Slashdot Mirror
FBI Couldn't Access Nearly 7,000 Devices Because of Encryption (foxbusiness.com)
Michael Balsamo, writing for Associated Press: The FBI hasn't been able to retrieve data from more than half of the mobile devices it tried to access in less than a year, FBI Director Christopher Wray said Sunday, turning up the heat on a debate between technology companies and law enforcement officials trying to recover encrypted communications. In the first 11 months of the fiscal year, federal agents were unable to access the content of more than 6,900 mobile devices, Wray said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Philadelphia. "To put it mildly, this is a huge, huge problem," Wray said. "It impacts investigations across the board -- narcotics, human trafficking, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, gangs, organized crime, child exploitation." The FBI and other law enforcement officials have long complained about being unable to unlock and recover evidence from cellphones and other devices seized from suspects even if they have a warrant, while technology companies have insisted they must protect customers' digital privacy.
Encryption works as designed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The FBI can't beat confessions out of thousands and thousands of suspects, making it harder to get convictions from criminals hiding critical evidence in their encrypted (non-cleartext) brains.
Sorry, but some sacrifices are needed to keep democracies from becoming police states. Especially when it is always the police asking for more an more power over citizens they are supposed to protect.
Basically they got greedy. They wanted dragnet-like capabilities, and they were like "well fuck these civilians". They went too far, and now found out about that Dutch saying that says: "trust arrives walking, and departs on horseback".
And now nobody trusts these three letter agencies anymore. And now they're whining like toddlers, saying "this is a huge, huge problem" when in fact they created the problem themselves.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I use Nova Launcher on my Pixel XL and you can do something very similar -- I have mine set so if I double-tap the screen at any time it instantly locks the screen and switches from print-unlock to PIN. Not sure if it works with a specific 'panic print' -- I set it a long time ago and haven't revisited the settings.
I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented? I guess they must not have solved any crimes at all?
We have a president who is a full blown lunatic and she has a staff filled with criminals.
Hillary lost the election.
You're preaching to the choir, and our so-called 'law enforcement' doesn't care about little trifles like facts and logic and reason, they just want total and complete control over every citizen at all times, and FUCK THE CONSTITUTION. Also it's not like this hasn't been the problem with any law enforcement since such a thing was ever invented, law enforcement attracts a certain mindset that wants power over people, and the ability to bully them into doing whatever they're told, right or wrong, good or bad, fair or not, with utter impunity. There are some police who are fair and reasonable but they're few and far between, and once the more typical types rise to power within their respective organizations, the ones who are most like them feel free to stop hiding who they really are. Also doesn't help that the law enforcement lifestyle attracts extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis/neo-nazi sympathizers and other types of racists and bigots. That's why we have checks and balances built into law enforcement, to keep them from running rampant. Lately they're being encouraged from various quarters to feel free to do as they please, therefore we see the problems we're having today. As usual we need to institute reforms (again) and weed out the worst of them (again) to show that The People are what count here and who (should) have the real power in this country, not jackbooted thugs with guns and badges.
Along similar lines, I wonder how many of those devices will have any actual evidence of wrongdoing? If we recall, the FBI desperately wanted to backdoor the cell phone of the San Bernadino terrorists, which they eventually did, but found no information of value. Just because the FBI says "6900 devices" doesn't really mean anything to me. Peoples' privacy deserves protection more than the FBI needs to backdoor everyone's cell phone just so that they can score the occasional long-shot conviction.
If I were the FBI, I'd keep the actual cell phone of a suspect, but give them back an identical looking cell phone. It wouldn't have their original data on it, but instead a key logger, which would keylog the password once the phone is booted up and then send it on to FBI HQ.
There's a handful of law enforcement people who want backdoors. Everyone else says no. You need a few more participants on the other side before it qualifies as a 'debate'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> Apple was basically arguing that they should not be compelled to give the owner of a phone access to information on the phone in the case of a (potential) dire emergency.
Apple had several arguments, the most powerful of which was that the government had not proven that Apple was the only party which had sufficient expertise to crack the phone--the law only gives the government authority to force a company to aid in this type of situation when there's no reasonable alternative.
But if it makes you feel better about yourself to concoct some sort of anti-Apple fiction, then please do. Maybe you won't need to kick a puppy on the way home then.
That actually leads to less security. Because prior to fingerprint sensors, about 50+% of phones had no passcode system enabled whatsoever.
The reason? It turns out passcodes are the antithesis to how these devices are operated - often glanced at (unlocked) hundreds of times a day, with each interaction lasting a few seconds, tops. Entering a passcode is enough of a bother that people don't actually... bother.
That's why they have biometric sensors - the goal is to turn that 50% of devices with no lock into a very low percentage - the biometric allows for quick and easy unlocking of the phone (basically without getting in the way) but have the benefits of a locked phone.
You see this in real life too - next time, check out the password your retail guy uses when they check you out - because the checkout kioss are typically locked, you'll find they have a quick password they can enter so they can get your transaction done quickly.
You misunderstand the DES issue a little.
It is true the NSA(through NIST) fixed the s-Box issue that made the standard vulnerable to differential cyptanalysis (something that was not known in academia at the time - and had to be independently rediscovered). Without the NSA fix, the standard would have been worthless as all messages would have been vulnerable.
What is also true is that the NSA insisted on shortening the key length from 64-bits to 56-bits for no good reason other than weakening the standard to brute force attacks that they alone could afford at the time.
So implying the government "helped" back then, is a little iffy.
Because most of us don't have anything on our phones that is worth going to prison to keep hidden. In fact even with a finger print and key number on my phone, if the law enforcement showed me a court order to unlock my phone I am pretty sure that I will do it. After consulting my attorney, and of course following his advice first.
Point is there is nothing on my phone but pictures of my kids, grandkids, and 1 picture of my exwife, plus my family contacts. Nothing that I need to secure enough to type in a 16 digit pin for everytime I want to make a phone call or buy a bag of chips.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
If you destroy it after you were asked to hand it over, then that would likely be destroying evidence (a crime.) If the data was encrypted, and only the method to unlock changed. It would be much tougher to make a case against you.
So the old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?
Say you get pulled over by a particularly obnoxious cop who really takes a dislike to you but can't find a legit reason to arrest you.. so he looks through your phone and finds a picture of your grandkid in the bath when they were 8 months old.. Bam! Child porn!
Even if that gets thrown out (you it almost certainly would because I've made the scenario intentionally extreme to the point of silly,) the fact that you even got arrested for it is now on your permanent record and is going to have to be explained any time you need to look for a new job or cross the border or any other such things where they want to look at your criminal record.
OK so you decide you won't show your phone to whatever beat copy happens to pull you over and will only show it after consulting with your lawyer.. so now they're going to arrest you for refusing to cooperate instead so that they can take you into the station while you make the call. And certainly refusing to cooperate may not sound as bad as child porn on your record but has a much better chance of being upgraded from "arrested" to "charged" since you technically did refuse to cooperate in that instance, whether or not they find anything more serious to charge you with.