Slashdot Mirror
FBI Gripes "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets" (reuters.com)
New submitter rdukb writes: FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that investigators still can't access the phone contents of one of the San Bernadino killers. He went on to argue that the phenomenon of communications "going dark" due to more sophisticated technology and wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations, including, not only the San Bernadino murders, but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography. This might increase pressure on Apple to loosen the backdoor restrictions. Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
"Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?"
I don't know, but I had better click and find out!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Um...maybe fifteen minutes after the first OS release, the Darknet will have utilities published to take advantage of them?
Captcha: "contempt"
You will just force me to find other means to encrypt, making my device even DARKER than it already is...
People made that mistake before. We learned our lesson. Government can't be trusted. They demonstrate it a new way every day.
Just no. Nope. Not gonna happen.
I hope not.
"overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations"
Including extra-legal warrantless, domestic, mass surveillance. Go cry somewhere else, the US intelligence
complex made this bed, now go lie in it.
We need more end to end encryption to be used as a daily matter of fact, because it's been proven time and time again you aren't trustable.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
FBI directors lie to Congress as part of their normal job duties.
This is just more of the same.
Like Mr N.S.A...
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
Dear FBI,
Backdoors will only let you catch the dumbest of dumb criminals. Encryption exists, you can't uninvent it. Taking default encryption away, hurts the privacy of the innocent and does nothing to stop the bad guys from using their own encryption. You can't have a backdoor without the possibility that others will figure out how to access that backdoor too. Just deal with it already and stop trying to destroy security.
The police are not hiring some people because they have too high of an IQ.
Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"
What do you want next ?
Master keys to all physical locks ?
People must use their birth names ?
No cars that can exceed 30 mph ?
Everyone wear hi-viz clothes and flashing lights ?
Nation ID numbers tattooed on your cheeks ? all four cheeks ?
If it was an easy job, stopping crooks, all our bankers, lawyers & politicians would be incarcerated.
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
FBI director says investigators unable to unlock San Bernardino killer's phone content
things one needs to unlock a smartphone:
* fingerprint (sometimes) (difficulty: invalid)
* dump the flash memory (difficulty: hobbyist)
* to avoid lockout, have machines emulate the phone and try every combination to unlock the phone (difficulty: developer)
conclusion: the investigators had a technician unlock the phone in less than an hour
DO NOT BELIEVE HIS LIES.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt. It'll never end. Even if the government got access to every single device immediately, it would never be enough for them. Next they'd be pushing for being above any basic civil or human rights, and be able to use at will any torture techniques they felt like to pry 'secrets' out of peoples' brains, too. Ironically no one would ever be safe ever again, more fearful of the people who were once supposed to protect them than they ever were of so-called 'terrorists'. It has to stop, it has to stop NOW.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Phrasing!
I read the article and no where do I see anyone quoted as saying "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets". I do see "We still have one of those killer's phones that we have not been able to open," but I suppose that isn't as shocking.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
They are only saying this to try and convince the bad guys they are "safe".
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
Their example is "investigators still can't access the phone contents of one of the San Bernadino killers". But they already know the person the phone belongs to is the killer, without having examined those phone contents. How is not being able to read the phone of a caught killer an example of how this hampers finding killers?
If James Comey thinks that the FBI could keep their backdoor decryption key secure, perhaps I could call him at his office phone using the FBI directory that just got uploaded to the net, and discuss it with him. :-)
The FBI and the DoJ can't even keep their own databases safe from a social hack. A backdoor key would be in the hands of China and Russia before the week was out.
Things like this “While the coalition’s air campaign is helping to deny ISIL some territorial safe havens and financial resources, how do we degrade it and destroy it if all they need to carry out an attack in the West is an internet connection and an encrypted message application?” Just make you stop and say Huh? This is the world we live in where Encryption is preventing us from catching bad guys but at the same time "Meta data kills" I would like to see one politician or FBI director to actually understand what encryption means, or even what it's used for. Next thing you are going to see is "How dare you have a personal thought that is not recorded by the government! Terrorist!"
The type of power Director Comey is asking for sounds like J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream. To keep Comey and future FBI directors from breaking the law like Hoover is suspected of doing, if he succeeds in mandating encryption back doors to allow law enforcement to access suspected criminals' phone I believe Comey's phone should have the same type of encryption back door. Just in case he implements a policy like COINTELPRO, of course.
How about it, Director? Would you use one of these phones for confidential and/or secret communications with other members of the FBI? If not, why not?
The FBI wants to take that away.
If I could go back in time I would add freedom of secret speech.
Reading your political email telling faux news.
No wonder most use a private mail server.
Learn to encrypt your mail servers it what faux news has taught us.
why doesn't the FBI crowd source decryption?
if it works for SETI...
Fear tactics combined with power politics and vote getting symbolic lawmaking will nearly always win. Prepare for the backdoored encryption world (if we aren't already there) unless something dramatic changes in how we make laws.
Even if they could gain access it would have no impact on the investigation. Lone wolf perps who are dead as doornails.
I don't want police to have access to my "papers and things" at any time for a domestic criminal investigation per my 5th amendment rights. If I am given immunity I would cheerfully release my data on a consent basis for a non-domestic investigation. That willingness will end when the rest of the world adopts our constitution.
Then they can follow-up by taking all public services off federal budgets 100% to comply. No more defined benefit. Defined contribution with 10% government assist for the disabled.
JJ
There is also an offset.
How much crime has been PREVENTED because criminals could not get easy access to user data too.
My guess that figure is much much higher than the unsolved crimes one.
There is also the wee issue that new technology has proven many people innocent of the crimes they have been imprisoned for.
There are also cases where police have been caught planting evidence and committing other serious crimes.
Whats next, fireproof paper, ban on shredders because it makes paper hard/impossible to use as evidence ?
Rng n ont bs qvpxf lbh pbpx tbooyvat chxrf.
How did the FBI possibly solve crime before digital devices? Do your investigative work just like you used to. Surely wiretap exist and MIIM for government use. WTF do you need unencrypted devices for FBI? Grow up and do your job!
So you know how that error 53 that's hitting the press is getting all the headlines as people are threatening Apple over it? Well, actually, from a security point of view - I now have more respect for Apple than ever on this subject. You see, SecureID tokens (those little LCD things with a password that changes every minute) - they have security tampering features that will automatically brick the token if you play with it's pins that are hidden on the back. For Apple to do the equivalent of this is not a bug - it's a feature. If a hostile tries to hack my phone and can't get through the biometrics (all that takes is a rubber hose and hammer in many cases) - and they open it and try swapping out the scanner - well I want that phone to brick! And as for the "getting into the San Bernadino" phones - I guess they knew to use passwords and not fingerprints as fingers can be used to unlock things once the owner is dead - not like Apple has blood-circulation detection on the fingerprint scanner. Error 53 just shows that Apple's Kung-fu is strong and well thought out. And the FBI has plenty other ways to do their job.
To cover up the X-files we need to stop other stuff as well.
Perhaps they know who the phones belong to, but what makes them think the owner is one of the San Bernadino killers?
That's where law enforcement is having a hard time.
* Government can use a warrant to demand the item be surrendered, and preserve it as evidence.
* Government can demand passwords from third parties like phone companies under both subpoenas and warrants.
* BUT individuals have a constitution protection against compelled self-incrimination.
The government is supposed to produce evidence and link the person to the crime without a forced confession. It is a GOOD THING, it helps prevent things like being tortured to confession and fishing expeditions looking for crimes. Prosecutors and police can demand an individual produce papers and documents that link them to a case, but (assuming their legal defense is doing their job) by doing so they trigger the protections of the fourth and fifth amendments by compelling the evidence.
This was recently re-affirmed by the supreme court in US v. Hubbell. If the government demands that the person gives up documents, papers, or passwords to the device it is compelled self-incrimination. If the government demands a person incriminate himself to collect evidence, it becomes poisoned and the government cannot use it or information from it to help with prosecution.
Police and prosecutors absolutely can demand the people turn over passwords .... but by doing so they also trigger immunity, they cannot use that fact or anything learned from the devices as evidence against them. They'll bitch and moan and complain about not having the passwords, they'll petition congress about how unfair it is to law enforcement that police need to actually investigate crimes and can't use self-incrimination tactics, but the lawyers know full well all it takes is a single slip of paper to legally demand the passwords. Grant them immunity under the protections of the 5th and they are compelled to turn the passwords over, but the person also walks away from criminal liability.
Simply (perhaps dangerously oversimplified) in most of these cases it is that the police are lazy. There are many other known details, much other evidence, but investigators are going for the easy pickings of the data on phones and other personal documents typically protected by law. They could do actual leg-work, actual investigation, actual crime scene evaluation, and many investigators do. The ones wanting to break down the constitutional protections are the lazy investigators who won't be bothered to use the other available investigation tools.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
"We still have one of those killer's phones that we have not been able to open,"
They know he is a killer -- so why do they need his phone? Do they also need to know what he ate for dinner on June 2nd, 1985? Sometimes data just doesn't need to exist -- consider the phone trash / data gone.
The Berkman report is pretty interesting reading and points out thatdevice encryption can be frustrating, but there's still no default for end-to-end encrypted communication, metadata is plaintext by necessity, and the security of the IoT is something that too few people have worried about.
by going back to actually building a case through the tried and tested methods of detective work or fabricating one!
I'm fine with that as long as everybody has full access to all of the government's secrets.
Police and prosecutors absolutely can demand the people turn over passwords .... but by doing so they also trigger immunity, they cannot use that fact or anything learned from the devices as evidence against them. They'll bitch and moan and complain about not having the passwords, they'll petition congress about how unfair it is to law enforcement that police need to actually investigate crimes and can't use self-incrimination tactics, but the lawyers know full well all it takes is a single slip of paper to legally demand the passwords. Grant them immunity under the protections of the 5th and they are compelled to turn the passwords over, but the person also walks away from criminal liability.
This is a very interesting and informative comment. My question is, how does this play into parallel construction?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
That's what You get when letting open source into smartphones. It was like modifying the gadget's circuit wasn't enough, now failed programmers who choose to attend criminal organizations (including non private sector ones) and screw freely. Look, I saw a bunch a gang kids passing written notes, going straight to gang members locations to deliver messages, during a telephone tapping operation. They have their own frameworks fellas. And criminals exit like.. I don't know... Ancient egypt or something. Police and detectives are only 100 years old, max.
They can't but they sure as they worship Lucifer they want to.
They know he is a killer -- so why do they need his phone?
Really? You're that lacking in imagination, or that unfamiliar with the long history of Islamist murderers being in touch with each other and specific consulting figureheads, financiers, teachers, parts suppliers, etc?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
He went on to argue that the phenomenon of communications "going dark" due to more sophisticated technology and wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations
Basically he is whining because the FBI actually has to, you know, go to a judge and prove sufficient cause for her to grant them a warrant before accessing an individual's property or papers like the 4th amendment says they have to.
Cry him a river, build him a bridge, and tell him to get over it.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Police and prosecutors absolutely can demand the people turn over passwords
That doesn't make sense to me because a password is the "what you know" authentication factor. And what would stop somebody from saying they forgot the password?
Now a fingerprint on the other hand is "who you are" and the government does have the right to make you identify "who you are" not only to law enforcement but to the courts as well.
The third authenticaiton factor "what you have" (i.e. smart card, key fob) could be compelled to be turned over only if the government can prove that not only does it exist, but that you actually have it too.
Of course Industry will relent and give the government access. They want to keep their special perks.
I'm pretty sure that, given sufficient compute time, the NSA can brute-force decrypt anything. They just can analyze all encrypted traffic in real time. No encryption lasts for ever, it only pushes back the time people can see what's inside by a few years.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Technically they shouldn't read ANYONE'S secrets. Having a secret is not a crime. You're supposed to catch criminals who break the law, not mine people's data and extrapolate to see if they have done anything wrong. Because after all, everyone (including FBI agents) is guilty of something.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is it really that complicated? My take was that if you can do an end-run around the fingerprint scanner by just plugging in a different fingerprint scanner, then by definition the fingerprint scanner isn't secure. Meaning that, if you want to replace the fingerprint scanner, you must be forced to first unlock the old fingerprint scanner. But then, what happens if the fingerprint scanner itself fails? You either brick the whole phone every time a scanner fails, or leave your data wide open to anyone who steals your phone.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If every manufacture inserted back doors for the Feds, wouldn't criminals simply hire a few techs to implement one-time pads to use for encryption? In fact, shouldn't anybody that wants to keep data private long-term already be using a one-time pad?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
government does have the right to make you identify "who you are" not only to law enforcement but to the courts as well
A court does, law enforcement does not. If you are stopped by a cop or fed or other LEO and they ask you for your identity, you are under no obligation to tell them.
So, in other words, what they're looking for is other people to arrest. It isn't that the case against the person who actually did the crime necessitates their being able to access information on the phone. It's that there may be other people involved and they want to look that over.
It's a photo of the world's smallest violin playing a plaintive melody to go along with your constant whining about having to follow the law:
>>--> . <--<<
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The two key figures in that attack are already dead. The phone in question will shed light on whether or not their circle of friends, family, and overseas contacts were criminally involved in what happened. There's plenty of reasons to think that those to idiots didn't act in a vacuum.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
... Comey was trying to convince everyone that he wasn't obsessing over encryption and not being able to read everyone's private information?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I think, considering the context, he meant the law enforcement can forcefully make you give your fingerprints. Which they, of course, can and have been able to do for pretty much as long as fingerprints have been utilized in criminal forensics.
-SR
In many countries that protection is provided not by a constitution, but by tradition of jurisprudence. If the government decides to take that protection away in their 'war on terror', which has happened in other countries, someone will have to prosecute the government to get that protection re-instated.
Comey's message:
- Warrants are too hard;
- Due Process is too hard;
- Privacy is too hard;
- Habeas Corpus is too hard;
- Miranda warnings are too hard;
- Encryption is too hard;
- Court cases are too hard;
- Evidence is too hard;
- Probable Cause is too hard;
- Judges are too hard;
- Jurisdiction is too hard;
- Investigation is too hard;
Etc.
Damn, law enforcement is hard!
My response? My grandparents were farmers in the Dirty Thirties. That was hard. Hard enough to destroy good families who didn't deserve to be tested that way. You don't know hard. Do your job and stop trying to skate along looking for an easy life with high pay and no accountability. You can steal my privacy the day you can steal my wallet. And you can't steal my wallet!
A court does, law enforcement does not. If you are stopped by a cop or fed or other LEO and they ask you for your identity, you are under no obligation to tell them.
You are correct in that they can't just randomly stop you and ask for ID, however they can if they have probable cause to believe that you were involved in illegal activity, which even SCOTUS has upheld:
https://www.flexyourrights.org...
In many countries that protection is provided not by a constitution, but by tradition of jurisprudence. If the government decides to take that protection away in their 'war on terror', which has happened in other countries, someone will have to prosecute the government to get that protection re-instated.
It is a protection that many in the United States are quick to surrender when they feel threatened, but thankfully so far the more wise heads have prevailed.
In the past 50 years or so the popular attitude toward the protection has faltered. A half century ago invoking your right to remain silent was seen as a good use of protecting yourself. Those who did it were considered smart. But these days, when someone invokes the fifth amendment in the US it is often seen with derision and suspicion.
Anyone can incriminate themselves all they want voluntarily, confess all you want. But the protections against compelled self-incrimination are extremely important. Sadly too many don't realize how important they are.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
You use quotation marks when you're quoting what someone said. When you do stupid shit like the summary title, you end up sounding like a child. Here, let me give you an example of why you can't just make shit up and put it between quotation marks:
Rdukb gripes, "I'm so sad because I don't think I'll be able to be a big enough asshole today."
Chances are pretty good (about 60/40) that the submitter never actually said that.
Of course the stuff is crackable. These complaints keep getting aired so that all the ignorant criminals are lulled back into using their communication devices. Seriously, I thought the new(at the time) galaxy phone with the latest greatest encryption was secure... then someone showed how even the password can be gotten around by pasting a long line of characters into the camera app which is located on the security splash screen. no pass necessary . There is nothing bad on my phone as far as I know, but someone dumb enough to record criminal activities with their galaxy phone will be handing it right over thinking they are not incriminating themselves. All with tier encryption stuff "Active"
BUT individuals have a constitution protection against compelled self-incrimination.
The San Bernadino killers are dead. So I'm not certain exactly how 4th and 5th Amendment rights would work. There's a good chance that the phone contains evidence that would incriminate others. But these others have almost certainly fled and/or destroyed evidence by now. So there isn't likely a imminent threat to be dealt with. So, what exactly is it that they need?
Have gnu, will travel.
"FBI Gripes "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets" " Good, that's how it should be. "Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?" Let's hope not.
unless you are in a constitution-free zone, which is the 100-mile "Border" zone.
Only 2/3's of the country live within this zone.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
If any method of access is provided it will have to be as strongly protected as the original encryption from the third and maybe even from the first party. As a loyal, patriotic governance supporter I don't want to provide the mafia(s), terrorists and dangerously jealous spouses any more access to the phones of my fellow citizens than they already have. Stay strongly encrypted, my fellow Citizens!
"This might increase pressure on Apple to loosen the backdoor restrictions. Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?"
I suppose this post may just be click-bait, but there is no "loosening" or "relenting." The question is whether companies sell end-to-end encryption to their customers -- Yes or No. End-to-end encryption is the only real security that the government can't invade. People may disagree about whether citizens in a democracy should have a private sphere that excludes the government, but those are the stakes -- Yes or No. There is no gray area.
*** "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". -- Rosa Luxemburg ***
government does have the right to make you identify "who you are" not only to law enforcement but to the courts as well
A court does, law enforcement does not. If you are stopped by a cop or fed or other LEO and they ask you for your identity, you are under no obligation to tell them.
And apparently they are under no obligation not to shoot you.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It sounds to me like the problem is a flaw in the constitution or the way it's being interpreted, to be honest. The prohibition against incriminating yourself is very obviously there to stop people being tortured until they falsely claim they are guilty. But giving up a password is not a proclamation of guilt or innocence either way. All it can possibly do is yield more evidence, hopefully leading to a more accurate outcome of the case.
I mean, under the same logic, search warrants should be illegal because by letting someone into your house you'd be "self-incriminating". Doesn't work that way.
I think the simplest fix to this problem the FBI has is for courts to stop treating "you must tell us the password" as falling under the self-incrimination clauses. It doesn't make logical sense, would yield a reasonable balance of power (FBI/other agencies cannot do bulk data harvesting from phones, which is the real danger here), puts protection of the device or not under the control of the court, etc. This is the compromise other countries have arrived at and it seems to work OK most of the time.
well nothing keeps some math geek to design the next PGP or blowfish OUTSIDE of US jusrisdiction and distribute it as freeware , cant put back this genie in it's bottle , but instead of intercepting and analysing every freaking bit going true the us how about putting this new NSA compute center to good use and put those petaflops of computing power on cracking crypto of REAL criminal instead of trying to figure out if the good tax paying citizen doned the blue or red underwears when dressing up to go to work this morning ?
Tough shit FBI.
What kind of phone did the shooter have that the FBI claims they can't crack, I see sales skyrocketing if this is true.
IT's not Aplle, Google, etc's job to make LE job's easier.
The customers want security, it's the phone makers job to provide it. Sounds like they are doing a good job
(Assuming the story is true and this isn't just the increasingly evil government's attempt to destroy the Constitution and rape american citizen's rights...)
History has shown the United States Government is evil, abuses its power, terrorizes those in power, and that a shadow government is in place. This is just the shadow government playing with the faux government.
Nobody can read the diaries you don't keep or the lists you don't write down. I learned this from spy and mystery novels going back forever. And "'Allo ' Allo": "Listen very carefully, I will say this only once . . ."
actually talking about Hillary's server?
The two key figures in that attack are already dead. The phone in question will shed light on whether or not their circle of friends, family, and overseas contacts were criminally involved in what happened. There's plenty of reasons to think that those to idiots didn't act in a vacuum.
So go to the NSA. Isn't that why they are tracking calls, messages and all that? Who cares if it the phone logs/messages are encrypted if it was captured when it happened. And if they're not doing that for this what the fuck are they doing?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography.
No matter how much emphasis we place on extra serious crimes like actual terrorism, high-level drug trafficking, and running global networks for child porn, The actual and prevalent use of the technology will be trivial matters like traffic accidents, failing to pick up after your dog, minor curfew violations, etc.
So go to the NSA. Isn't that why they are tracking calls, messages and all that?
Meta data about who called who when doesn't contain the content of text messages, the photos or other files stored on the phone, etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is pure Apple fanboi bullshit. If it worked like you're implying then it would be a security feature. But the phones were *not* bricked when the fingerprint scanner was exchanged but *at the next software update* by which time all your data has *already* been compromised. So, useless as a security feature, but excellent for punishing you for getting a non-Apple repair.
This is not accurate. They can force you to turn over passwords and use the found evidence against you. Although it is regularly contested.
The reasoning being that the password is similar to the combination to a safe which the court can compel you to provide.
You do not automatically gain immunity. Now if somehow the password itself where a confession or clear evidence of guilt then you could reasonably argue that you can not divulge it without self-incrimination. In which case the court could provide you with immunity to prosecution based on the password, but not what it opens.
You have a right against self-incrimination. You don't have to tell them where the evidence is but if they have a locker that smells of rotting flesh you can be compelled to provide the password to unlock it and what is inside can be used against you.
I mean, under the same logic, search warrants should be illegal because by letting someone into your house you'd be "self-incriminating". Doesn't work that way.
I'm already a bit lost in the jargon, but I think the key difference is whether extraction of knowledge is involved. To "let someone in your house," all you have to do is stand aside. To give up a password means revealing something that you know rather than possess.
I also think (my opinion now) that giving up of passwords under warrant is arguably reasonable. A warrant would be required, which puts the control in the hands of the court and not in those of the investigating officers.
http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
How adorable, you think they're only keeping meta-data.
Also text messages go out over the network, over an unencrypted protocol. Think about the ramifications of that when you're claiming that they can't get the 'content of text messages' because they're 'on your phone'.
SMH.
You are correct in that they can't just randomly stop you and ask for ID, however they can if they have probable cause to believe that you were involved in illegal activity, which even SCOTUS has upheld:
Wrong.
Kolender v. Lawson
Also your link says the opposite of what you are saying:
But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. So one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions.
If you’re detained, you’ll have to decide if withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you’re on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state’s laws can help you make the best choice.
You never have to give any information or even speak to a police officer or other LEO. Just treat them like the mindless drones that they are and only speak to a lawyer and the judge.
"FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that investigators still can't access the phone contents of one of the San Bernadino killers."
I'm not familiar with this case, so this may the cause of my confusion over the quoted statement. Are these 'accused" killer or 'convicted' killers?
If they're only accused killers this would make more sense to me as to why the FBI would like to get into their phone, however this then leads to the question "is the FBI's thoughts that there is evidence of a crime on the phone the only evidence they have?". Surely before mobile phones there was a need to evidence means, motive and opportunity. Also having a dead body doesn't hurt either. Is the FBI lacking all of these things and predicating an entire case on the possible contents of one phone?
If they are already convicted then why the need to access the phone? Are they looking to press further charges, are the killers suspected of other crimes? My guess is it's just another poster-boy for back-dooring encryption.
This is information that is not available with the warrant. Assuming that the security is as good as advertised (if it weren't, why would the FBI be complaining?) it can only be retrieved by entering the PIN into the phone, and the phone can be set to destroy all its data on ten wrong PIN entries. The data cannot be read without the cooperation of a person who knows the PIN. Last I checked, the US court decisions were showing that being required to turn over a key that would reveal more than what was already known to be on the device was self-incrimination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography.
investigating themselves is a full time job. until it isn't.