Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'
Jason Koebler writes: Leslie Caldwell, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
Just like that zone of lawlessness inside of peoples minds that the pesky 5th amendment creates, think of all the criminals going free because we can't force them to incriminate themselves! This is a situation that the DOJ and other alphabet agencies have brought upon themselves by thinking they are above the law in the first place.
This was in the context of the Iraq war, when the United States kicked over the anthill that was Saddam's government and suddenly all the factions started tearing each other and their civilization apart.
I do not normally agree with Donald Rumsfeld, and in the context of the Iraq war I definitely disagree with his decision to allow Iraq to destroy itself so thoroughly, but on the other hand if we're extending that freedom to people that we're actively in-confrontation with, then shouldn't we extend that freedom to ourselves?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
they can no longer grab everything on everyone and actually have to go back to doing REAL police work. its so hard I tell ya, whatever did cops do about crime before smartphones???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
OMG!!! The pedophiles and terrorists are going to run rampant!! It's not like they used encryption before or anything!
Gotta love the flailing FUD as of late about encryption, reporting police officers on Waze, etc. The police state is definitely in full swing at this point.
I am not so concerned about the lawful access (i.e. not a secret court warrant). It's the abuse of power that continues with the executive agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, local police, etc...) that I am concerned about. Until they are willing to stop the abuses, I have no problem making their jobs harder. Don't blame the tech companies for making your jobs more difficult. If you do it the right way, an encrypted phone won't be a problem during an investigation. A phone should not be the start and end of your case and investigation - it should only be an additional tool.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
It is not just security, it is privacy. It is the freedom from governments and others snooping through my life.
That would be all the corporate boardrooms, capitol buildings, and city halls, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Guess what, the criminals you were trying to catch were already "flicking the switch" on the encryption before this became the "default" setting.
The default setting came about because of your constitutional terrorism, wielding your Weapons of Constitutional Destruction to the detriment of the common man.
You only have yourselves to blame for this effect.
Too Fucking Bad! Your entire administration and the one before it has demonstrated that you have absolutely no intent of defending the constitution especially where privacy and due process are concerned. To make this kind of statement while new stories of how you're tracking people's everyday movements even more you still complain that you don't get access because people and companies are defending themselves. Lawlessness? Fuck! Where have you been? There's already instances where evidence has been forged in cases to keep secrets of how information was obtained illegally and the DOJ has sanctioned it! Ms Cadwell, you're not the person who should be in the DOJ and you should resign immediately because you have your head right up your ass.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They shot first, they eroded the trust to a point where people, not criminals or terrorists or pedophiles but ordinary law abiding people have stood up and said "we don't trust the government any more, nor the systems in place to protect our privacy, and so we have to take it into our own hands."
The proliferation of wide spread encryption is almost a direct result of actions by the NSA, FBI, and friends. They brought this on themselves. If they want people to once again accept them as partners in protecting their rights rather than adversaries, they need to regain the trust they've lost.
The notion that liberties could be misused and potentially give way to lawbreaking behavior is never a justification for the repeal of liberty.
We are always and everywhere free to break the law. That our social contract with government grants government the ability to prosecute law breakers ex post facto, does not equate to a wholesale license to restrict a liberty prior to its potential abuse.
To jump to such a conclusion would equally justify a national curfew. After all, who knows what we might get up to after dark?
Liberty by definition, always carries with it the potential for individual abuse.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Because it's SUPPOSED to suck. If the Founders intended government to be able to rifle through our affairs AT WILL they wouldn't have put the 4th Amendment into the Bill of Rights would they?
Corporatism != Free Market
"We understand the value of door locks and the importance of home security," she said. "But we're very concerned they lead not to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness.'"
Yes, you could get a warrant to enter a person's home, but in theory, only with probable cause--although law enforcement doesn't even bother with that anymore, under the guise of "national security" or "defending freedom" or "imminent terrorist danger" or some other vague excuse. Which is all the MORE reason why encryption is necessary, because unlike physical property, digital property deserves even greater protection from government intrusion, especially when the agents of that government--such as this lawyer--dare to openly speak the way they do. It proves the government is not trustworthy. Our private information is a record of our thoughts and actions in a way that physical property does not and cannot compare.
The fact is, I'd rather risk the vague possibility of a terrorist threat than be subjected to the certainty of a tyrannical government. The real terrorists are those who use fear and propaganda to advance oppressive tactics, repeal individual rights and freedoms, all in order to enshrine power and money for themselves. As I have said about law enforcement: if you don't like that your job is "hard" or "dangerous" or made more so as a consequence of technology, that's your problem. It doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens have any obligation to facilitate the rolling back of progress so that you can stay lazy and expend the absolute minimum amount of effort required.
Seems to me they are just jealous that the zone of lawlessness is excluding them from the picture. All was fine in their minds if the main law violators were mostly within the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. Now that they have been cut out of the party they are spreading FUD like crazy.
I hear there are zones of lawlessness in people's homes and in various public spaces such as parks, parking lots, street corners and alleys, where people actually TALK to each other without being surveilled! And bad guys who talk in code so that even if they are being surveilled, it's as if their conversation is encrypted by their brains! Horrors, whatever shall we do! Think of the children!
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security,"
I do not think that phrase means what he thinks that means when the government's position is that all encryption needs a back door - NSA analysts have already shown that they'll use their access to data to invade privacy (i.e. looking up data of ex- girlfriends).
Though I'm pretty sure this is just posturing by the government to give everyone a false sense of security, and that Google, Apple and others have provided secret back doors that they aren't allowed to talk about.
"We are concerned that there are minuscule gaps in our nearly universal panopticon. Therefore we will require that all devices be accessible by duly appointed authorities. We promise that this power will never be abused."
The zone will be one of danger.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
The reason we are using encryption more widely is because the US government has been spying on US citizens without lawful court orders. That is, Leslie Caldwell should be concerned about the "Zone of Lawlessness" at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Justice Department. Fix that, and then the American people might consider not using encryption anymore.
In order to ride everyone's asses, law enforcement wants things that they do not understand, to be served them on a silver platter. The point they are missing is, if the things are so easy that your donut eating run-of-the-mill cop can figure it out at any time they wish, the crooks, who are leaps and bounds ahead of them, as far as computer literacy goes, will do victory dances around those devices and rape the average Joe's privacy. Of course, where there is a choice between the public's privacy and ease of police operation, guess what trumps ? Or in other words, who has the big guns ? The people who have no idea what they are talking about, keep their pie holes shut, in my opinion, and from what I read so far, Leslie Caldwell is one of those people.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Encryption does not prevent lawful access to data. If law enforcement gets a court order they can always go the person and require them to decrypt something for search. What it does prevent is LEO going to 3rd parties and secretly getting unencrypted data, which is only 'lawful' because they have twisted things to do so. But search where the subject is aware and can examine the order? No change there.
All common encryption does is prevent law enforcement from creating all sorts of new abilities and powers it did not have before, which is a very different thing.
France in the 90s tried to legislate and outlaw encryption with only a handful of exemptions allowed. That killed investment in the country. Businesses can't function if you take away their ability to encrypt their data. The government can't allow open access to data. We must have these protections to allow businesses to function. If a company can not protect their data, they will cease to do business there. Think of how many well guarded secrets are out there because of corporate America. Our entire cyber-security industry is built on the idea that ideas can flow from one location to another without everyone prying on what is contained in the message. This should not end. This can't end.
Place something witty here
Your position seems reasonable enough from an ethical/moral standpoint. Unfortunately, in reality, a device or communication channel is either secure against a certain attack or it isn't. There is not and never can be a middle ground of being secure against a certain attack unless that attack has been lawfully authorised by a competent court.
In short, if the government wants access to your encrypted information, even with appropriate oversight, then it must require your information to be insecure and therefore vulnerable to other parties accessing it as well. If the government wants to encourage security in communications, then it must accept that covert interception of those communications will no longer be possible. You can't eat your cake and have it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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!"
There used to be a saying, something about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent one.
Tragically, in today's culture of politics dominated by fear, it almost seems like everyone is presumed to be guilty of something. That means the idea that it might be necessary to protect someone who might actually be innocent, or simply to leave them alone to live their lives without interference, is not given a lot of thought.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You've demonstrated you can't be trusted. The CIA has proven they're willing to lie to Congress.
So the reality is, you're all lying, thieving bastards who ignore the law and our rights.
You got fucking probable cause and a warrant, show it. But you don't get blanket fishing expeditions just in case.
Sorry, but you're asking for back doors to all forms of security ... which defeats the purpose of those forms of security in the first place.
Go piss up a rope.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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?
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.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Do you mean a zone of lawlessness where my Constitutional rights are violated in the name of "freedom"? Where law enforcement official engage in criminal acts to "protect" me? Where my privacy is illegally violated as a matter of policy?
No thank you, Oberführer Caldwell.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
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.
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.
The goal, if you had missed it, is to pass enough laws you're guilty of *something*. Then, if you get to be a problem, there's sure to be *something* to nail you to the wall with.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
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.
TiggertheMad, a nobody from the Internet, said Tuesday that the he is "very concerned" by the most of the Internet's decision to not automatically encrypt all data. "We understand the value of legal discovery and the importance of enforcing laws," he said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where the government violates some of our most basic principles in some quixotic hunt to ferret out terrorists and other boogie men. They might actually have to do some actual police work, you know like they did for the last few centuries."
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Has anyone considered looking at this from a Second amendment perspective? If we are not to pass laws prohibiting the right to bear arms in order to establish a proper militia, has it not been considered that the command and control of said militia would also be as equally important? If so, then would it not be fair to assume that military grade encryption standards (read: non-exportable encryption) would by nature also be protected weapons systems? Granted, I know that arms exports has a litany of laws and the average Joe American can't just walk down the street buy an over the shoulder rocket launcher, but one would think that the ability to communicate securely for defensive purposes would in and of itself constitute protection under the Second Amendment? Or am I just reaching here?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
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.
'zone of lawlessness'
'zone of freedom' - fixed that for you.
Ms. Caldwell, I have here a lockbox with one key. Please place a $20 from your pocket in the box, lock it, and you hold onto the key. How secure do you think your money is in that box? Do you want the government to mandate that it must have a key to that box?
Now here I have a second key for that lockbox. I (representing the government) am the only one who has access to that key, so you should still feel relatively confident in the security of your money. \begin{JamesEarlJones}We are the United States Government. We don't DO that sort of thing. \end{JamesEarlJones} Do you still feel confident? Are you more or less confident in its security that you were in the first case?
Whoops, I lost the second key or someone stole it from me. Anyone may have access to the second key now. Now how confident are you in the security of your $20? More or less than the first two cases?
When we encrypt our data, we are basically putting it in a lockbox with one key, like the first case. You may think you're advocating for the second case, but a government-mandated "second key" will inevitably (and quickly) be compromised, resulting in the third case.
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
And yes, it's of course Jefferson.
It's funny how the very own people who founded your country would probably be the ones that would rebel again against the way you fuck it up today!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm amazed no one in the articles have ever stopped to think it's not just the government we should worry about? What about criminals who are by no means bound by the law? A dude breaks into your computer (or steals it) and he simply disappears in the shadow. The government steals your data, the spot lights come on, the media is all over it and they justify why and ultimately nothing happens to them. I'm just as worried about the fore.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I agree with your basic point about the need for balance. Of course there are bad people in the world and of course we need police and courts and the like.
I think the problem today is that many in our current political class don't recognise that need for balance so much as they see "them and us" and even start to forget whose side they are supposed to be on. The truly evil part of the situation is that this result seems almost inevitable. The people calling the shots are exactly the people who necessarily deal with the worst of humanity as part of their job. How could this not affect their perspective? They naturally want to trust their allies, who are the people who would be empowered under all these proposed security measures and aided by restrictions on the privacy and security of others. And of course being influential figures within the government, it is highly unlikely that they will personally ever find themselves on the wrong side of a government screw-up and unable to get the problem fixed very quickly.
I don't think these people are evil. On the contrary, I suspect most people in government, including their agents in the police and security services, are probably just normal people who have a job to do and who genuinely want to do the right thing. As with any large group, there will eventually be a few bad actors included as well and it is necessary to identify and contain them, but that isn't usually the main problem.
However, I do think we're talking about people who are heavily biased, even paranoid, because it would take a superhuman level of detachment not to be when you look at the kind of people they have to deal with at times. I also think in most cases they are ignorant about the technologies they are dealing with, and therefore unable to make rational, objective judgements about the likely effects of the technical measures they propose as policy. Finally, I think that the more senior these figures get within the government and its agencies, the more detached they tend to be from reality for average citizens and the more ignorant or dismissive they can become of how things tend to play out for innocent people in less privileged positions who are nevertheless caught up by the measures the politicians propose.
As the saying goes, power corrupts. It doesn't necessarily have to be malicious or intentional. Obviously in some cases it has been, but often I think the corruption is more of a slow but almost inevitable change in perspective caused by the situations you find yourself in when you have power to wield.
And so it is necessary for those who are looking from outside, those who don't spend disproportionate amounts of their time dealing with a particularly nasty minority of the human race, those who understand the technical issues, to speak out about what is happening and where it could lead. As with any issue of civilised government, in the long run you're going to get much further by educating people about relevant issues and promoting intelligent discourse than you are with wildly exaggerated rhetoric and extreme positions backed by intimidation and ultimately violence. The latter are seductive, and often appear quite effective in the short term, but I doubt they've ever truly solved much.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?