Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Revives Push To Mandate a Way To Unlock Phones (nytimes.com)
"FBI and Justice Department officials have been quietly meeting with security researchers who have been working on approaches to provide such 'extraordinary access' to encrypted devices," reports The New York Times (alternative source), citing people familiar with the matter. Justice Department officials believe that these "mechanisms allowing access to the data" exist without weakening the devices' security against hacking. Slashdot reader schwit1 shares the report: Against that backdrop, law enforcement officials have revived talks inside the executive branch over whether to ask Congress to enact legislation mandating the access mechanisms. The Trump White House circulated a memo last month among security and economic agencies outlining ways to think about solving the problem, officials said. The FBI has been agitating for versions of such a mandate since 2010, complaining that the spreading use of encryption is eroding investigators' ability to carry out wiretap orders and search warrants -- a problem it calls "going dark." The issue repeatedly flared without resolution under the Obama administration, peaking in 2016, when the government tried to force Apple to help it break into the iPhone of one of the attackers in the terrorist assault in San Bernardino, Calif. The debate receded when the Trump administration took office, but in recent months top officials like Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and Christopher A. Wray, the FBI director, have begun talking publicly about the "going dark" problem. The National Security Council and the Justice Department declined to comment about the internal deliberations. The people familiar with the talks spoke on the condition of anonymity, cautioning that they were at a preliminary stage and that no request for legislation was imminent. But the renewed push is certain to be met with resistance.
Electronic Frontier Foundation laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Justice Department. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
You misunderstand. Its not necessarily about being hackable or backdoored. There is no need to remove the current level of encryption and digital signatures and other technical security features, nor is it necessary to prevent further advances in these areas. All that government would need to do is require Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc to archive your passcode, and give up your passcode when presented with a warrant. Yes, that is not desirable. However it is not "banning unhackable communication".
When have 2nd amendment proponents ever done anything to protect people's privacy rights? I don't see them protesting data collection
Actually, gun rights proponents are almost certainly the most successful lobbyists against data collection in modern America, which, depending on your views, may not be a good thing.
Mind you, it’s their own privacy that they’re interested in protecting, but they’ve lobbied Congress so we’ll that it’s currently illegal for the US government to create or maintain databases of gun owners, historical gun purchases, or even the guns themselves, despite massive efforts by people on the other side of those debates to collect exactly that information. And even the paltry records that do exist (i.e. records from private gun stores that went out of business), are not allowed to be computerized. If you’d like more information, it’s easy to come by because the ways that the ATF has been hamstrung by the NRA get re-reported every time there’s another major shooting. And it’s not just at the national level either. Gun enthusiasts are quite active in protesting locally as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... (paywalled)
https://www.informationweek.co...
http://www.heraldtribune.com/n...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
I do agree with the overarching point you were trying to get at, but that particular argument you used to make your point was an extraordinarily poor choice.
The Black Panthers were supporters of the 2nd Amendment and utilized that right to protect their communities from police oppression. They would fill one or more cars with visibly armed members and then follow Police Patrol vehicles around town. They'd get out of the car and stand around at a safe distance whenever the Police had an interaction with a member of the community. The Police were still perfectly able to engage in performing their job duties, but didn't dare try abusing their position with the Black Panthers keeping a close eye on them. From my understanding this action by the Black Panthers was actually what precipitated a lot of the anti open carry and 2nd Amendment efforts by various localities, in our modern era.