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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You mean like Microsoft, with Windows 10 which communicates with dozens of servers even when you turn telemetry off?
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.
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
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.
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
... 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
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!
"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.
"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 ***