Police Are Seeking More Digital Evidence From Tech Companies (bloomberg.com)

U.S. law enforcement agencies are increasingly asking technology companies for access to digital evidence on mobile phones and apps, with about 80 percent of the requests granted, a new study found. From a report: The report released Wednesday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found local, state and federal law enforcement made more than 130,000 requests last year for digital evidence from six top technology companies -- Alphabet's Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Verizon' media unit Oath and Apple. If results from telecom and cable providers Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are added in, the number jumps to more than 660,000. The requests covered everything from the content of communications to location data and names of particular users. "The number of law enforcement requests, at least as directed at the major U.S.-based tech and telecom companies, has significantly increased over time," the Washington-based think tank found. "Yet, the response rates have been remarkably consistent."

Comments

Policework

[DickBreath]

How did police work ever get done before the digital age?


Police work is easy in a police state.

Re:Policework

[Actually, I do RTFA]

How did police work ever get done before the digital age?

Before the digital age they could get wiretaps (hello encrypted messaging/calling), warrants for papers like bookie ledgers (hello digital encrypted files), or find boxes of copied/burned music/movies.

While the "solution" of backdoors to encryption is a non-started, it's wrong to claim there is no problem.

Re:Policework

[WolfgangVL]

No sympathy.

Wiat, whats the problem? 80% of requests are granted....

Re:Policework

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't think anyone is claiming encryption is not a problem.

But it's not more of a problem than it was before.

Encryption has been around for just about as long as recorded history. And criminals have used it for just as long.

Before the digital age they could get wiretaps (hello encrypted messaging/calling), warrants for papers like bookie ledgers (hello digital encrypted files), or find boxes of copied/burned music/movies.

And they still can. But they couldn't generally break encryption then, either.

In any case, let's keep in mind that a Federal appeals court has declared that police need a warrant to get your phone location information. Unless that is appealed to the Supreme Court, that is current law.

Which isn't perfect, maybe, but it's a bit of relief. And it represents a serious weakening of the Third Party Doctrine. So now is probably the time to kill it altogether.

Re:Policework

[drinkypoo]

Encryption has been around for just about as long as recorded history. And criminals have used it for just as long.

Before turnkey encryption, they usually got it wrong, and a smarter person could defeat it. Now any bozo can download crypto the government can't crack. That's still not a reason to give up privacy. It's a reason to build a better society which doesn't create criminals.

Re:Policework

[AHuxley]

People did not move around as much as they had to have jobs. Move into an area and the city police would know if that new person was a criminal.
That worked until the 1960's. The police solution rates for crime all other the USA was great.
The 1960's saw the rise of drug culture and the need to ensure police did not investigate.
That saw a massive amount of new and very different crime over the decades.
The FBI also started to really create lists of interesting ways to track crime. That almost became predictive in a small wealthy community.
Find the person who does to fit and who is planning for a bank robbery. Reports of parking near a bank and watching for hours.
Entering a bank not as part of a local community as a stranger to that community.
Police and FBI could quickly move in on such patterns and movements of money at set days to a bank.
Crime was easy to work on when no issues of police corruption had to be considered. The community in great towns and cities would report as they saw things too.

Re: Policework

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If you have committed murder why on earth do you deserve privacy?

Well, for one, we allow criminals to have some, but not all, rights that people have. For instance, the right to medical autonomy, etc.

But more importantly, if you're accused of murder, you haven't necessarily committed murder. We allow some violations of your rights in the accused state (warrants, pretrial detention) because they are necessary. But they also certainly are violations.

Firstly we need to reduce the consequences of minor offending in a digital age where all evidence can be stored permanently... Secondly drug offending needs to become a medical issue

These are probably good policies. However, the purpose of constitutional rights isn't to enforce good policies, it's to prevent dictators (who will knowingly use bad policies)

ailure to provide access to an encrypted system needs to be a reverse onus situation where failure to provide evidence against yourself is deemed an admission of guilt.

Why stop there? Why not say their refusal to confess is an admission of guilt?

Re:Policework

[AutodidactLabrat]

In any case, let's keep in mind that a Federal appeals court has declared that police need a warrant to get your phone location information. Unless that is appealed to the Supreme Court, that is current law

No. It's only law in the jurisdiction of that one court

Need of an audit trail

[Alain Williams]

Every request should have to be approved by a judge. The papers presented by the police should be kept by the courts and made public after a defined time. This would keep the police honest, stop abuse of the system. This will not be perfect, corrupt individuals in tech companies will always be willing to help, either for a fee or some other favour from the police.

How long: 5 years maybe. In long running cases it would be open for the police to petition the court to have them kept secret for another 5 years - 3 judges would be needed to make the order for extension of time.

Re:Need of an audit trail

[swillden]

Every request should have to be approved by a judge.

This is how it used to work. Interception warrants were required before the anti-terrorism acts were passed in the 2000s.

You mean before 1978.

However, FISA requests are only a miniscule fraction of the numbers the article talks about, so the vast majority of these requests must be traditional warrants and subpoenas.