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.
And we totally promise we won't hold back or redact anything. Promise. Really. Pinky swear. You can trust us; we're from the government.
Those who would give up essential Safety, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Safety nor Liberty
Fenjamin Branklin
That way all the legal wrangling in the world means nada, and you can just tell the government to go piss up a rope.
This kind of nonsense has been going on since Diffie and Helman found a way to secure our freedom to communicate in private electronically and be Phil Zimmerman gave us Pretty Good Privacy. They will never stop being blatant criminals posing as good guys, as they hope in perpetuity that we will someday be willing to sacrifice freedom for the mere illusion of security. Congress should pass a law making any such attempt a felony, lest they someday succeed.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
Let's not dumb ourselves down to the level of Engadget, Ars, etc
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.
The gov't brought irrefutable evidence to the judge that the good of the public, its safety and national security would be irreparably harmed if Facebook Messenger were day lighted, exposing MS-13 and all existing surveillance lost on a very dangerous gang.
It would send MS-13 underground where the USgov't would need to start all surveillance over again.
Look at civil forfeiture, too.
This is what governments do.
Why do people act surprised that, given power, governments use that power against their own population?
You CAN'T ask a government to "solve your problems" and unless you want that government to suppress you.
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
I like the ACLU but when I gave them money I got so much junk mail from them asking for more it pissed me off. I still get mail from them ten years later. All my donation has been spent sending me junk mail.
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.
OH FUCK NO! Crypto is a prefix, but if it has to be a short form for something it should be for cryptography and not cryptocurrency. The buttcoin bros can get fucked.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The lie that you can't have freedom and safety is older than America.
Look at civil forfeiture, too.
Yeah, look at it!
I think it's been clear to a majority of us that it's absolutely an illegal abuse of power. Unfortunately, it takes time for things to work their way through the courts. Looks like civil forfeiture is going to get significantly neutered in the very near future. That's going to result in a lot of clawback from police departments, I'd be guessing. Going to keep the lawyers busy for years.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
This one thousand times! It's the new boogie man. It's the "other" that has been used in political fear tactics for centuries. What get's me is the myriad of people who fail to use critical thinking and realize that this whole MS-13 that is played up in a certain segment of the media is a total scare tatctic that makes it sounds as if the people are under siege and so they are more willing to give up their freedoms.
That's bullshit. Consider the problems of how to get a car across a river, or a letter across the country. In both cases government solves this problem just fine. Without government people with money would run roughshod over everyone else with no checks and balances. Our government is not perfect, but I sure in hell wouldn't want to do without it completely.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think we all know that the majority of voters would likely side with the DOJ on this one, and honestly I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate. Perfect or near-perfect encryption is a nightmare for law enforcement, rendering warrants all but meaningless unless they can grab the phone's owner while the device is in a state that it can be read. At the same time, even if I were to believe completely in the benign nature of the state, a backdoor used by good guys is potentially a back door that can be used by bad guys. Encryption that is designed to be broken is a pretty scary thing.
And yes, the hype over MS-13 is absurd. The Mafia has been doing horrifying things to each other and other people for a century, and in a lot more organized and insidious fashion than this band of gang bangers. The entire "MS-13 IS THE WORST" is a creation of Fox News in its campaign to denigrate illegal immigrants from Latin America. Christ, I find the One Percenters to be a lot more frightening than any MS-13 member, but the narrative of middle-aged white guys on hogs running drugs, extortion rackets, prostitution rings and the like isn't as sexy these days.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
So how did the government precisely solve my problems by invading Iraq? The decision was taken by the smartest people, the best the US government could produce. They did endless studies and conferences.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The issues arise when government abdicates its duty to the whole
The issue is that people allow/encourage it to happen, because they too see a potential personal benefit for themselves. The government is a reflection. The power to change it is ours alone. There is no one else to blame for the chronic problems we create and sustain.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So how did the government precisely solve my problems by invading Iraq?
I believe Iraq falls under the sections of "cronyism", "corruption", and "good ol' fashioned modern American politics". Iraq was about oil, defense contracts, and Bush wanting to finish what his dad started in 91.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Oh no, it wasn't a Republican thing. Not at all. Here's Madeline Albright falsely claiming Saddam had WMD and calling for invasion in 1998. Under Democrat Bill Clinton.
PNAC urges war in 1996
"That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
So don't go trying to blame this on Republicans. It certainly has nothing to do with good ol' fashioned modern American politics because Americans want nothing to do with foreign affairs. Our lives are falling apart and we badly need attention to our own affairs. Literally nobody except the oh-so-wise US government was in favor of invading Iraq. Any process that produces such an obviously invalid result is suspect in all of its other choices, as well.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It certainly has nothing to do with good ol' fashioned modern American politics because Americans want nothing to do with foreign affairs.
That's the thing about good ol' fashioned modern American politics. It doesn't care about what Americans want. It only cares about what the political and financial elite want. Americans don't matter in American politics anymore except as a means to get either yourself or your puppet elected/reelected
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If your LAW COURTS operate in secret you do not have a free society. Sorry to burst your freedumb bubble chaps..
You ARE in East Germany.
A little known fact is that some communist regimes in East Europe started to offer fake choices between two candidates. Yes, you had the choice! Vote for the commie. Or the other commie.
And whether you like it or not, you have exactly the same choice in the US. Vote for the corporate whore. Or the other corporate whore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nonsense. Just tell the politician, *If you want my vote, pay me*. We can be much more expensive than any lobbyist.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They need our vote no matter how much they spend on the campaign. Without it they cannot occupy the office despite the billions spent by their financiers. Make 'em pay us like they pay the lobbyist. For us the effort is trivial. But, if you like things the way they are, knock yourself out. Use your power, or don't. Just don't blame the "system", or the damn "Russians". You all did this to yourselves, in the effort to do it to each other.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”