Slashdot Mirror
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access To Is 'Unreasonable' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Just two days after the FBI said it could not get into the Sutherland Springs shooter's seized iPhone, Politico Pro published a lengthy interview with a top Department of Justice official who has become the "government's unexpected encryption warrior." According to the interview, which was summarized and published in transcript form on Thursday for subscribers of the website, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein indicated that the showdown between the DOJ and Silicon Valley is quietly intensifying. "We have an ongoing dialogue with a lot of tech companies in a variety of different areas," he told Politico Pro. "There's some areas where they are cooperative with us. But on this particular issue of encryption, the tech companies are moving in the opposite direction. They're moving in favor of more and more warrant-proof encryption." "I want our prosecutors to know that, if there's a case where they believe they have an appropriate need for information and there is a legal avenue to get it, they should not be reluctant to pursue it," Rosenstein said. "I wouldn't say we're searching for a case. I''d say we're receptive, if a case arises, that we would litigate."
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained. "And I'm in favor of that, because that means less business for us prosecuting cases of people who have stolen data and hacked into computer networks and done all sorts of damage. So I'm in favor of strong encryption." "This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here." He later added that the claim that the "absolutist position" that strong encryption should be by definition, unbreakable, is "unreasonable." "And I think it's necessary to weigh law enforcement equities in appropriate cases against the interest in security," he said.
You have access to the phone, you compel the person to unlock it by legal means. Oh, he's dead? Well then you can't prosecute him anyway. The people he talked to are a matter of record on the network, and you can compel them to decrypt if you think they're complicit.
Or you could backdoor the encryption, like the NSA did, get hacked, and as a result, open everyone's communications to hostile foreign powers to help them put a lying sack of needy whiny orange shit in power and undermine the complete country.
Yet another mass killing, yet another nutter allowed to have a weapon and zero guts in the Republican party to tackle the gun-funded NRA lobby.
Are you a fucking NSA goon whose job is to inject inflammatory partisan bullshit immediately at the start of a comment section to derail any intelligent discussion about a story where a government agent is saying that it is unreasonable for Americans to have any secrets from their government. If you arenâ(TM)t then you are a fucking fool.
Actually, thousands of people take that deal every year. I was locked up with several of them. This is not a Grisham novel, this is real life.
In the Feds (states are different, so YMMV), prosecutors establish the highest possible charges they can indict (I think this was supposed to be the highest 'provable' charges but that's not what we got) and then get the indictments. They present you with these charges (e.g.: A, B, C, D, and E) and offer you a 'reduction' to an appropriate charge for your offense (e.g.: A and B) in exchange for a guilty plea. Then they tell you their conviction rate (high 90's%).
THEY have practically unlimited resources from the FBI, the DEA, the ATFE, and to a lesser extent from local law enforcement. They have a large annual budget for crime lab and forensic analysis, as well as expert testimony. Most guys with no money and guys with prior engagement with the Feds immediately accept the plea. This means the Feds get to concentrate all of their firepower on the stubborn nails that insist on sticking up.
YOU have a public defender whose compensation for your case is capped at (IIRC) $3,000. If you are fortunate, and financially secure, maybe you have a paid attorney, but how much can you afford? $25,000? $50,000? A SIMPLE trial in the Fed can easily go past $30,000.
Worse, the benches are stacked with Republican nominated justices. Some of these guys act like they are extensions of the prosecutor's offices.
If you go to trial there is a high probability you are going to prison, even if you are innocent. When you are found guilty, you will be sentenced for all of the charges they originally laid against you (A, B, C, D, and E). They call this 'sending a strong signal'.
Charges A and B may have a sentencing range of 34 to 42 months. If you're at the bottom of the range (34 months) you will serve about 29 months with good behavior, do a little probation, and move on with your life. With such a short sentence you will be sent to a Low Security facility, if you're nonviolent maybe even a camp.
Charges A through E may carry a range of 270 to 300 months. If you make them go all the way through a trial you will probably not be at the bottom of the range. At 300 months you will have to serve at least 261 months. That's almost 22 years. You will also have to begin your sentence in a Maximum Security prison (a 'Penitentiary'). You will not like most of the people you meet there. Worse, they won't like you.
Rational people have this choice thrust upon them all the time in this country and do the Expected Value Equation:
Plead: 100% times 29 months.
vs
Trial: 90% times 261 months.
Often this happens to people who are guilty of some of their charges but not all of them (this is what happened to me). Sometimes it happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
I apologize for the length of this post.
Yea, but if you were to find out the true number was about 80% wouldn't that change your opinion on this?
"truly innocent would never take that deal" cannot be implied from "Those cases get a LOT of attention when discovered", because they do get discovered, all the time.
>"draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control "
Bzzzzz. Your first two sentences were perfect and then you had to go and ruin it. Study after study after study proves that "gun control" doesn't prevent such murders. People who want to murder are going to illegally get a gun somehow and use it illegally (and overwhelming against unarmed groups of victims). Or they are going to run 20 people over with a car. Or throw gas on a building and burn a dozen people to death. Or make a pressure cooker bomb and set it off somewhere interesting. "Gun control" does one thing really well- it takes weapons out the hands of law-abiding, GOOD people, who use them to protect themselves and loved ones and frequently stop and deter crime.
Areas in the USA with the highest (most unconstitutional and most draconian) gun control laws have the most gun murders and crime. This is fact. And when those laws get removed, magically, the gun murders and crime start going down and down. Also fact. Most gun murders occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. Yep- fact. Another interesting fact- licensed concealed-carry citizens commit 600% fewer felonies (ANY type of felony) than police officers. And ANOTHER fact- gun murders have been going down for decades. And this is despite there being more guns and more population.
So we can continue to respond emotionally and "do something" about violence by passing more and more gun laws that make the problem worse. OR we can learn from fact and realize that gun laws are not the solution.
multiple studies have shown that it doesn't do any good. Throwing people in jail and doing nothing to address the root causes of crime doesn't solve anything. It's just being punitive for it's own sake. Tough on crime basically means revenge. If you're not trying to rehabilitate and you're not locking up a mentally deranged person to keep them from harming others you're just committing an act of revenge out of anger and fear. Rather than a reasoned, scientific approach to crime it's an emotional one. One that does it's best to ignore that criminals are human beings in order to maintain the goal of revenge.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sometimes [choosing to plead to an offence for reduced sentence] happens to people who are not guilty of any of their charges. There are many innocent people in prison because that's the best outcome they could realistically hope for.
A friend since my college days became a public defender. He is rabidly against the death penalty. According to him, the main effect is to cause totally innocent people to plead guilty to lower-grades of murder rather than risk their lives by demanding a trial.
It's something like the argument against torture: Hurt someone enough and you can get him to say whatever he thinks you want him to say in the hope you'll stop hurting him. So information extracted by torture is unreliable.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When DNA evidence was first available, many old cases were reexamined. In about 10% of the cases, the person convicted could not possibly have committed the crime. Many of them had pled guilty, usually to get lighter sentences.
Plea bargaining should be abolished. Nobody should be punished for exercising their right to a fair trial.