever they find. Current case law seems to be leaning toward that it is. [youtube.com]

That is exactly how 5th Amendment law works.

There is only one way you can EVER be compelled to testify and actually ANSWER their questions (you aren't allowed to lie, but you can refuse to answer, the "right to remain silent" applies to your TRIAL as well which is why defendants can't be compelled to testify) and that is you have to be given IMMUNITY. If the prosecution gives your testimony immunity you cannot be prosecuted for what you say (unless you commit perjury and lie).

Re:Lawful access is uneffected.

[Nonesuch]

There is only one way you can EVER be compelled to testify and actually ANSWER their questions (you aren't allowed to lie, but you can refuse to answer, the "right to remain silent" applies to your TRIAL as well which is why defendants can't be compelled to testify) and that is you have to be given IMMUNITY. If the prosecution gives your testimony immunity you cannot be prosecuted for what you say (unless you commit perjury and lie).

One undecided facet is whether compelling somebody to "testify" by providing their encryption key or by requiring them to unlock an encrypted device, also gives them immunity for the evidence revealed in the contents.

One legal theory is that a person may be compelled to decrypt (e.g. by sitting them in front of a laptop with a copy of their PGP disk volume and saying "unlock this or go to jail"), and the only immunity required is immunity for prosecution due to the fact that they knew the key (e.g. a conspiracy charge), without granting immunity for evidence found in the cleartext of data in encrypted storage. I disagree, but can see that approach passing constitutional muster

Anti-Encryption Legislation Destroys Economies

[nucrash]

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.

Security is a yes/no question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Security is a yes/no question

[silas_moeckel]

Incorrect, if they want access to your encrypted information they may get a warrant, you can then defend yourself against said warrant by contesting it, a judge might hold you in contempt for not giving up the keys (that is a contempt to try and make you comply not a punitive one so is only supposed to be until they figure out your not going to). This is not what they seem to be worried about.

They are worried about not being able to just take or use secret courts to access whatever they want. Pervasive encryption means they can no longer get all the info they want from the middle men who tend not to fight back much, use national security letters when even the secret courts wont give them a warrant. Having to use actual warrants served to the people effected who might fight them and use the media to shame them means they better have a good reason vs just fishing. You can also devise hardware and protocols that put a time limit on being able to decypt things that would limit the time held in contempt (simple one is a chip that holds the keys and erases them if it does not get a passcode every so often or looses power a basic extension on existing TMP).

In short you can have secure encryption that the government could force you to let them access. It's messy, time consuming, and does not always work.

Re:Security is a yes/no question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Notice that I very carefully said secure against a certain attack in my previous post. You are talking about something different to breaking the encryption technically: the xkcd attack, which any large organisation with weapons can apply, but not covertly and not without consequences if they try to apply it systematically against innocent people.

Re:Security is a yes/no question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The key point from an ethical/legal point of view might be the warrant. The key safeguard from a practical point of view is that to plant those bugs someone has to actually visit the site and do something. This requires time, effort, and a risk of getting caught, which means it's potentially an option if you really do have a good reason to consider a specific individual to be a threat but it's prohibitively expensive to spy on everyone all of the time. As far as defending democracy is concerned, that is a much healthier balance than mass surveillance of the many by the few.

Re:Security is a yes/no question

[Roger Wilcox]

You seem to have missed the word "covert" in the GP post.

His point was that government simply cannot encourage secure communication among its citizenry and also expect to have covert access to all of that communication. Secure communication and dragnet surveillance are mutually exclusive concepts for the government's purposes. Unfortunately, our overlords have chosen to attempt to limit the security of our communication in order to realize their goal of capturing all our base in their dragnets.

No asshole...

[MitchDev]

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!"

Zero fucks given about their Zone of Lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[RabidReindeer]

It's referring to killing one innocent, not imprison.

Imprison sounds like "whoops, we fucked your life", but at least isn't taking one away. Killing an innocent refers to what happens in Texas regularly.

If you'd been unable to see your children grow up or grow old with your wife or even miss that once-in-a-lifetime travel vacation, then most people would consider their life to have been "taken away". The part that's worth living, anyway.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Imprison sounds like "whoops, we fucked your life", but at least isn't taking one away.

If you're locked up for years, despite having done nothing wrong, I'm not sure I see much difference.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well, if it worked for Cardinal Richelieu...

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[marcel_in_ca]

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)

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Opportunist]

Well, everyone IS guilty. I can't remember (someone please help me with a link) that there was a study that showed that everyone breaks the law a couple times every day, without even noticing.

We get more and more fucked up and entirely unenforceable laws. The only reason being that IF, cancel that, AS SOON AS we need something to nail you down with, we'll find something.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was *never* a period of universal agreement on the best way to balance individual freedom against public safety. There have been dominant voices at various points in history, but that's it.

Today, as always, many people believe that the government should have superior access to just about everything in order to ensure our safety. Such people consider themselves good people, believe that they have nothing to hide, and that whichever of their neighbors are also good should also have nothing to hide. They feel like sacrificing a level of privacy that they don't need is worth the security that the government can thereby provide. They presume both that the government will not abuse this power, and that any of their neighbors who disagrees with them has something to hide and therefore is a danger, and should be properly constrained.

This belief is not popular among computer geeks. Geek culture is very much on the other end of the pendulum, believing that the government is intrinsically evil (power always corrupts and appeals to the corruptible, etc). They think that the government itself is a greater risk to their personal security than neighbors who might also be criminals, and that protecting themselves from the government will provide more security (even if it means their neighbor-criminals are also protected from the government).

In fact, both views represent an extreme, and as such neither can be "right" in any objective sense. It is true that neighbors can be a threat. It is also true that the government can be a threat. It is also true that neighbors and/or government can be allies in one's personal security. Complete acceptance of, or rejection of, either one is unsustainable. So a balance must be struck.

And there will *always* be extremists on both sides calling for an adjustment to that balance.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[WCMI92]

Yep. We have so many byzantine laws and regulations (which, by the way, WE are expected to know them all, ignorance is no defense, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't, ignorance is a defense for THEM violating our rights) that no one person can possibly know, THOUSANDS MORE a year are added.

Everyone probably commits at least one felony a week without knowing it.

The solution is that EVERY LAW AND REGULATION should have a SUNSET DATE. To keep them active they should have to be re-authorized at least every 4 years. If the government had to do that only the most NECESSARY laws would remain on the books. Inherent government laziness would then work on the side of Liberty.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[tombeard]

It always amazes me "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but a lawyer has to study years just to understand small subset of them. There are even special courts and judges for specific legal areas.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[tombeard]

It certainly is possible that one or the other represents a greater danger.

For myself, I have had one minor loss to crime in my life, I have had a number of thefts and a couple of kidnappings by government.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Jason Levine]

If you're locked up for years, despite having done nothing wrong, I'm not sure I see much difference.

And that doesn't even get into how your life could be ruined after the "oops, sorry about the imprisonment. You're free to go." Your old job definitely won't be available and new job opportunities might be skittish about hiring someone who went to prison. Even if they've expunged your record, people might still know you went to prison, might still think of you as guilty, and treat you as such. In short, your suffering might not end once you get out of jail.

There's a good reason that our justice system is supposed to be stacked in favor of the defendant.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[kellymcdonald78]

So now there will be a massive omnibus bill every 4 years that just re-approves all existing laws

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[bmajik]

A funny idea I had once was that after the revolution, the new government gets a 100 page blank notebook to write the laws in.

Once they fill up the last page, all of them are executed.

The next group of guys gets a 100 page blank book.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[HiThere]

True, there also needs to be a maximum length of any given law which includes in the length all other laws cited by reference.

I also think there needs to be a reasonable test for intelligibility. It's not right that everyone should understand every law, that's an impossibily high bar, but an average high school senior should. And at minimum should be able to. I can't think of a simple way of phrasing that test though that isn't of the form "Take a bunch of average high school seniors and have them write an essay about what the law means, and what it means is the intersection of what they claim it means", and that's also a poor idea, because it would eliminate everything...but I can't think of an objective "average understanding" evaluator.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[bmajik]

#insert observations/law/drferris.h

(preprocessed for your convenience)

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted â" and you create a nation of law-breakers â" and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.â

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[macs4all]

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.

What's that Orwell line from Animal Farm?

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All agreed, though I am increasingly of the view that systemic bias in favour of the accused is not sufficient. Merely being dragged through the legal system even if ultimately found not guilty is sure to be stressful, time-consuming, and possibly costly in more ways than one. People who have committed even quite serious crimes are sometimes released immediately after conviction on the basis that they've already served as much or more time than their sentence -- but of course, someone who was entirely innocent and not convicted in court also served that time. Right now you're unlikely to get much financial compensation for any of that, and even less any obligation for those who caused the damage to do anything else to set the record straight or otherwise make things right as much as possible.

The more I've thought about these kinds of issues as I get older, the more I think our modern "justice" systems are no longer fit for purpose, if indeed they ever were. In particular, they take an absurd amount of time and resources to deal with trivial infractions, sometimes at a cost to all involved that is far greater than any damage done by the alleged act itself. For major cases, the court proceedings can cost millions and drag on for years, and by the time they are finally over the result is no longer relevant anyway.

I think we would probably do much better if we built on the kinds of distinction we already make about severity: misdemeanour vs. felony in the US, magistrates vs. crown courts here in the UK, small claims courts with less formal procedures for minor civil disputes, and so on. For example, I don't see why any very minor offence can't be fully tried and a judgement made within a single court session and within a matter of days after the alleged infraction. Either there is clear evidence to convict, or you acquit. If you convict in a fast track procedure, you have strict limits on the level of penalty that can be imposed.

Then for repeated minor offences within some defined time period or for more serious crimes (probably anything including violence that allegedly caused significant injury and/or damage needing repairs exceeding a certain cost, for example) you can extend the timescales involved to a degree to allow for more careful preparation of the case, perhaps increase the degree of scrutiny in terms of magistrates vs. judge and jury and allow the use of expert witnesses, and so on.

Crucial to all of this, in my ideal world, would be the idea that there was also proper compensation for anyone brought through the system at any given level but not ultimately found guilty, making it not cost effective to bring cases in the first place without a reasonable expectation of a conviction. No doubt experienced lawyers could come up with much better ideas for the specific details of any such system, but I think the idea of having more well-defined tiers with strict limits on applicability and proportionate compensation arrangements is basically a sound one.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[nobuddy]

Now, If you will all gather around the screen of the electron microscope, we can review the latest law we just etched in to the next paper molecule in the book.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[meta-monkey]

Would never work. They would just pass a resolution continuing all current laws for the next sunset period. Same way they do with budgets and re-issuing the blanket surveillance warrants every 90 days.

What we need are specific, limited, necessary, well-crafted laws written in the descriptive spirit of English Common Law on which our legal system was based.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[nitehawk214]

Which is hilarious considering that bible thumpers tend to be the "kill em all and let god sort it out" type. Why else are executions so much more common in the bible belt? The more moderate religious people are the live and let live ones.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[TehZorroness]

Hell, even that would be an improvement.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Jadecristal]

...it almost seems like everyone is presumed to be guilty of something.

Must we quote Rand again? Regardless of whether you like her or dislike her personally, or agree with her philosophy or not:

We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. ...when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, ...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

I mean, seriously... I wonder who hasn't committed a felony this year, whether it's paperwork or some esoteric piece of law that no one knows about - never mind the myriad of things that are now "felonies," a term which used to be reserved for serious crimes whereby one could/would lose all property (with/without possible death penalty); once such loss of property was abolished, the distinction between what was and was not a felony became more... flexible.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Lord Apathy]

This goes back to my ideal of a responsibility and repercussions for prosecutors and attorneys if they are found to be on the losing side of a case. If they are going to accuse someone of breaking law or bring some civil suite then they should be held accountable if they lose the case.

Right now as it stands if prosecutor loses a case then its just âoeoh well, we didn't get this one.â They get to go home every night and enjoy their freedom and family. Whereas the person they are accusing maybe found to be innocent their lives are pretty much ruined.

If a trial lawyer brings a civil case, like for the RIAA, against someone and loses, they to just get to walk away. While person they where suing has had to spend time and money to defend themselves. At the most they might get awarded some reverse damages, but they are still out time.

If a prosecutor is going to charge someone's with a crime that could potentially take 20 years away from him, then that prosecutor better be prepared to spend the next 20 years locked up if they lose. Same for the trial lawyer. If he sues someone and loses he has to pay out-of-pocket the cost of the trial and what the judgment would have been if he won.

May seem a little drastic but if there where repercussions to failed cases then there would be a lot less of them.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[ai4px]

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. Atlas Shrugged

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Sir_Substance]

There is no functional difference between imprisoning someone for 20 years and killing them.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Once they fill up the last page, all of them are executed.

Such delightful ambiguity. Would "they" happen to be the laws, or the government?

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[bmajik]

The government, of course.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[dave420]

Just ask Chareth Cutestory. He studied maritime law for years.

You're a crook, Captain Hook. Judge, won't you throw the book at the pirate.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[beastofburdon]

Why not both?

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Opportunist]

Do we really have to wait that long?

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Agripa]

It always amazes me "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but a lawyer has to study years just to understand small subset of them. There are even special courts and judges for specific legal areas.

And the recent United States Supreme Court decision ruled that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse if you are the one enforcing the law.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Mr.CRC]

This is the shit!

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Mr.CRC]

What about having a way for the people to vote directly to veto any law?

How about also automatic culling of case law more than say, 10 yrs old?

How about a Constitutional Amendment which requires that all laws pertaining to the ordinary citizen occupy no more than the front and back of a single letter sized page, in 10pt font, with 0.75in margins, with no more than 1/3 of the total printable area consumed by 8pt footnotes. The penalties for violating laws may consist of a single additional page, printed front and back subject to the same constraints as above.

Small businesses may be subject to laws+penalties comprising an additional 9 double-sided pages. Corps. may be subject to laws consisting of 90 additional pages, etc. Corp. law may refer to standards documents of unlimited size. Corps. and basically anyone may participate in standards setting bodies.

If you are out of space and want to pass a new law you are tough out of luck unless you rescind an existing law.

There, we've just reduced the entire CFR to a max. of 100 pages!

How about a citizen's grand jury, with the power to literally abolish government, incrementally (your local police dept. out of line? Vote them out of existence!) down to the Constitution if need be. This entity is empowered by the fact that it holds title to the National Bank upon which all gov. checks must be drawn, thus it can ultimately, if a vote of >50% of the adult population is collected to do so, completely shut down the Federal Gov. (likewise per state, municipality, etc.) by simply liquidating the Nat. Bank, thereby removing the government's ability to collect taxes or to issue debt.

This can in fact be a default outcome (sort of a dead man's switch) if the government fails to prosecute one of its own for charges brought by the citizen's grand jury (if the .gov is stupid enough to let it get this far by not prosecuting lawlessness within its ranks on its own volition.)

All laws must be written in common language. There may not be any meanings to words that the common man cannot garner by looking up words in a standard dictionary.

I'm just warming up. There are many, many more possible ideas for how to use the democratic process to restrain government. I'm usually dismayed by how utterly consistent nearly everyone's thinking is about all matters political. Hardly an original thought to be found.

I'll finalize with a few more ideas: It's likely provable that elected representatives who win popularity contests are far more likely to govern poorly than citizens selected completely at random. So I propose just that! But first there is another problem--how to solve one of the primary and legitimate complaints of libertarians: taxation is stealing!

Fixing this isn't that difficult. There shall be two kinds of citizens: 1. citizens; 2. lawful permanent residents. Everyone in those two categories can opt in to citizenship at any time, or opt. out to permanent resident status (at most once per year). Permanent residents shall have NO societal obligations except to not break criminal laws. No taxes, jury duty, draft, reporting requirements, etc. So it will be possible to just live on your land somewhere never interacting with government, and not wind up in administrative violation. This is not presently possible--which is absurd in a "free" society.

However, permanent residents must pay for all services used and they may collect no social benefits not paid for (this does not preclude voluntarily *purchasing* government sponsored "social security" insurance. It's as simple as that! You drove on the county road for 442 miles this month, you just pay the monthly bill, or toll, or whatever mechanism is set up.

Citizens OTOH have the obligations of paying taxes, jury duty, draft (very unlikely, since war would be avoided except when actually attacked by enemies not self-created), and most interestingly: random selection to serve in what used to be elected govern

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Mr.CRC]

This is all good. But first, how about simply removing the caseload by dramatically reducing the number of laws making stuff a crime like smoking a joint or even drug dealing? The funny thing about legalizing drugs is that "drug dealing" (all the bad aspects, gangs, thugs on the street corner, etc.) would go away. There would be hard drugs available from the pharmacist in bottles that look like they came from a chemical company (which they did) and legitimate businesses and www sites for soft drugs like cannabis. Now people doing legitimate economic activity would be able to participate in society instead of having to resort to a criminal underworld.

Legalize prostitution as well.

"Legalize" isn't even the right word for much of this. The correct answer is "rescind all laws pertaining to..."

And what's this shit about prosecuting kids for messaging nude pics. of themselves? It would be laughable if it weren't so sinister. Images of body parts cannot be a crime. Only kidnapping (to forcibly or deceptively gain access to someone to rape or photograph them against their will) can be a crime.

A human being's birthday suit cannot be a crime!

One more thing about prostitution for ex.: People whine that "I don't want that to go on in my neighborhood." Well fine, have a law that says you can be threatened with being charged with trespassing if you engage in such and such activity in the following private/public space. In other words, make it a matter of respecting private property, or cooperatively owned and administrated property (ie., the sidewalks and streets on our block).

But many laws are basically criminalizing things that someone finds aesthetically unpleasing. Like guys boinking each other in the butt holes. Gives me the creeps. But it's none of my business if they are doing it in private.

Re:When everyone is guilty...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No doubt we could debate a few specifics, but I couldn't agree more with your basic points that we criminalize too many things and that what consenting adults do in private is their own business.

Boo fucking hoo

[gstoddart]

"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.

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.

Re:Boo fucking hoo

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

So, I'm getting the impression that you are somewhat nonplussed about their position./s

Corporate espionage

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess they're OK with US companies exposing their corporate secrets to espionage by foreign companies & foreign countries.

how did things go before communication over wires?

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:Wait...

[Anna Merikin]

In the BC (Before Computers) era, if one wanted perfect privacy, they would remember things and not write them down. They would talk to each other in their own homes with security from government eavesdropping about ideas, politics, anything they felt like. The fifth amendment gave them the right to keep such things from government "oversight."

Now, there is more to remember and machines to help us do so. Should these modern aids help the individual or make the jobs of surveillance agencies easier?

Put another way, would anyone want their careless/drunk/drugged/lusty words used against them in a courtroom?

Re:Wait...

[Immerman]

Easy enough to fix too, at least in theory: If a corporation refuses to release *their* information in response to a court order, imprison the CEO and dissolve the corporation. Sure you'd have to get a law passed to that effect, but it a hard argument to make that we should compromise everyone's security rather than make the guilty parties liable for their crimes.

On the other hand if he's talking about the companies being unable to hand over *my* data and communications... well that's not their data to hand over to begin with. Send *me* the court order and proceed from there.

Zone of Privacy

[DickBreath]

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!

locked doors

[kingnite9915]

And locked doors make it harder for police to enter your house. Ban all locks!!!

Zone of Privacy

[geekmux]

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.

Lawlessness

[NatasRevol]

They misspelled privacy.

Do You Mean . . .?

[hduff]

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.

Waaaah...

[funwithBSD]

Too. Fucking. Bad.

Pot meet kettle

[augustz]

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.

Not lawlessness, a zone of no law enforcement

[mstrcat]

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.

encrypting everything actually is helping

[tommyatomic]

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.

no subject

[Falos]

> 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.

When everyone is guilty...

[Rhys]

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.

I love when fascists whine

[Indy1]

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.

Re:I love when fascists whine

[Opportunist]

It's from their enemies, not their friends, that people learn to build walls.

No, Ms Caldwell

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

What a load of B$

[dablow]

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.......

I have the answer

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

...where encryption-empowered Reavers...

[glaciator]

...rape people to death, skin them and eat them. And if they're lucky, they do it in that order.

Good news

[JRV31]

"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.

Dear DOJ....

[Lumpy]

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.

DoJ zone of lawlessness

[TiggertheMad]

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."

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[boristdog]

I swear you could just go back to the old school spy tradecraft (dead drops, one time code pads, etc.) and keep your illegal organization out of the eyes of the law as long as you weren't stupid and kept all confidential communications offline. I'll bet not more than 5% of law enforcement agency personnel even know what they used to do.

It's how I run my terroist organization these days, and the terror business is good.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[davester666]

They know, but all that walking around, driving, following takes so much effort, while also being pretty boring and relatively high-risk [having to mingle with all the terrorists]. It is way easier to just sit in front of a screen and pretend to look for terrorists.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[Ancil]

Osama bin Laden managed to hide in plain sight for 6 years by doing something similar.

The basic approach of senior Al Qaeda figures was to use laptops but never connect them to the internet. Everything was based on thumb drives, which were moved around by trusted couriers. You couldn't plant a mole in there, because they basically didn't trust anyone they hadn't known for several generations.

He was eventually tracked down because his most trusted courier was on the phone with a friend being pestered about what he was doing, and the CIA happened to be listening.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[sumdumass]

Well- i do not condone terrorism or terrorist organizations - but i do have a about 250 bazookas in a fresh tub i could bargain sell you. They are the topps.

If interested, write tuity fruity on an envelope and slip it under the coin return for the third payphone past the news stand at the corner of elm and high. I'll have a dropped a price there tonight.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but take a look at the 2002 Millenium Challenge navy exercise.

The Red team, using old school tactics, dealt a staggering blow to the Blue team. (The exercise was then reset, with the Red team required to "follow the rules"). Quoting:

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[nobuddy]

One of my favorite stories. The Marine Corps keeps up to date on the latest and greatest, but we have not forgotten our past either.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[Austerity Empowers]

There's a potential terrorist under every cell in minesweeper, hell that's why they call them cells!

Re: DoJ zone of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

thats the official line.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[SumDog]

Same goes with militants in areas around Afghanistan and Pakistan. They stopped using cellphones entirely. If you use cellphone there to coordinate anything, you will die.

Re:DoJ zone of lawlessness

[rtb61]

Speaking of governments, an interesting thought by the the US Department of in-Justice (let's at least be honest with that, three tier justice system, poor - always guilty, middle class - pay through the nose but still guilty and rich - innocent or somebody else pays the penalty). When things are kept secret they become a "zone of lawlessness", so national security is evil because when the government keeps secrets that would affect the elections they become a "zone of lawlessness", well, I would most certainly have to agree with that. So I gather that they will now be focusing their efforts on where secrets do the greatest harm (wars for profit, collusion on tax havens, corrupt lobbyists), ha ha ha.

What this really is all about, governments of the day don't like your political choices, they can ban you from flying, subject to random gropings including strip searches (normally called sexual assault), block your employment, cancel contracts, block all digital financial transactions and, then still use search warrants to invade your home, steal stuff and trash the rest of your in the process, whilst threatening you life and possibly ending it. All made laughably easy by the simple expedient of selectively presenting the information they have gleaned about you, including times you lack a alibi (even when they know exactly where you were), false association of facts, selected out of context information and claiming random internet interactions with other suspects as conspiratorial interactions. Hell, they can even perversely hack you computer systems and then claim that all the information is true because of course no one could have hacked it and planted it all, even when their hacking code is released to the wild by them using it and then subsequently usurped by organised crime (thanks for that idiots) ?!?

Re: DoJ zone of lawlessness

[StillAnonymous]

Just like this woman's apparent outrage. It's probably all part of the plan. Fake some outrage to get people to think that companies like google and apple actually have decent encryption that will protect your data, then have people jump all over it "encrypting" their juiciest data. Meanwhile they have a backdoor deal right out of the gate.

Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[mitcheli]

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?

Re:Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[tombeard]

I like this concept. Choke them with their own words.

Re:Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[tacokill]

You're not reaching but what you are asking for isn't necessary. We've already got good precedent for encryption with Phil Zimmerman and PGP back in the 1980's.

When they tried to ban his encryption, he just printed the source code in a book and dared them to ban the book. Same thing can happen again. Code = Speech.

Re:Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[dbc]

I think that is a very interesting concept. If it is a munition, it should be covered by the second amendment. The problem you face is that ever since the Miller case, the 2A has been eroding to the point where even though something is obviously covered by the second amendment, you still might not be able to keep and bear it. From a pragmatic standpoint, it is in everyone's interest to push back on government incursions into the 2A, because those same arguments can be applied by the government to 1A and 4A, and any-other-A. If you don't like what the 2A says, then try to pass an amendment to change it -- because trying rubbery arguments to contort the meaning will eventually erode the other amendments.

Re:Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[root_brewski]

relevant xkcd Some context

Re:Second amendment zone of lawlessness

[Fire_Wraith]

Randall Munroe did, for one. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/504/

"Court-ordered" searches? Baloney!

[zerofoo]

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.

And why is this?

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

Re:And why is this?

[Opportunist]

This reminds me of an old tale.

Sun and Wind were arguing who was more powerful. Both argued at length and neither would accept the other one's arguments, so they decided for a competition. They saw a man walking across the land and Wind suggested that whoever gets the coat off him should be considered the most powerful one.

Sun agreed and Wind prepared for the worst. He started to blow and the winds picked up, he put more and more power behind it and soon a veritable hurricane was ripping at the poor man in his quest to pry that coat off him. But the more Wind blew, the tighter the man grabbed his coat and didn't want to let go, growing only more determined at staying warm and sheltered within his only protection from the elements that threw him about.

Soon Wind sat down, exhausted and wheezing. He laughed at Sun who was still sitting there, knowing that she could never succeed where he could not with all his might.

Sun did what Sun did best. She shone. She brightened up the day and warmth filled the air, her beams heating up the ground the man walked on and giving him warmth as well. She just sat there, waiting, providing the warmth every being needs.

And the man eventually decided it's too hot to wear a coat and took it off.

I leave the interpretation to the reader. It's not hard, but maybe we should still explain it to the DOJ, I doubt they'll get it.

Re:And why is this?

[The Grim Reefer]

I remember reading a version of that in one of Aleister Crowley's books. I think it ended with a dung beetle telling a tree that both the wind and sun are fools.

Lawful Access Through a Court Order?

[Em Adespoton]

"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.

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.

This Is All You Need To Know

[Guy From V]

"We understand 80 percent of traffic on the Tor network involves child pornography.” - Leslie Caldwell, Ast, Attorney General at the Justice Department

(Drops Mic)

Re:This Is All You Need To Know

[Opportunist]

Freedom of speech > four horsemen of the infocalypse.

Next strawman please.

Re:This Is All You Need To Know

[WCMI92]

"We understand 80 percent of traffic on the Tor network involves child pornography.â - Leslie Caldwell, Ast, Attorney General at the Justice Department

(Drops Mic)

Belief and proof are two different things.

If the government wants to search your person or property THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALREADY DONE AN INVESTIGATION and have obtained sufficient evidence as to demonstrate probable cause to search a SPECIFIC person or a SPECIFIC place and seize a SPECIFIC thing:

4th Amendment:

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.

First and foremost, a warrant isn't a fishing license. It's permission GAINED BY PROBABLE CAUSE to look for SOMETHING SPECIFIC that the government already knows about. It's not permission to FIND OUT IF THERE IS anything relevant to the crime. They go in already having to KNOW what they are looking for.

What the government is pissed off about is default on hard encryption denies them the ability to CONDUCT fishing expeditions. Sure, it saves time and arguably makes law enforcement EASIER and even more efficient. If the goal of the Founders was to make law enforcement EASY and EFFICIENT, they never would have put the 4th and 5th Amendments into the Constitution. They probably wouldn't have put trial by jury in either. The 3rd probably wouldn't be in either, because if the government can quarter a soldier or a cop in your home, so much the easier to prevent you from committing crimes.

Re:This Is All You Need To Know

[Guy From V]

I meant this was "all you need to know" to understand it total bullshit. Damn, I have been really good at not needing obvious sarcasm indicators.

You can lock your doors

[AndyKron]

You can lock your doors, just make sure it's not a good lock Fuck the government.

Correction

[digitalPhant0m]

'zone of lawlessness'

'zone of freedom' - fixed that for you.

Proof that you can take an oath

[ThatsNotPudding]

and not have a fucking clue as to the true meaning of the words you literally mouth.

Lazy DOJ

[BrennanPratt]

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.

touch id

[beefoot]

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?

"... comb through a suspect's personal device ..."

[ememisya]

So you tell me what the difference is between these two scenarios:

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 ... "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.

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 ... weed, he seems to like weed, then arrest him and bring him here, he needs to be off the streets.

Lock box analogy

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

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.

Here's a quote for you, dear DOJ

[Opportunist]

“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!

Re:"Court-ordered" searches? Baloney!

[WCMI92]

"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).

Re:Wait...

[Immerman]

And for any such web site obviously the "zone of lawlessness" threat is so much smoke. It's only relevant in realms where the corporation doesn't already have access to the data, or is willing to obstruct a legitimate court order.

The justice department is very concerned

[TsuruchiBrian]

Apple and Google have made a very selfish decision to create a "zone of not doing the justice department's job for them".

Re:Think about the children

[Opportunist]

If you think of the children all the time, you are probably a pedo.

Not just the cops

[Chewbacon]

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.

If this was so ....

[PPH]

... we would hear countless press releases from law enforcement to the effect that "Yet anonther Bad Guy was caught. And his phone/tablet/PC was secured with Evil Encryption." But we don't. So I'm calling Bullshit.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens. The US constitution lays out what it is supposed to do and the only reason it can get by with what you complain about is because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.

But power corrupts (even if unintentionally)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:But power corrupts (even if unintentionally)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Interesting story. One of the things I find most reassuring about the police service* in the UK is that they have long maintained, great consistency and at almost any rank, that good community relations are the heart of good policing. Officers who go out on patrol** have consistently and overwhelmingly said they do not want to routinely carry firearms, because that goes against the basic principle of policing by consent, and instead they tend to assume that the solution to local problems often starts with trying to improve those relations if they are failing. Concerns are also raised often by the police themselves about the balance between having officers patrolling in vehicles for rapid response and having officers literally walking the beat and actually making contact with the public. I get the feeling that police officers in certain other parts of the world have a very, very different attitude to their relationship with the public.

*I remember well that when the local police schools liaison officer visited us, he made a point of saying he didn't like the term "police force" because it had the wrong connotations before you even started to look at what the police did.

**It's curious how often police officers and politicians in some places refer to officers "on the front line", this being about as overt a military metaphor as I can think of (short of being "on the front line in the war against $ABSTRACT_NOUN" I suppose).

If encryption is outlawed..

[kheldan]

..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.

Default warrantless wiretaps create lawless zones.

[sugarmatic]

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.

The Thing The US Is Ignoring...

[BrendaEM]

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.

Trust is a two way street

[nobuddy]

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.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[nobuddy]

Like make war in Iraq to support a oligarchy?

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[Austerity Empowers]

Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do, there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify. Honestly intent doesn't matter for shit, the guys that wrote it are dead. I would argue in most cases that it is working as designed, and that the people bitching and moaning are simply not in the majority and delivering a clear enough message on priorities. When I leave my young urban mecca and visit more traditional venues, all I hear is how the Obama isn't doing enough to stop crime, terrorists, drugs, etc.; how he's weakened the government and pussified the United States, that we need a republican back in there to kick out the muslims and put some order in.

These people aren't bothered by spying, torture, or big government interventions. They want safety and they do vote. Their message is no doubt inconsistent, they also complain about "big government" and "regulation" and "wasting money". But listening carefully they don't consider the military, a well stocked police force or an elaborate spy network to be 'wasting" and they consider it a priority. The young urbans, by contrast, largely don't care about this at all, and instead want the government focusing its efforts on other things, mostly economy & socially oriented; listening carefully to them speak they merely have contempt for the police state, they don't vote strongly against it.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

Yes, making war is a constitutional provision.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

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?

Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do

Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.

there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify.

I don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.

Honestly intent doesn't matter for shit, the guys that wrote it are dead.

It matters simply because it is what constitutes the federal government. Without it, we would have 50 different countries more or less. That is how the USA was formed, the 13 colonies became 13 countries and they surrendered some of their sovereignty to a central government when they constituted one which is why there is a constitution.

When I leave my young urban mecca and visit more traditional venues, all I hear is how the Obama isn't doing enough to stop crime, terrorists, drugs, etc.; how he's weakened the government and pussified the United States, that we need a republican back in there to kick out the muslims and put some order in.

You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.

These people aren't bothered by spying, torture, or big government interventions. They want safety and they do vote. Their message is no doubt inconsistent, they also complain about "big government" and "regulation" and "wasting money". But listening carefully they don't consider the military, a well stocked police force or an elaborate spy network to be 'wasting" and they consider it a priority.

Maybe they know more than you do or something? The military and spying is actually constitutional duties of the US government. Well, not spying in particular but national defense under which the spying is excused away.

The young urbans, by contrast, largely don't care about this at all, and instead want the government focusing its efforts on other things, mostly economy & socially oriented; listening carefully to them speak they merely have contempt for the police state, they don't vote strongly against it.

I'm seeing a theme here. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government. They even look at Keynesian economics as if it will somehow save things when it is the reason they want improvement. I'm not saying anything specifically is better, I'm saying these uninformed idiots should take a course on government and civics and realize they have a lot more control directly at local levels starting with themselves.

Wah! They're making my job hard!

[msobkow]

'nuff said.

Whoops! Mis-read the headline

[destinyland]

I first read that as: "Justice Department's Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'

They just don't get it

[mendax]

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.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[TehZorroness]

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?

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[countach]

"if the majority of the collective wanted to blah blah blah, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws."

Not really, because if they were determined enough the majority could push through a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[Austerity Empowers]

Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.

Wrong, I'm holding in my hands an amendment mandating every single female US citizen to have an abortion immediately. As soon as its passes it is the law. I also have one about reducing gravity, which I suspect will be more popular.

there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify.

  don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.

because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.

Clearly this was a comment by someotherdumbass then.

Glad you have heard about amendments though, amazing power they have, assuming it is the will of the people. We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further, also we can amend ourselves into a communist dictatorship.

You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.

True, but this is a particualrly loud, if inconvenient voice. Osama won in 2001, it may have been a pyrrhic victory for him personally, but if you didn't notice the insane increase in police power, TSA power, FBI power before and after you must have been under a rock. Osama scared people.

You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.

I'm talking about the citizens of the United States, who are the only thing that actually matters. Right or wrong, we define the government. You can get hung up on the lawyering of the process, and we can debate what specific things you think the government does that it is forbidden to do, but I suspect all you'll end up doing is having the government changed to the will of those same people.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

That's missing the point of being constitutionally limited and directed in powers but it is also still contrary to the GP's assertion of

"Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do, there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify."

However, yes, if enough people go through the processes, they can change the constitutions to give the government newly created powers or even restrict the government even more.

Re:how did things go before communication over wir

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

Wrong, I'm holding in my hands an amendment mandating every single female US citizen to have an abortion immediately. As soon as its passes it is the law. I also have one about reducing gravity, which I suspect will be more popular.

You do understand that you do not amend the constitution by passing a law right? There are two distinct processes to amend the constitution and as a practical matter, it would never be ratified.

Glad you have heard about amendments though, amazing power they have, assuming it is the will of the people. We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further, also we can amend ourselves into a communist dictatorship.

And if it ever happened, then what I said would still be true because of the time it was said. But it is impractical that any constitutional amendment like that would be ratified. Also, the amendment process has little to do with "the will of the people". The people do not vote on them nor do they have much of a say on them. It's left to the states and congress which the people have influence over.

True, but this is a particualrly loud, if inconvenient voice. Osama won in 2001, it may have been a pyrrhic victory for him personally, but if you didn't notice the insane increase in police power, TSA power, FBI power before and after you must have been under a rock. Osama scared people.

I guess you wouldn't get the point if you stepped on it and it went through you shoe. People can complain and bitch all they want, it doesn't make them correct or wrong because of it. It just makes them loud enough for you to listen to.

I'm talking about the citizens of the United States, who are the only thing that actually matters.

and that still does not negate anything I have said. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.

1600 Penn Ave biggest

[harvey the nerd]

The biggest zone of lawlessness centers around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

The PATRIOT Act has created...

[dave562]

...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.

Hypocrits

[craigminah]

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.

Re:Hypocrits

[messymerry]

[a little safer form criminals and the government. ] What's the difference???

Limp

[JimSadler]

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.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[StillAnonymous]

Did they actually sign a declaration of war, then? Or was it another one of those end-runs around the rules they like to pull, where it's declared anything other than war, such as an engagement, or police action?

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[StillAnonymous]

"We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further,"

Actually, you can't really do that, because if enough people in the future agree to change it, it will simply be changed, regardless of what is written. As hard as you try, short of destroying everyone, you cannot remove the ability of future generations to change the rules.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[Zontar The Mindless]

The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens.

Then what the fuck do we even have it for?

And don't throw me in the brier patch!

[jageryager]

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....

Re: Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[kenh]

Bush declared war on Iraq in 2003.

Re: Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[kenh]

What?

Why can't the Constitution be amended, striking out the portions that define the amendment process? Then you can't amend the constitution, you have to replace it.

Re:Lets help out

[Zontar The Mindless]

Et voilà! How To Encrypt Everything.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[sumdumass]

Lol.. its laid out withing the constitution.

To act as a unified front to foreihn matters of the state, to set up post offices and roads, to settle disputes between the states, to provide for the common defence, and a couple other things.

You do understand that the states are or were actual countries who formed a union surendering only part of their soveregnty for these purposes right? The state is where this taking care of the people if it is to happen is supposed to be. This is why all fed programs in such manner other than social security and medicare is pushed thriugh the states. It id why all constitutionsl amendments that prohibit acts or action of the people (slavery for instance) has an explicite statement giving congress the ability to enact laws to achieve the amendment's purpose.

Boot's On the Other Foot Now...

[Gerv]

we could have lawful access... that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.

Now you know how the public feels when they want to make fair use of some video on a DVD or Bluray.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not really, because if they were determined enough the majority could push through a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

Supermajority. A simple majority isn't sufficient. 2/3 of the Congress plus 3/4 of the States are required to amend the Constitution.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[beastofburdon]

This does not surprise me at all since I have been passively watching our schools plummet since the mid 90's(when I started high school).
That does not however, mean that it is not still terrifying. This lack of education is intentional, especially where our rights and how government is supposed to work are concerned.

also "very concerned"

[EnOne]

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.

Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government

[david_thornley]

The Constitution sets out a list of things the Federal government can do, and the Bill of Rights lists some things it is specifically not allowed to do. Within that scope, the government should work for the people of the US. (There are some implementation glitches here.) The US Supreme Court has no problem with throwing out laws that either violate the "government shall not" parts or aren't supported by the "Federal government may" parts.

The current domination of the Federal government is an outgrowth of its tax and spend powers. The US has enough tax powers to take in a whole lot of money, and the Federal government has pretty much unlimited ability to spend money. This means that states can get dependent on Federal grant money which they'll lose if they step too far out of line. That's how the 55mph speed limit came into effect way back when.