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.
It's also pretty unreasonable that criminals can't just be forced to admit guilt. Think of all the wasted time giving criminals due process of law.
i know the fourth hangs by a thread, tattered and mostly extinguished, but it still chills me to hear the government speak so blatantly.
I don't think Mr. Rosenstein is an idiot at all, I do think he is not being honest about what his end goal is.
I am also doubtful he understands what encryption really is and how it works, or that he can remember the US government fighting and losing a similar battle during the 1990's.
"Responsible" encryption lasted about 3 days before it was crucified by the EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
so lets see just how long "unreasonable" encryption goes. The fact of the matter is plain and simple. In any of these shootings, the ability to read the killers instagram posts and grindr chats isnt going to magically re-animate the dead. beating the motive horse for a killer just helps draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control and healthcare reform in the US that isnt hinged on Reagan era de-institutionalization.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Authorities have no one to blame but themselves. They have proven beyond any doubt time and time again that they cannot be trusted to have such access without abusing it, so why would anyone ever trust them.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Stop trying to doublespeake the issue, you cannot treat things differently just because it's covenient to you.
Encryption is either strong, or weak and thus useless, there is no middleground, you cannot devise a way to make it weak for some case scenarios while being strong for others because this defeats it's ultimate purpose.
There is zero reason to pursue something like this because the moment US based companies start using a crippled encryption scheme like that is the moment hackers will find a way to exploit it, and criminals will switch to encryption systems made in a country that does not have such ignorant moronic people in the DOJ barking crap like that.
Or do these morons really thing that criminals will go "oh hey, these chat apps have US weakened and backdoored encryption and we are commiting crimes in the US, let's use it!". Fucking stupid.
You know what encryption is about? Reducing the rampant privacy erosion that has been happening in recent years because DOJ and other US governmental agencies cannot control their hunger for data. Crimes were solved well before this age of constant mass surveillance and privacy invasion at dystopic scales. Police should be able to do their jobs without having to step on the privacy of everyone they can reach, and arguably sometimes they can do a better job when they are not focusing so much on how to better collect data without anyone knowing about it.
So you can go suck a cock Rosenstein. No one wants to live in a totalitarian state where your half assed ideas comes to fruition. Fucking deal with the reality that there will always be methods for criminals to lock information down in ways that they become unaccessible.
Headline: "The DOJ Supports Criminals"
There is no such thing as a safe backdoor.
If it's there, especially if knowledge of it is public, criminals will get access.
It will drive everyone who has any sense to use non US encryption products.
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.
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