Slashdot Mirror
How the FBI Hacks Around Encryption
Advocatus Diaboli writes with this story at The Intercept about how little encryption slows down law enforcement despite claims to the contrary. To hear FBI Director James Comey tell it, strong encryption stops law enforcement dead in its tracks by letting terrorists, kidnappers and rapists communicate in complete secrecy. But that's just not true. In the rare cases in which an investigation may initially appear to be blocked by encryption — and so far, the FBI has yet to identify a single one — the government has a Plan B: it's called hacking.
Hacking — just like kicking down a door and looking through someone's stuff — is a perfectly legal tactic for law enforcement officers, provided they have a warrant. And law enforcement officials have, over the years, learned many ways to install viruses, Trojan horses, and other forms of malicious code onto suspects' devices. Doing so gives them the same access the suspects have to communications — before they've been encrypted, or after they've been unencrypted.
Hacking — just like kicking down a door and looking through someone's stuff — is a perfectly legal tactic for law enforcement officers, provided they have a warrant. And law enforcement officials have, over the years, learned many ways to install viruses, Trojan horses, and other forms of malicious code onto suspects' devices. Doing so gives them the same access the suspects have to communications — before they've been encrypted, or after they've been unencrypted.
To allow "hacking" to circumvent encryption, the FBI must have (direct or indirect) access to a suspect's device.
For that, they must first have a suspect. Encryption can still prevent becoming a suspect in the first place.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
Ideally, judicial review ought to be good enough. However, in practice that's not true. The FISA court is one entity that frequently deals with cases involving electronic surveillance. While I'd like to think the court is well-intentioned, they are overwhelmed and wield great power. They've helped to expand law enforcement powers with rulings like the "special needs" doctrine. They face so many requests for surveillance that they admit they simply don't have the ability to properly review them. Essentially, the NSA is left to police itself and ensure it doesn't violate the Constitution. They're a rubber stamp. Even with other courts, requests for search warrants aren't given sufficient scrutiny and aren't refused often enough.
I'm actually a big fan of things like roads, libraries, and police departments. I don't even mind paying my taxes (I wish they were better spent/invested). Hell, I even support a strong social safety net - it stops people from stealing my stuff. I like my stuff. That's why I bought it. We need an educated citizenry that can increase their upward mobility and we need to maintain that while also ensuring that we retain our rights while establishing and maintaining protections for the commons. Most important is the rights of the individual (not the businesses and sure as shit not the government).
"So long and thanks for all the fish."