Slashdot Mirror


New York DA Wants Apple, Google To Roll Back Encryption (tomsguide.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. called on Apple and Google to weaken their device encryption, arguing that thousands of crimes remained unsolved because no one can crack into the perpetrators' phones. Vance, speaking at the International Conference on Cyber Security here, said that law enforcement officials did not need an encryption "backdoor," sidestepping a concern of computer-security experts and device makers alike. Instead, Vance said, he only wanted the encryption standards rolled back to the point where the companies themselves can decrypt devices, but police cannot. This situation existed until September 2014, when Apple pushed out iOS 8, which Apple itself cannot decrypt. "Tim Cook was absolutely right when he told his shareholders that the iPhone changed the world," Vance said. "It's changed my world. It's letting criminals conduct their business with the knowledge we can't listen to them."

47 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. And you shouldn't be.... by Lord_Rion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You shouldn't be able to listen to them... you shouldn't be able to listen to anyone. Try doing your job the old fashioned way... outsmart them.. stop trying to take short cuts at the expensive our our rights and liberties...

    But hey.. that's just my opinion

    --
    --Hired Net Grunt
    1. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by npslider · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "bad guys" will still find that classic abandoned warehouse across the train tracks and plot their evil in the veil of darkness. Perhaps we should require spotlights and mandatory cameras over every square inch of the planet too?

    2. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it is more to the point. We as a culture should be brave enough to say We are willing to take these security risks in order to protect our privacy.

      The people who work in security are doing their job. And it is their responsibility to ask for things and changes that will make their job more effective, I don't blame them for the request.

      However we seem to lack the fortitude to go to these people and say, no that is asking a bit too much, I know it isn't ideal but we need to keep people's freedom as well, at the expense of ideal security.

       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by sbrown7792 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps we should require spotlights and mandatory cameras over every square inch of the planet too?

      Please, for the love of all that is holy: stop giving them ideas!

    4. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Terrible grammar.

      > That would make everyone safer and be much gooder.

      . . . and be much MORE gooder.

      Although 'goodly', or 'goodfully' are also considered to be acceptable alternatives.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I guess I should not mention the idea that we would all be a lot safer if the government had cameras installed in all of our homes, workplaces, schools, and places of worship? For our safety.

      Think of the children!

      Don't censor this worthwhile idea.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      at the expense of ideal security.

      *Having a backdoor into any encryption is not ideal security*, as that back door, or weak encryption is equally, if not more so, vulnerable to the bad guys as well.

      What makes you think only the good guys will use backdoors or exploit weaker encryption? What if it's a bad guy that gets ahold of the cops phone and looks inside? Which agency will be compromised?

      Bad guys often have better equipment than the good guys and by bad guys I am also including foreign nations, mafia, competing corporations, and Militaries of the world in addition to criminals.

      When will people get it through their heads that the same tools are used by both good and bad? Good people with guns stop bad people with guns. But bad people with guns also stop good people with guns. Good encryption can be used to protect bad people, but good encryption can also protect the good people.

      The catch here is the bad people won't care about artificial constructs such as laws. If they need a gun they will steal one or make one. If they want to cover their tracks online they will find a way to do it. The rest is just FUD and ignorance.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    7. Re: And you shouldn't be.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My response would have just been a middle finger followed by "Next subject."

      Really, it no longer deserves any consideration at this point.

    8. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They already do my friend...

      You own a cellphone, tablet, laptop?

      They got us covered.

      That's why all personal portable electronics are banned from classified government spaces.

    9. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I realize that I phones are absurdly thin, but a typical audio bug is very tiny. If you can obtain a search warrant to search the phone, you can obtain a warrant for a ln authorised bug. Bugs take many forms, and can do many things. For instance, some can record the local EMI from a device, and then reproduce the activity of that device from that produced noise. That includes screen taps, gestures, etc.

      Put one of those in, let it record away, then arrest the perp, collect the bug, analyze its contents, then use the analysis to unlock the phone for further data retrieval.

      The real deal here is that the da does not want to have to physically bug the phones in question. He wants to arrest on weak charges, then go fishing.

    10. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hillary's email was intercepted by the Russians at the request of Trump, and forwarded off to Wikileaks.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This DA seems to be implying that pre-iPhone, his predecessors closed all their cases.

      That kind of track record doesn't bode well for him. Is that really something he should be calling attention to? That his predecessors got results, but that his current office doesn't.

    12. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by npslider · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll turn on Fox News for the fair and balanced report!

    13. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's really not much risk here. They're trying to play the fear card too much. It wasn't long ago when we didn't have smart phones with encryption. It is so recent that even a millenial can remember those days. And was it a world where all criminals were captures, all crimes solved, people were always safe and secure? No! Rates of violent crime were higher. Criminals still figured out how to talk to each other securely without the FBI listening in. We had organized crime operating with impunity for long periods of time, they even figured out how to use encryption.

      There's nothing law enforcement can do to put this genie back in the bottle. One simple app to do a pgp style communication and encryption is back no matter how many back doors the manufacturers put in (or get a warrant to get the phone maker to stick on keyloggers, but everyone's going to avoid those phones like the plague once word is out). Use some third party SOCs from outside America as your key dongle on the PC and you can detect tampering and destroy your keys.. There's just no way they can lock this down.

      We have some phones locked tight that may or may not contain evidence about crimes. So what?? This is not a disaster. We've never had a time when we could gather all possible evidence, search everywhere we liked, and solve all crimes. Claiming that it's wrong that they can't open up the phones and get the data from them is like whining that the parrot at the crime scene isn't talking.

    14. Re:And you shouldn't be.... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      I gotta admit, that's what bothers me about his statement:

      [...] thousands of crimes remained unsolved because no one can crack into the perpetrators' phones.

      How do you know they're the perpetrator?

  2. How were crimes solved before cell phones? by bluelip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.

    What a great idea.... weaken everyone for a few rare cases.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
    1. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by Miguelito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > What a great idea.... weaken everyone for a few rare cases.

      That's the norm in big gov't.

      Some people use guns to commit crimes? Let's ban them, or at least severely restrict them!
      Some people can't dispose of plastic bags? Ban them for everyone!
      Terrorists took over some planes? Let's enact crazy "security" that can't actually catch anything, treats everyone like a criminal, and make sure we grope kids and grandma so we don't look like we're profiling.

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    2. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's how Billy the Kid got off... they tried him for shooting Sheriff William Brady, but he was acquitted because his iPhone was encrypted and they couldn't get at the data. They even tried getting Steve Jobs' great grandfather involved, but the sonofabitch insisted that he didn't even know what a cell phone was, much less how to remove the encryption from one.

      Julius Rosenberg also went free because they couldn't decrypt his thumb drive to prove he was spying for the Soviets.

      At least that's the impression I get from listening to these assholes whining that they can't spy on all of us 24/7.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by npslider · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that if Jesus had simply handed over his GodPhone to the Pharisees, they would have realized he was not a threat to them and let him go in peace. At least then they could have asked the Man upstairs using Facetime.

    4. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Terrorists took over some planes? Let's enact crazy "security" that can't actually catch anything, treats everyone like a criminal, and make sure we grope kids and grandma so we don't look like we're profiling.

      Banning planes would have been easier.

    5. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Devil's advocate: How were crimes committed before cell phones? The old telephone system could be tapped. Letters could be intercepted. If people had to meet physically, they could be followed physically. These channels of communication are decreasing in popularity and are being replaced by a system that isn't as easy to spy on. This is probably a good thing overall, but it's making it more difficult for law enforcement to do that part of their jobs.

      Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.

      Are they? It looks like they're actually complaining that many crimes will not be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable. There's a tradeoff here, and while it may very well be the case that the decision most consistent with American values is to value privacy over law enforcement efficiency, I don't believe we help the discussion by misrepresenting this district attorney's position.

    6. Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.

      There are a couple glaring problems that come to mind immediately when I read statements like the one the DA made:

      1) They are claiming that having access to the phones would let them solve the crimes. While that may be true in some cases, it's certainly not a given. Look at the San Diego shooter's phone - when they finally got in, there was nothing worthwhile on it.

      2) They are implying this is their only recourse. But if they have enough evidence to get a warrant, they can lock up the suspect if he/she doesn't comply with giving them access. Sure, the crime may be still technically "unsolved"... but the perp is in jail, regardless.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what you can't listen to them? Have these guys never heard of police work? Here's a hint, it's not synonymous with spying. If you can't follow the money, them the crime is probably too petty to worry about.

  4. Morons got government jobs!!! by sentiblue · · Score: 3, Informative

    LOL!!!! Even the FBI Director can't get this after numerous cry-out... What the hell does a DA think he is?

    It's the law enforcement's job to handle the criminals... if they need help, send their people to more technical education. Companies have only one job: To satisfy their customers... and if they can't do that, nobody will buy the stuffs, period!!!

  5. No such thing as Apple-only backdoor by chubs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If anyone other than the intended recipient can decrypt (including Apple), then everyone can. Apple having a back door into your stuff is a back door, even if the police don't have access to it. Unfortunately, the DA is going to sound very reasonable to anyone who doesn't understand encryption.

    1. Re:No such thing as Apple-only backdoor by ewibble · · Score: 3, Informative

      The whole thing is an oxymoron

      law enforcement officials did not need an encryption "backdoor," sidestepping a concern of computer-security experts and device makers alike. Instead, Vance said, he only wanted the encryption standards rolled back to the point where the companies themselves can decrypt devices

      Making encryption standards so weak so that the company/person writing the software, can bypass them, is the very definition of a back door.

  6. No back-doors to my personal devices by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can absolutely listen to their conversations and see their text messages. All you need is to convience a Judge to approve a wiretap order and the Carriers will let you spy to your hearts content. Stop asking companies to provide back-doors to my personal devices that I don't not wish to grant you access to

    1. Re:No back-doors to my personal devices by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      You can absolutely listen to their conversations and see their text messages. All you need is to convience a Judge to approve a wiretap order and the Carriers will let you spy to your hearts content.

      If you're using an encrypted VoIP app or email to communicate, the carriers don't have access to the data either.
      Not that I'm siding with this asshat. I'm just saying...

  7. Trust No One by npslider · · Score: 2

    I do not trust big business with the ability to de-crypt my data any more than the government. Both entities are not interested in protecting you, but their bottom lines and political interests. The right to privacy means privacy from anyone!

  8. If only by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    we could trust that Law Enforcement wouldn't abuse such a thing.

    That sort of abuse is what got us here to begin with.
    So you need to ask yourself: Whose fault is it you can't decrypt these things again ?

    You reap what you sow . . . . . .

  9. Glad to hear it. Now, can I see the police files. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Glad to hear he thinks we don't need privacy.

    Now I have a long list of police files and videos I would like to see.

    Wait, you mean you don't want us to see those? But thousands of accusations against police are going unsolved without access to them!

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  10. This unsolved crimes include yours by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We live in such a complex web of laws now that we are all breaking them every day... so if the government can on demand browse through your phone they WILL find evidence of some crime. Especially Slashdot readers I'd warrant.

    So basically what the government wants is an easy way to harass or lock-up anyone it deems a nuisance for any reason,

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:This unsolved crimes include yours by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 2

      Why should policing today be any different than policing 100 years ago?

      The idea of serving and protecting the community is actually a VERY recent dimension of policing. It's generally applied to serving and protecting the state, or at least the local aristocracy. Your interests don't matter; it's not your name at the bottom of their paycheque.

  11. "Register your crimes! It's the law!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One problem time and again is that crypto only works for "the good guys" (which may or may not include LEOs, this is not automatic) if it isn't diddled, and therefore it also works for "the bad guys", whoever those might be. This is well-known in "intelligence"-land, but the concepts that are well-known and -understood there, quite certainly aren't in, oh, LEO land. Or the land of the liars, er, politicians. Or much anywhere else, really. Something that will have to change, thanks to information technology and world-wide networks.

    Another problem is that the LEOs are now the tail wagging the dog. Maybe they should re-read the Peelian principles, instead of fancying themselves the militarised "command and control" hub of society.

    1. Re:"Register your crimes! It's the law!" by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A security guy (admittedly someone random on the internet) mentioned the relative ease with which criminals can make their own communications and storage apps (or have them made). Apps which due to their custom nature render trying to strongarm the (now sidelined) 'big guys' into weakening their encryption completely useless.

      In fact, the possibilities for any serious criminal network to create their own secure communications channels and data storage are so mindbogglingly vast that the only criminals the current situation is 'letting [...] conduct their business' are pretty obviously small time or just stupid drug dealers. Hardly the type of criminals envisioned when urged to give up the basic human right of privacy.

    2. Re: "Register your crimes! It's the law!" by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      They should read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, while they are at it.

    3. Re:"Register your crimes! It's the law!" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      I'm sure we can come to an agreement. If the government rolls back the Patriot Act, for example, then maybe we look at rolling back encryption.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. The police must not be able to solve every crime by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Otherwise you have a full-blown Police State and that is far, far worse than almost any amount of unsolved crime. In a free state, the police must be severely limited in what it can do and must be kept at a level of power that allows them to reliably keep society functioning, but never above.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. Thousands of crimes remained unsolved... by ehynes · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The claim that

    thousands of crimes remained unsolved because no one can crack into the perpetrators' phones

    is exaggerated speculation at best. There may well be thousands of crimes that include locked phones in their set of evidence, but there is no guarantee that data on those locked phones would lead to the crime being solved if it were unlocked. It's also possible that many of those crimes could be / will be solved eventually using other pieces of evidence and investigative avenues.

  14. Dear pigs, by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Earn your pay instead of putting innocent citizens in danger.
    People have a right to secure communications.

    Deal with it bullies...

  15. imagine where it goes by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DA provides the best argument for Apple to strengthen encryption, by his own existence and statement. Imagine 10,000 district attorneys across the US, each of which have varying competence / incompetence in handling investigations, requests from Apple certain encryption/decryption keys, and wildly varying levels of knowledge about how to use or judge when to ask for this capability.

    And, for that matter, wildly differing capabilities to securely handle and keep private the information they find on people's phones.

    No thank you, and Apple is right to refuse them.

  16. Well gee darn, officer... by s13g3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vance said. "It's changed my world. It's letting criminals conduct their business with the knowledge we can't listen to them."

    They can do that in an empty theater, a subway car, a taxi, a sewer... or in simple, pre-arranged, spoken code-phrases you'll have EVEN LESS CHANCE OF CRACKING. So it's "changed your world." Ala, forced you to think about hiring cops capable of doing actual investigative police work? You mean, like, when people used codes the police couldn't crack just 15 years ago, except they were written on paper, or ciphered into the actual text? You mean like when they spoke languages few if any other people spoke? You mean like back in the day when cops were expected to solve crimes with actual police-work, instead of relying on broad, warrantless searches of people's private property and communications with no restraint on the part of the police, who would instead prefer to violate the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold with the use of Stingray devices and the like just to nab an easy collar?

    Frankly, if your only avenue for solving crime is bottomed on your ability to read the contents of people's private messages and cellphones, you should quit because you're an awful police officer with no ability or skill to solve crimes the way our nation of laws intended them to be solved: without violating people's equal rights, all because "but... crime!!1 Terrorism!1! 9/11!!!one" Even if I believed that giving you what you wanted wasn't a civil rights violation and was in the best interests of the public, the fact of the matter is that it would change nothing: the criminals would simply find other means and avenues, and frankly I seriously doubt such access is a relevant factor in even 1 out of 100,000 cases anyway, especially since your record of solving crimes has not improved in the least bit during the periods when you had this access, or since you've started illegally using stingray devices, even though overall crime rates have been on a downward tick for the last couple of decades.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  17. Apple, Google want... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple, Google want New York DA to roll back police shootings.

    Guess neither of them gets what they want, right?

  18. In other news.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    New York DA wants all citizens to be entirely naked at all times. Quote: "It isn't fair, clothes have pockets that people could be concealing weapons in."

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  19. Re:Ok. by hjf · · Score: 2

    Your sig is outdated, bro.

  20. I wonder how long... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    ... it will be before these companies are finally issued the ultimatum of not being permitted to conduct ANY business within the USA until they comply with these demands to weaken their encryption?

  21. lazy days by Revek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its crazy how lazy these people have become. Its way to much trouble for them to actually do their job. They just want to be able to cheat and skip to the end.