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.
It will another case similar to Stingray, the cell phone intercept:
http://www.yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10/27/144229/secret-stingray-warrantless-cellphone-tracking
Where the FBI claimed they could do it with a pen register (i.e. without a warrant), and used pleas bargaining and misdirection to keep the details of the intercepts from the court.
And of court every little district cop used it without a warrant, or even a legal basis for its use:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/05/25/0344206/san-bernardino-sheriff-has-used-stingray-over-300-times-with-no-warrant
Eventually the courts find outs its a blanket sweep of data and then required a warrant for this use:
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/TPD-Stingray-Use-Raises-Privacy-Questions-262047771.html
IMHO, it will be similar. Some hypothetical specious theory that lets them hack without a warrant, and they're keeping the details from the court so as to not face any scrutiny. Similar to Stingray.
Why do they get to violate the DMCA?
If it is protected by encryption, no matter how weak, it is a federal offence to break the encryption.
The truth shall set you free!