Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Made Secret Arguments To Break Crypto, Now ACLU Wants To Make Them Public (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Earlier this year, a federal judge in Fresno, California, denied prosecutors' efforts to compel Facebook to help it wiretap Messenger voice calls. But the precise legal arguments that the government made, and that the judge ultimately rejected, are still sealed. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union formally asked the judge to unseal court dockets and related rulings associated with this ongoing case involving alleged MS-13 gang members. ACLU lawyers argue that such a little-charted area of the law must be made public so that tech companies and the public can fully know what's going on.
In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public." The attorneys continued, citing a "strong public interest in knowing which law has been interpreted" and referencing an op-ed published on Ars on October 2 as an example. The ACLU argued that the case is reminiscent of the so-called "FBI v. Apple" legal showdown -- whose docket and related filings were public -- where the government made novel arguments in an attempt to crack the encryption on a seized iPhone. Those legal questions were never resolved, as the government said the day before a scheduled hearing that it had found a company to assist in its efforts. "Moreover, the sealing of the docket sheet in this case impermissibly prevents the public from knowing anything about the actions of both the judiciary and the executive in navigating a novel legal issue, which has the potential to reoccur in the future," the ACLU's attorneys continued.
"The case involves the executive branch's attempt to force a private corporation to break the encryption and other security mechanisms on a product relied upon by the public to have private conversations. The government is not just seeking information held by a third party; rather, it appears to be attempting to get this Court to force a communications platform to redesign its product to thwart efforts to secure communications between users."
In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public." The attorneys continued, citing a "strong public interest in knowing which law has been interpreted" and referencing an op-ed published on Ars on October 2 as an example. The ACLU argued that the case is reminiscent of the so-called "FBI v. Apple" legal showdown -- whose docket and related filings were public -- where the government made novel arguments in an attempt to crack the encryption on a seized iPhone. Those legal questions were never resolved, as the government said the day before a scheduled hearing that it had found a company to assist in its efforts. "Moreover, the sealing of the docket sheet in this case impermissibly prevents the public from knowing anything about the actions of both the judiciary and the executive in navigating a novel legal issue, which has the potential to reoccur in the future," the ACLU's attorneys continued.
"The case involves the executive branch's attempt to force a private corporation to break the encryption and other security mechanisms on a product relied upon by the public to have private conversations. The government is not just seeking information held by a third party; rather, it appears to be attempting to get this Court to force a communications platform to redesign its product to thwart efforts to secure communications between users."
In what world is this remotely a good idea? All citizens should see red flags when their government tries this sort of thing.
A clear indication that they do not value the very fabric that underpins society which they're charged to serve.
This is the kind of activity that makes you realize they'll exploit and bend any circumstance that fits their scheme.
It would be best to assume all electronic / digital communication channels to be compromised already and adjust your means of communication accordingly if you need to discuss anything sensitive.
They will never quit until they get their way. Legally or in secret.
Are your arguments do harebrained and idiotic that you're afraid you get laughed out the court when the judge gets to hear what a sane person has to say about them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is Obama's DOJ. So before you start screaming about Trump, you should think about that. There really is no difference, except Obama is slick, and Trump is crude. The end result is the same policy. Under Hillary the result would have been the same as well.
You CAN'T ask a government to "solve your problems" and unless you want that government to suppress you.
That's precisely the role of government, though: solve your problems. There are many problems that are impracticable or inefficient for individuals to solve, so government steps in. The government is also expected to solve these problems in ways that benefit the whole. In some cases those solutions may be suboptimal for some individuals, but those individuals still benefit indirectly as society as a whole benefits. The issues arise when government abdicates its duty to the whole and enacts solutions that benefit an individual(s). That's where you get oppression, suppression, cronyism, corruption, despotism, autocratism, and good ol' fashioned modern American politics.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The directors of the ACLU need to be locked up. They are trators to america who put rights of violent foriners above safety and security of the real americans.
Yes of course, because we all know those in government would never abuse their surveillance powers to spy on political opponents, congresscritters, and journalists.
Oh, wait....
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Kill yourself you fascist retard
And all'ya'll wonder why sane folks won't give up their guns.
The person quoted would happily roll their fellow countrymen into mass graves or send them to the gulag because they think differently than him.