Slashdot Mirror
Prosecutors Op-Ed: Phone Encryption Blocks Justice
New submitter DaDaDaaaaa writes: The New York Times features a joint op-ed piece by prosecutors from Manhattan, Paris, London and Spain, in which they decry the default use by Apple and Google of full disk encryption in their latest smartphone OSes (iOS 8 and Android Lollipop, respectively). They talk about the murder scene of a father of six, where an iPhone 6 and a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge were found.
"An Illinois state judge issued a warrant ordering Apple and Google to unlock the phones and share with authorities any data therein that could potentially solve the murder. Apple and Google replied, in essence, that they could not — because they did not know the user's passcode. The homicide remains unsolved. The killer remains at large."
They make a case for lawmakers to force Apple and Google to include backdoors into their smartphone operating systems. One has to wonder about the legitimate uses of full disk encryption, which can protect good people from harm, and them from having their privacy needlessly intruded upon.
"An Illinois state judge issued a warrant ordering Apple and Google to unlock the phones and share with authorities any data therein that could potentially solve the murder. Apple and Google replied, in essence, that they could not — because they did not know the user's passcode. The homicide remains unsolved. The killer remains at large."
They make a case for lawmakers to force Apple and Google to include backdoors into their smartphone operating systems. One has to wonder about the legitimate uses of full disk encryption, which can protect good people from harm, and them from having their privacy needlessly intruded upon.
That if they knew what was on the phone they'd be able to nab the murderer.
You can leave a trail of blood all the way back to your Rockingham estate, and still get away with it.
There's significant (and mixed) legal precedent regarding someone being ordered to give a password that will decrypt data that will incriminate them. If the courts would not be entitled to this password from the phone's owner (due to Fifth amendment protections) then it's not quite just to claim they have a right to it prior to his/her capture.
This article seemed like a balanced view on the subject:
http://politicsandpolicy.org/a...
Phones are used to communicate. How about identifying the carrier, going to the carrier with a subpoena for the ownership information and communications logs, and go from there?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There is no proof there is any evidence on the phones.
HOWEVER, there is a ton of evidence that authorities will abuse their legal authority and spy on innocent people.
Whats next, getting rid of trials because the law knows that some guilty people have been found innocent, and the few innocent who have been found guilt are just collateral damage.
I find it hard to believe that invasive access to a smart phone is the only way to solve a crime, murder 1 or otherwise.
Lots of things "hinder" justice. The fact that we don't all wear trackers that inform the government of where we are at all times hinders justice. The fact that all financial transactions aren't conducted electronically hinders justice. The fact I can go wherever I want without first obtaining permission from the government hinders justice.
The fact that I don't have to submit to those intrusions is part of my freedom. I appreciate my freedom and am willing to forgo or more efficient justice system in order to maintain my freedom - especially given the fact that once freedom is sufficiently curtailed those doing the curtailing tend to lose their concern for justice.
I think I might have some small sympathy for the idea that law enforcement should have some recourse to access the contents of a cell phone, provided they first get a warrant. However, in light of what we've learned about the NSA spying, I don't see how anyone could trust that such a back door won't be abused. Really, building any kind of backdoor is a serious security risk, since any backdoor that the "good guys" can use also carries a risk that the "bad guys" will discover it. But beyond all the normal security risks, we now know that our this kind of access has been abused by various forms of law enforcement in ways that are ethically questionable if not illegal.
So... sorry. You no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you wanted our good faith, you shouldn't have secretly abused the system.
Encryption, in and of itself, is for everyone. The government is neither entitled to better encryption than Joe Sixpack, nor is the government entitled to backdoors that can be used by criminals to break in as soon as they're known...which, given the black-hat hacker community, won't take very long.
If the government *gets a warrant*, they can coerce the owner of the phone to unlock it for use as evidence. As it is, "stingrays" and NSA taps on our communications allow the government to intercept private communications *without* a warrant.
If we're not allowed to encrypt our phones, tablets, and hard drives because it makes it harder for law enforcement, then pretty soon it will be illegal to own front doors that can't be knocked down with a LEO battering ram, or locks that can't be opened by LEO at the push of a button...and criminals will soon have the button (hackers have already broken the security of garage door openers, wireless car starters, and hacked into car control systems; I suppose you say that we can't put better encryption on *those* because of LEO?)
We need to curtail the government's intrusion, not make it bigger. 9/11 started a dangerous trend of fighting terrorism by shackling law-abiding citizens, bit by bit.
Security and privacy are opposites. The more we have of one, the less we have of the other. Any mother tempted to look inside their teenager's diary knows this.
The question is not and never has been, could we obtain more security by giving up some privacy.
Instead the question is, what issues are so substantial that an invasion of privacy is required - and how large an invasion would that be.
The proposed invasion of privacy - a back door in every single phones - where like it or not, people keep nude photos, sexy text messages, GPS data, contact information, etc. etc. is HUGE. The proposed security enhancement is minor.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
public: prosecutorial overreach contributed to the death of Aaron Schwartz
proescutors: yeah,but he was a ruthless hacker.
public it has built an unsustainable prison population, ensures perpetual incarceration, and disproportionately targets minorities and poor people.
prosecutors: these people had the drugs, so were technically fighting a war on the drugs. mission success.
public The average american breaks 3 laws per day, and if youre incapable of bail or restitution youre sent to prison for your debt. the united states leads the world in total citizens incarcerated.
prosecutors:If you cant do the time, dont do the crime.
Google: hey guise we heard u like privacy...
Apple: ditto. iPrivacy. it werks.
Prosecutors: phone encryption makes my job hard. turn it off.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Even if he had proof that the murderer would be caught if they got into the phone, it wouldn't change anything. We could also prove that the murderer would be caught if every human was issued a body-cam and the penalty for not maintaining it properly was death. Just because something catches murderers doesn't mean it should be done.
"An Illinois state judge issued a warrant ordering Apple and Google to unlock the phones and share with authorities any data therein that could potentially solve the murder. Apple and Google replied, in essence, that they could not — because they did not know the user's passcode. The homicide remains unsolved. The killer remains at large."
They could probably solve even more cases if they had the ability to remotely decrypt and access the contents of everyone's cell phone. They could solve *even more* cases if they were able to search anyone's property without a warrant.
What if we just put everyone in prison. It'll be pretty hard for anyone to commit crimes from inside a jail cell.
I suppose it's easy for some people to fall into the mindset that crime prevention is the *only* thing that matters.
Blame Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. DUI checkpoints absolutely violate the 4th and the dissenting opinions state as much, yet they're allowed. In my own state, the court had decided against them until years later, they decided to allow them. They all but admit that they violate our rights but because it's safety, they let it slide. If laws mean nothing to the courts, then it's up to the citizenry to defend themselves against a lawless government.