Slashdot Mirror
US Says It Would Use 'Court System' Again To Defeat Encryption (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report: U.S. government officials from the FBI director down have said repeatedly that the FBI-Apple legal brouhaha was just about a single phone -- the seized iPhone used by Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters. And just last week, James Comey, the FBI director, said his fight with Apple wasn't about setting precedent; rather, it was about battling terrorism. But it seems that the storyline has changed. The Justice Department now says it will not hesitate to invoke the precedent it won in its iPhone unlocking case. Having won the court and technological battle a triumphant Department of Justice warned late Monday that its legal battle for what many say amounts to judicially ordered encryption backdoors has only just begun. "It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails," Melanie Newman, a Justice Department spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to Ars. "We will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors."
Of course you aren't. Everyone who isn't in the government was saying this since the FBI first demanded it.
But the real terrorists do not use encryption like that. They don't have to.
The government is trying to push the narrative that the world is just like a Hollywood movie. It isn't. We do not need to give up our privacy so that the government can fight the "bad" men.
When you weaken encryption, you just make the "good" people more vulnerable to criminals.
Gee. if only the FBI put as much work into making sure automatic weapons don't get into the hands of criminals as much as they worried about telephones getting into the hands of criminals.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
We already know secret courts have approved things "for the benfit of the people" to protect them.
The various elements of the US government are already doing the things they wish to "make legal".
It's not about terrorism or even about setting a precedent because that already happened "legally", in a court ruling you never knew existed. IMHO this is about saving face and following the "proper channels" to act in a manner that is acceptable by the multitudes.
You think all the money, time and effort put into mass surveillance and weakening encryption is just going to go away because it's no legal? it wasn't legal to begin with but it happened.
They want to go through a regular court, backed by "the people" (preferably by popular consensus) that will give them the power they already have so next time it will all be legal and "acceptable" because Joe Sixpack agreed.
They will try again and again in many guises until it becomes law. It would have been pushed regardless of who you voted for because you have no vote in matters of security. It cannot be discussed because we're being protected in our name, against our will.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Yes. It's the "Mission Accomplished" strategy.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.