Slashdot Mirror


FBI Repeatedly Overstated Encryption Threat Figures To Congress, Public (techcrunch.com)

mi shares a report from The Washington Post (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The FBI has repeatedly provided grossly inflated statistics to Congress and the public about the extent of problems posed by encrypted cellphones, claiming investigators were locked out of nearly 7,800 devices connected to crimes last year when the correct number was much smaller, probably between 1,000 and 2,000.

Over a period of seven months, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray cited the inflated figure as the most compelling evidence for the need to address what the FBI calls "Going Dark" -- the spread of encrypted software that can block investigators' access to digital data even with a court order. "The FBI's initial assessment is that programming errors resulted in significant over-counting of mobile devices reported,'' the FBI said in a statement Tuesday. The bureau said the problem stemmed from the use of three distinct databases that led to repeated counting of phones. Tests of the methodology conducted in April 2016 failed to detect the flaw, according to people familiar with the work.

15 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sherlock reportedly overstated the threat of No Shit to Congress, Public. Also, Cop Math doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm genuinely surprised.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:In other news by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High school, it never stops, you think it's over but there it is, the same people, behaving the same way, from the teens to their decrepitude, control freaks will be control freaks and they wont ever stop. It is all as lame as that regardless of the public relations and advertising.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Prior to 2005 (or thereabouts) by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did law enforcement solve crimes before smartphones were a thing?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Prior to 2005 (or thereabouts) by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      How did law enforcement solve crimes before smartphones were a thing?

      You're making a lot of assumptions there.

    2. Re:Prior to 2005 (or thereabouts) by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      How did law enforcement solve crimes before smartphones were a thing?

      According to my misspent youth, apparently they spent a lot of time shaking down hookers with hearts of gold. Maybe they need to return to their roots, encryption is hard, but hookers are easy.

    3. Re: Prior to 2005 (or thereabouts) by Reverend+Green · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why makes you suppose law enforcers are interested in solving crimes? So far as I can tell, they're mainly interested in collecting bribes from the rich, and tyrannizing the poor for fun.

      Have you noticed how in our big cities the violent criminals run wild? While three or four paramilitary "cops" will gang up to harass a jaywalker.

  3. So? by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if their numbers were true, it wouldn't change the fact that government mandated backdoors to encryption is a remarkably stupid and short sighted concept.

    Hell, all investigations could grind to a halt tomorrow because of encryption, and it wouldn't change that equation. The quantity is irrelevant.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  4. Law Enforcement Isn't Strong on Math Skills by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Infamous Cop Math:

    A number of years ago I had a heroin case in Hayward. They had a warrant where the snitch, known, in polite terms, as a “confidential informant” with the obligatory history of reliability in past snitchings and who was a good citizen and such said there were two packages of heroin in a cereal box in my client’s kitchen. One weighed one pound and the other a half pound. Cops came in with a warrant and sure enough easily found the heroin and that’s what the packages weighed.

    Me: So officer did you wait until you got to the station to do the weighing or did you use the scale that was there and which is now in evidence.

    Cop: I used the scale there

    Me: but that’s an Ohaus scale isn’t it

    Cop: yes

    Me: and it is graded in grams isn’t it

    Cop: yes

    Me: so you did the math in your head right

    Cop: yes

    Me: so how many grams are in a half pound

    Cop: [absolute silence]

    me: let me help you out here. Let’s say there are about 28 grams in an ounce. So how many grams in a half pound

    Cop: [silence continues]

    Me: ok. Let’s make it easier. Let’s say there are 16 ounces in a pound. So how many grams in a half pound [more silence – but now the jury is laughing]

    Me: ok let me help you out a little more here. If a pound has 16 ounces how many ounces are in a half pound [more silence – juror yells out “8”. Jury laughs].

    Me: look if there are 28 grams in an ounce and juror number 3 helped you out by telling you there were 8 ounces in a half pound, how many grams were in what you tell us was a half pound. Now I walk up to the bench and snatch a yellow pad and pencil. “May I, your honor.” Here officer. Here is a pad and pencil. Now write down 28. Remember that’s one gram. Now you learned from juror number 3 that there are 8 oz in a half pound so you simply take 28 and multiply by 8. OK, what’s the number. [very long painful silence]. DA, who is now a judge and was an especially vicious DA, asks for a recess. He comes over to me but trips over his big box of files [now jury is in hysterics].

    By the way, my guy is on trial with his much younger cousin. Cousin is about to go to trial on a dead bang 4+ pound cocaine case. The DA says if they both take a year in county jail he’ll dump the cocaine case.

    1. Re:Law Enforcement Isn't Strong on Math Skills by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

      To make the cop look like a blithering idiot in front of a jury. Quantity matters as far as sentencing. Frankly, if someone is selling small quantities of heroin to adults, I'd hope they'd get the shortest sentence possible or walk free. The cost of jailing someone for a year pays for a lot of treatment for opiate addicts, which is where the money is more effectively spent.

      Many low-level dealers are themselves addicts and essentially victims who'd be better of getting medical treatment instead of being jailed.

    2. Re:Law Enforcement Isn't Strong on Math Skills by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is the point of this? Does it really matter if the guy had a pound or 28 ounces or 16 ounces or 8 ounces? A dose of heroin is probably 10mg. The guy is a drug dealer either way.

      You missed the setup.

      The cop testified - as in, went on record saying, under oath, that there was half a pound of heroin in a cereal box. He said he knew it was half of a pound based on weighing it at the scene when the heroin was confiscated, and did not re-weigh it at the station. That scale weighed exclusively in metric measurements, so the police officer would have needed to be able to convert between measurements quickly in order to make that claim. The defense attorney then asks the police officer to do what he claimed he did at the scene of the crime. The officer, given a pencil and paper (unlikely to have been at his disposal during the arrest) then struggles to accurately perform the sort of arithmetic that is performed by third graders.

      Whether the defendant was dealing or not, the plaintiff is a police officer who either decided to guess at how much heroin was confiscated rather than write down what the scale said, or lied under oath. Either way, the defense attorney managed to make it basically impossible for the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" to be met, so the only reason the guy ended up doing any jail time was based on familial loyalty rather than having been proven guilty.

    3. Re: Law Enforcement Isn't Strong on Math Skills by fafalone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Officers even have a special word for it, 'testilying'. It's not one bad apple, thanks to the harm maximizing war on drugs among others, every department is rotten to the core.

  5. how many of the crimes weren't solved? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An inability to access the phone means nothing if prosecution was successful for other reasons. A more useful statistic would be how many phones do they have that couldn't be opened that were evidence in crimes that have not been successfully prosecuted. But, that is probably far, far beyond their math skills.

  6. Mad skillz by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We screwed up our program that simply counts the number of devices, but you can trust us to make super secure software to access the back doors, it would never have a problem that allowed improper access!"

    After the NSA exploit leaks I don't know how these Constitution-stomping tools don't get laughed out of the room when trying to claim their back door would be good-guys-only.

  7. Re:FBI mostly useless by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I once worked with the FBI's "high tech task force" for several weeks, and...

    Dude, "being questioned by" is not the same as "worked with".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Doesn't matter by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem is not the numbers, it's the narrative itself.
    They are effectively saying that they can't do anything, like say regular investigation jobs, if they don't have encryption to backdoors, which would effectively ease up their work on one end while exponentially raising the potential for other types of crimes like identity theft, blackmail, exploitation, stealing of corporate secrets, hacking, and whatnot.
    The numbers don't matter. The stupidity of breaking encryption for an entire country does.