FBI Tells Congress It Needs Hackers To Keep Up With Tech Company Encryption (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed: A high ranking technology official with the FBI told members of Congress Tuesday that the agency is incapable of cracking locked phones and devices on its own, even with additional resources. Amy Hess, the agency's executive assistant director for science and technology told a panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that encrypted communications continue to pose a challenge to the American law enforcement, and to the safety of the American public. But when asked by lawmakers to provide a practical solution beyond the FBI's talking points, she said that the cooperation of technology companies would be necessary. According to the New York Times, "The FBI defended its hiring of a third-party company to break into an iPhone used by a gunman in last year's San Bernardino, Calif., mass shooting, telling some lawmakers on Tuesday that it needed to join with partners in the rarefied world of for-profit hackers as technology companies increasingly resist their demands for consumer information." They are stressing the importance of cooperation with tech companies and "third parties" to help fight terrorism, claiming they do not have the capabilities and resources available to crack encrypted devices. Congress is currently debating potential legislation on encryption.

Comments

Dear FBI and US Gov

[Quzak]

We will keep making more sophisticated encryption. You will not beable to keep pace with our progress. We do not want you in our devices, fuck your laws. Crapfully yours, The internet

Re:Dear FBI and US Gov

[ArmoredDragon]

I think one of the bigger things hurting the FBI is they are so exclusive towards otherwise talented people compared to the private sector, and so their human resource pool leaves a lot to be desired. For example, even though polygraph is nothing more than an intimidation tactic that is basically useless, (and people who know it's a load of crap aren't intimidated by it) they won't hire anybody without subjecting them to it. They also exclude anybody who has at any point in their life consumed cannabis, which is in many ways more benign than alcohol.

On top of it all, they don't pay shit compared to private sector jobs. (In only my second year after graduation, I already make more than most FBI agents at GS12 by just doing datacenter work.)

Privacy in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it strange that nobody seems to mention that law enforcement worked just fine in ancient history when private conversations were not recorded at all. The government could not get a transcript on demand because there was none. Likewise, the government still is unable to read our thoughts. Why should a thought be treated differently when it is expressed in speech or electronically through writing? Why should the government feel hamstrung by inability to read our encrypted written thoughs when it still can not read them while they reside in our heads? Should we not demand that both be treated as private without question and inaccessible to government extortion? Law enforcement has done just fine without reading our thoughs for centuries; it should do just fine in the future without reading our encrypted letters.

After running Edward Snowden out of town

[Hadlock]

Should it come to any surprise that the people they need don't want to work for the government? Or fled to Berlin to escape a similar fate?
 
If you keep backdooring encryption and ostracizing your own citizens who are strong on security, you can't expect to have any citizens who particularly want to help you out.
 
You can't just throw warm bodies at the problem like you can with traditional war. The Germans lost Einstein and countless other academic Jews to countries like the United States and Russia in WW2, and now the same thing is happening with security experts in the United States. Good luck with that.