Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama: Government Can't Let Smartphones Be 'Black Boxes' (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the not-to-be-taken-literally dept.

JoeyRox writes: President Obama said Friday that smartphones -- like the iPhone the FBI is trying to force Apple to help it hack -- can't be allowed to be "black boxes," inaccessible to the government. He believes technology companies should work with the government on encryption rather than leaving the issue for Congress to decide. He went on to say, "If your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should create black boxes, that I think does not strike the kind of balance we have lived with for 200, 300 years, and it's fetishizing our phones above every other value." Obama's appearance on Friday at the event known as SXSW, the first by a sitting president, comes as the FBI tries to force Apple to help investigators access an iPhone used by one of the assailants in December's deadly San Bernardino, California, terror attack. "The question we now have to ask is, if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, where the encryption is so strong there's no key, there's no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?" Obama said. "If in fact you can't crack that at all, government can't get in, then everybody's walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket." He said compromise is possible and the technology industry must help design it.

54 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. For a constitutional lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He seems pretty lax on allowing writs of attainder and not upholding the fourth amendment.

    1. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the case of the San Bernadino phone, that is in the FBI's lawful possession. They have the lawful authority to search the phone, but not the technical ability or (very likely) the legal authority to compel Apple to provide them with the technical ability.

      It's very important to get all this stuff straight, because if you get it wrong you either hamper the government in the exercise of its important legitimate duties, OR you open the door to all kinds of illegitimate activities.

      The government has all kinds of powers that are very easy to abuse; but generally (and this is a key point) it is constrained in using those powers. The police can bash down your door and invade your house with drawn weapons -- but only if they have a warrant. Now you may argue that even with warrants they're often abusing their power, and I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I don't think they should ever be able to do that.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the case of the San Bernadino phone, that is in the FBI's lawful possession.

      I've seen this statement made several times during this debate, and wonder where it came from. While the owner of the phone is dead, presumably it along with his (or her? do we know which shooter's phone it is?) other possessions passed to their estate. Perhaps it was taken as evidence, but evidence is taken for protection from alteration until it can be presented in court, not as the property of the state (and even in the case of evidence, what trial is it being held for? We know who did it, and it is unlikely they will ever be indicted since they died in the act). Is this some interesting new application of civil forfeiture?

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    3. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea that the FBI does not have the technical capability to do this is total bollocks and has been disproven many times. In fact there are private companies who have already offered to help them do it. However the process is expensive and not scale able en masse - which is exactly why the FBI is pursuing this case. They have no interest in unlocking ONE phone. They want to unlock ALL phones, whenever they want.

    4. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the legal authority to compel Apple to provide them with the technical ability.

      IANAL and even I can tell it doesn't work that way. Since when can the government grab a doctor and order him to perform an autopsy for a trial? Since when can the government grab a lab tech and order him to run lab tests? The government sources its OWN people for this - the coroner works for the state and the court, and as such has the last word - the state's word. While the government might not actually run labs itself it contracts them to work for it under a voluntary business arrangement, not using courts to bully them into it.

      If the government does not have the technical ability, it's up to the government to hire - HIRE someone who does. Usually a third party. Not use a court order to try to "force" someone who does. Apple has done no wrong, Apple did not commit the crime, Apple has absolutely no responsibility for what happened. Why do they have to be "forced" into anything, let alone give up trade secrets and IP?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obama is not a constitutional lawyer. He edited the Harvard Law review but contributed no articles and had no profile or discernible influence.

    6. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Informative

      The phone was issued to him by his employer, the County of San Bernardino. The government owns the phone. I presume they've surrendered it to the FBI voluntarily.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    7. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by joshki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Find it in the Constitution. If it's not there (I'll help you out -- it's not), then the authority does not exist.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    8. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "They want to unlock ALL phones, whenever they want."

      That is EXACTLY why our phones and other devices NEED to be "black boxes" that NO ONE can break into without the encryption key. And there should be no legal way to force anyone to reveal an encryption key!

      What these folks are ignoring (and hoping that we don't know about or care about) is the FACT that a backdoor for government is a backdoor for hackers and corrupt corporations as well!!! Encryption that is compromised by backdoors cannot be secure from everyone but the government. Others will always find and use those backdoors. The only answer is for there to be no backdoors! NONE! EVER!!

    9. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      They could, except the FBI screwed up and changed the cloud password for the phone (locking themselves out of it in an attempt to keep anyone else out of it) and while the County paid for the employer option of being able to reset the PIN on their owned phones, they never actually got around to installing it on their employee's phones. Now they want Apple to bail them out of their mistakes by creating a special version of their phone OS which drops all the PIN code brute force protection.

      And they wonder why some of us don't trust the competency of the government to hold and protect special access to every encrypted device we own.... after all, its not like they've had their own top secret personnel vetting files breached and exposed, right? What could possibly go wrong...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    10. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone who still supported that asshole after the first time he signed a bill extending the PATRIOT act (which he knows goddamned well is unconstitutional) is an idiot, a hypocrite, or both.

      "Hope and change", my ass.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:For a constitutional lawyer... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent the states from setting up trade barriers against each other. It was never intended to give the government carte blanche to control anything and everything that's ever bought or sold in this country. If it actually granted that power, then the rest of the constitution would be moot.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. One phone to rule them all by ebonum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok. So I blow up a few city blocks. In Obama's mind, I can't be arrested unless they can read my cell phone? Or does he just mean that the police will say: "We can't open the phone! Guess we should give up and go to the bar to have a few beers. No point in even trying to do an investigation. It's hopeless."

    1. Re:One phone to rule them all by dbreeze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The question we now have to ask is, if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, where the encryption is so strong there’s no key, there’s no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?" Obama said. "If in fact you can’t crack that at all, government can’t get in, then everybody’s walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket."

      It blows my mind that a Harvard constitutional law scholar can either so utterly fail at logical thought or blatantly spew state control rhetoric. I didn't vote for him but was mildly optimistic that he might be the real deal. He's just the latest snake oil merchant in a long line of 'em.....

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    2. Re:One phone to rule them all by dbreeze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Again, surrendering right to privacy is not prerequisite to stopping WMD attacks. Any serious study of the last couple of decades reveals that over and over someone in law enforcement or intelligence has been aware of the info needed to act on attacks against us beforehand . The issue is the bungling bureaucracy and missed opportunities for authorities to act on known intel.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    3. Re:One phone to rule them all by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I prefer to think it's a case of we sane people don't think anything on the phone is worth giving the government the ability to distribute unlimited malware. There is such a thing as weighing the costs. If you want to be the Land of the free and the home of the brave you don't cower at every shadow and give up your rights so easily. Put another way: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin

    4. Re:One phone to rule them all by dwywit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The government justifies keeping some information secret - "operational matters", and so on. I entirely agree, in principle - you don't publish details of an impending strike against bad guys (justification of that strike being a separate matter) - but *they* get to decide to keep secrets. "They" being people in government service - someone, or some people, get to decide that their information is too precious/sensitive to reveal, and we the people generally support that course of action, because we have Freedom of Information legislation to keep the exercise of that power in check - in theory, at least.

      Fine. In that case, *I* get to decide which of my information is too precious/sensitive to reveal, so suck it up. You want to keep secrets, OK. So do I, and I'm smart enough to NOT keep them on computer storage.

      I do like this new model of distributed key-signing.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  3. This is all security theater to gut 4th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No doubt there are already backdoors in baseband processors and of course zero-day exploits. This controversy is to create the impression that government must impose draconian laws to rein in the privacy-maximalists in Silicon Valley. In reality SV are the NSA's willing accomplices.

  4. CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DO YOU SPEAK IT?

    I have a right to encrypt whatever the fuck I want, and the government cannot compel me to testify against myself by giving them the encryption key. Fifth Amendment.

    Apple has a right to make whatever speech it wants -- or, crucially, to refrain from speaking. In particular, it has a right not to tell the government its signing key, either. First Amendment.

    Totalitarian shitbag Obama needs to back the fuck off. At this point he's even worse than George "goddamn piece of paper" W. Bush!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

      We have about 320 MILLION people in the USofA. Obama wants ALL of them to have crap security in case a "child pornographer" gets away.

      Fuck you. I voted for you twice but you're fucking wrong on this. And you're a piece of shit for trying to tie it to "think of the children".

      I'll support more cops/FBI/etc to make sure all the other approaches are covered. But you do NOT harm the 320 MILLION people because you are too lazy to find the few criminals who MIGHT be using encryption.

    2. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      re: obama vs bush; its impossible to say what the other would do if things were switched.

      its clear that people are affected by what is currently going on. if bush were in office now, its not likely that he would act any differently.

      I'll go further; pick your favorite president - ANY of them (past, living, whatever) and would you honestly believe that they would deny the state its *desire* for 'total info awareness'?

      its not about a person, anymore. abs power and all that - its true. no one can resist that much power.

      and it goes beyond culture, too; the UK and oz are also heading full speed into tyranny; and a lot of the ROW is watching and wanting their piece of the surveillance pie, too.

      we have a human issue, here; and like 'rich vs poor', I don't think this will EVER end. the ones in control always seek to keep control; and info is now part of that, to them. they will never ever give this quest up.

      great, huh? more wasted time and energy, having to always, continually fend off the bad guys (in this case, ALL our governments and big companies) just to keep things somewhat sane and somewhat old-school normal. damn. what a waste.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted for you twice but you're fucking wrong on this.

      I voted for him once, solely due to his "Constitutional scholar" shtick. I figured out that was a blatant lie during his first term, and learned my lesson.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll go further; pick your favorite president - ANY of them (past, living, whatever) and would you honestly believe that they would deny the state its *desire* for 'total info awareness'?

      Eisenhower.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    5. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bingo. He was the one I was going to name. He specifically warned not just against the military and industry, but Government and education and "big science". What's interesting is the old General Eisenhower - the military man, born, bred, and raised - ended up being the most libertarian, personal freedom loving President we've had.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eisenhower was very nice.
      Nixon was his only vice.

      it's kind of eye-opening that if the republican Dwight D. Eisenhower had run today, he would have been far to the left of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the political spectrum.
      We have drifted so far to the right that we're falling off the edge. And we have republican candidates today that makes Goldwater seem rational.

  5. May I be one of the first to day it.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...but Fuck You mr. Obama!!

    Who is he to say what privacy and levels of encryption that the US citizens should be privy to?

    Sure if you have impenetrable phones, some criminals will use them....

    But do we get rid of all other devices criminals might use?

    Do we round all blades and dull all knives, because some criminal might stab someone?

    Do we stop letting people drive cars...because some folks might use one as a weapon and kill lots of folks?

    No...we don't need any more of the Nanny State mentality, that the Govt knows best and needs full access and control over the population in order to care and protect it from itself.

    It is not the job of the citizenry, nor the companies of the US to go out of their way to make things easy for the police/powers that be. You work for us, we don't work for you.

    Sorry, but FU....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:May I be one of the first to day it.... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are far from the first, many of us have beat you to that one. *Anyone* who didn't see this coming 8 years ago is a fool or willfully ignorant.

    2. Re:May I be one of the first to day it.... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And anyone who said they saw this coming was called a nut, tinfoil hat, paranoid or conspiracy theorist. Some people don't realize they're drowning until they actually feel the water burning inside their lungs.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:May I be one of the first to day it.... by log0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eight years ago? Fuck that.. are you forgetting the Patriot Act? Or do you only get a privacy boner when it's Obama..

  6. He basically said "give us a back door" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the Engadget article: Obama said we'll have to figure out "how do we have encryption as strong as possible, the key as secure as possible and accessible by the smallest pool of people possible, for a subset of issues that we agree is important."

    If we give the government a back door to our data, it's only a matter of months before criminals and other nation states have that key. I've pointed this out before, but - just in the past twelve months, both the IRS and OPM had extremely sensitive information very thoroughly hacked.

    You simply can't design back doors into an secure system and expect it to remain secure. We had these discussions before, back in the Clipper Chip days! To the best of my knowledge, the laws of mathematics haven't changed over the past two decades.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:He basically said "give us a back door" by MacDork · · Score: 4, Informative

      If we give the government a back door to our data, it's only a matter of months before criminals and other nation states have that key.

      I'm not even concerned about that. If the US Government has the key, that alone is bad enough. This is the same government that has systematically attacked developers as a group. Not terrorists. Software developers. They've launched the digital equivalent of a drone strike on users of this very site. They've developed malware that looks like developer tools. Coincidently, just such malware showed up to attack Chinese developers.

      I am just gob smacked that Obama can show up at SXSW for any other reason than to apologize to us. He wants us to dig our own mass graves. Here is your shovel developer. Start digging.

    2. Re:He basically said "give us a back door" by argumentsockpuppet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Three points

      • You can't legislate away math
      • Trying to is bad for the US
      • Phone encryption doesn't work like you think, so this is worse than you think

      1) Encryption exists because the math has been done and is widely available. You don't have to be Apple or Google to use strong encryption. Personally I like dm-crypt with LUKS, but there are plenty of options available to secure data that don't depend on approval by the US or any government. Obama was just wrong, we've long had "black boxes" inaccessible to the government and it is literally impossible to keep them from happening. The tools already exist outside the US to securely encrypt data. If you're determined, you can even create "black box" encryption for your personal paper journal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      2) If US companies are legislated into creating back doors into their systems, then those companies will lose potential sales because a significant number of people in the world don't trust the US government. While people who really want both security and a particular brand of phone could find ways to get both despite legislated back doors, most won't because there will be easier alternatives from companies that aren't subject to US law. When Samsung decides they won't create phones subject to US restrictions, they'll sell them everywhere Apple phones used to be sold, which isn't great for Samsung if they lose US sales, but will be disastrous for US companies that would have gotten those sales. (And hired people in the US and paid taxes in the US.)

      3) Each phone has a key which is encrypted with your passcode and a unique id on the phone. When you change your password, the key doesn't change, all that changes is what code it is encrypted with. There are two ways that the government could legislate access to that phone: First every phone could be required to use one of a few keys retained by the manufacturer. If any of those keys are ever shared, every phone using those keys is no longer effectively encrypted. Second, the manufacturer could keep a copy of each key used by each phone so that any one key would decrypt only one phone. You can split up the keys into parts and store them separately and offline and with different parts of each key held by different entities. That would mean that in order to secure any phone, law enforcement would have to subpoena multiple parties for each part of the key specific to the phone they want to decrypt. Either method fails for the government if a criminal cares to put in the effort, since all the criminal has to do is get the key stored in the phone originally to be changed, usually a fairly trivial hack. The downside is that the countermeasure is to have the current key always electronically transmitted home, which would likely be required, making alternatives used and US distrust more and more likely to be problems. So it isn't true that "it's only a matter of months before criminals and other nation states have that key" but the other issues are just as bad.

    3. Re:He basically said "give us a back door" by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we give the government a back door to our data, it's only a matter of months before criminals and other nation states have that key.

      If we give the government a back door to our data, it's only a matter of months before *OTHER* criminals and other nation states have that key.

      FTFY

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. What's the point of encryption by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is there are going to be glaring back doors to devices?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  8. Can't be allowed to be black boxes by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. Yes we can.

    Because the government has no legitimate reason to demand ad-hoc access to any device at any time.

    If this means, on occasion, that the government can't get into a given criminal's devices? C'est la vie.

    The government couldn't get someone like Al Capone for mob activity or running illegal alcohol.
    They had to be creative in how they got at him.

    Basically the government isn't arguing that they CANNOT get the data.

    Just that it's HARD to. And they want an easy back door into systems.

    And they're now willing to completely compromise user safety on more than just phones.

    The government needs to be told "Fuck No" as forcibly as possible.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  9. speaking of black boxes... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But citizens are expected to accept the government as black boxes. Did I miss something?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:speaking of black boxes... by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't forget the millions of documents the Government has marked secret even though the documents merely embarrass them.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    2. Re:speaking of black boxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup, the Freedom of Information Act and all the millions the government spends to limit your access.

      FTFY

    3. Re:speaking of black boxes... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Snowden, Manning and Assange would beg to differ on that. In fact just using logic to figure out the insane psychopathic schemes can get you in trouble and investigated as say a Russian agent, ohh ahh. How many political activists have been publicly attacked by the government, who have turned false prosecution as persecution into a fine art. This all backed up by main stream media, joining in on the attack.

      No black boxes, will lets get rid of the secrets at the top first. That's exactly where the cause the most harm, kill the most people and work to actively destroy our democratic future. Apple wants to sell privacy and security because it gives them a huge marketing edge against M$ Windows anal probe 10, than fine, no problem. That M$ with it's lobbyists launches a completely corrupt attack against Apple to cripple Apple's ability to sell privacy and security, keeping the background conspiracy and collusion secret because they have basically sold us all out, is fucking awful and as evil as it gets. Corporations run government and this whole bullshit is nothing but M$ corporate manoeuvring, really lame corrupt shit.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:speaking of black boxes... by KGIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think I finally came up with a word, a single word, to describe Obama - and it's consistent throughout his nationally public career.

      "Condescending."

      I've been alive since 1957. He's the most condescending president I've ever seen. Sadly, I don't think most people have noticed it and I wasn't really able to put a word to it until just a few seconds ago when I was reading your post. I can think of lots of words but that one seems to sum it up nicely - at least for me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:speaking of black boxes... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, that's a very apt word to describe Obama. It started right after he got elected, when his Administration adopted the attitude "thanks for the help, we'll take it from here" towards all his supporters and those who elected him, and promptly did a 180 and adopted almost all the Bush Administration policies.

      And we see it again now with Hillary and her supporters: they're completely condescending towards Bernie supporters, with the attitude "ok, you've had your say, now you need to get behind Hillary so we can beat the Republicans, and all your concerns about her are silly".

      The modern Democratic Party seems to be simply full of condescension; no wonder Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much and standard Democratic politics. The party stands for corruption and condescension, and Bernie is about the only hope they have to turn it around.

      Oh well, I guess we can look forward to President Trump next year. Obama and Hillary seem to be doing everything they can to piss off everyone on the left or center who isn't a believer of elitist corporatist authoritarianism.

  10. Hope Apple is ready to go to jail to fight this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?" He sound more like Cameron every day. Wanting a backdoor to every phone to "disrupt" a terrorist plot", i.e. Everybody are tapped into permanently and software flags you as an active shooter if you visited a gun store last week rent a van and read a news article on AlJazeera.com.

    This is crazy, we must not let it happen.

  11. "then how do we apprehend the child pornographer?" by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um... by catching them in the act of making or distributing child pornography? Maybe?

  12. Why is everybody drawing a line at their phones? by Pulzar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is the phone a "do not cross" line? This is the one that is making people here on Slashdot compare the government to nazis? All this time we've been living in the world where the government can get a legal warrant to enter your house, look through your things, take pretty much anything they deem suspicious, get into your car, your workplace... This happens every single day.

    But, unlocking your phone and looking at your data is a whole another level of intrusion that causes extreme amounts of anger and comparisons to one of the worst government regimes ever?

    I don't get this. I mean, I don't see anybody protesting that if I lock my house, government can't come in, even with a warrant, and my house and its contents are way more private to me than my phone.

    Could somebody please elaborate on why the phone is a special case here?

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  13. "Strike a balance" by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What Obama...what most politicians...don't seem to understand is that there is no balance. The phone is either secure...or it isn't. And if it isn't, the police will not be the only ones cracking it.

  14. Child Pornographers and Terrorists by waTeim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good ol' child pornographers and terrorists, the ubiquitous go-to for governments when they want to convince their citizens intrusion of their privacy is reasonable. There should be a variant of Godwin's Law for this; as such is a sure sign they have no reasonable justification. As a student of the Constitution, the President should know that the 4th amendment exists to guard personal liberty against a not-always-trustworthy federal government, and if the last few years have proven anything, it's proven we sure can't trust the FBI.

  15. I wonder by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did law enforcement solve crimes and gather intelligence before we had smartphones? I guess all the child pornographers and terrorists got away clean.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  16. Re:Obama doesn't want to be "absolutist" by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Reasonable" and "probable" are hardly absolute! The door is pretty wide open.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the government thinks your front door is too hard to kick in.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Black boxes by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why's it always gotta be about race with this guy?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. technically illiterate and totalitarian by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (1) The government doesn't have any choice in the matter. Cryptography is so easy to implement these days that anyone who wants to can use it. (2) I guess Obama's mask has come off now, and his isn't trying to hide his complete disdain for civil liberties and privacy. Obviously, his original campaign promises were just lies.

  20. Re:Why is everybody drawing a line at their phones by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mainly because if the government can break into your phone, then other people can.
    You wouldn't accept if the government required no locks on doors, and this is basically what they are asking, but with phones.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  21. Why not ban computers too? by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Computers can easily be rendered "a black box". This has been the case to a great degree since the 90s, and absolutely since the mid-aughties.

    Here's the logical results of this kind of shitbaggery coming to pass:

    1)- When you mandate the mobile guys make backdoors, this will also mean that you can't EVER have an open source phone. Because the open source stuff won't have a backdoor.
    2)- Since phones are just computers, this law, however it is written, can be interpreted to apply to ANY general purpose computer. You can wholesale ban all encryption that way, but most importantly, you can and MUST ban open source firmware, open source OS, every single thing.

    These things aren't "slippery slopes" or hypotheticals- any law that is passed WILL INEVITABLY be that. It may not be ENFORCED as that immediately, but I could claim your PC is a phone by any legal definition the government sees fit to use.

    Literally no presidential candidate is on the correct side of this issue, and neither is the president. Congress hasn't been clueless... yet. Surprisingly.

  22. Absolutely Right! by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let's not have all these technological black boxes where the government can't see what's inside. We need to get to the bottom of this. People's lives are at stake! The FBI must investigate, leave no byte unexposed.

    Wait...

    You mean we aren't talking about the Clintons' e-mail server? Because all this talk of encrypted sensitive data, threats to our security, and what not I thought for certain this was about the former Secretary Clinton not letting the FBI look at her old e-mails, those created while she was under the employment of the federal government.

    Sure, let's talk about what secrets the people can keep from the government but not about what secrets the government wants to keep from the people.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.