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."
Add the letters "ab" to the front of "use" and you'll get a better idea of what the FBI appears to want to do with the courts in this case...
So now the FBI is claiming they won the court battle? Shameless.
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
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.
U.S. government forces Microsoft and Apple to put backdoors into their products equals nobody buying anything from these two American companies anymore.
The U.S. government is destroying its own economy!
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.
Not sure if a word in your subject line is missing a "k" or an "h"...
Blank until
There are still people who believes government lies.
That would be anybody who votes for a republican or democrat. A little over 98% according to the last numbers. And they are digging in their heels when challenged over it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Law Enforcement seems to be exempt from any laws that inconvenience them....getting a court order was only an attempt at expedience
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
Lavabit honorably shut down rather than compromise its users. As far as I'm aware, that was the only legal and ethical way to satisfy the demand for the private keys.
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
Claiming a win? Sure, because you have people with careers having the biggest-profile case in their life who want to keep their jobs and careers from taking a black mark. Realistically it was sort of a draw and sort of a "let's back the hell off because we might lose this one right now..."
But not exactly on the order. The order wasn't illegal; it's just that it basically issued but Apple could challenge it legally. The briefing to the magistrate judge (which was basically the government vs. the entire tech industry, and was maybe the most extensively briefed issue at the magistrate level in history), would have been the place where it was decided in the first instance, with appeals from there to the district court judge, the court of appeals, and then a petition for (and likely grant of) a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, where we would have gotten an answer that would probably change when Congress changed the law.
We make the math. The system is us. If it is "broken", it means we are.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”