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."

Comments

disgusting abuse of authority

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:disgusting abuse of authority

[jellomizer]

You think that. But everyone is afraid of the "Other" and are willing to give up their liberties to make sure this "Other" cannot hurt them.
However if I am the "Other" and I wanted to do something really bad anyways. I wouldn't trust normal communication infrastructure to be secure anyways. If I were to use it, I would encrypt on top of it with my own encryption algorithm. So it really makes the effort in spying just an expensive waste of money. But people feel good when some low level stupid criminals get arrested.

Re: disgusting abuse of authority

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a practical certainty of loss of freedom and/or privacy vs a statistically very, very small chance of me and mine being harmed in a terrorist act?

I'll take that bet.

What happens when we surrender these rights and expectations? Do we not inch toward becoming more like the 'other'?

30 Years later Johnny Law still hates freedom

[Zero__Kelvin]

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.

Re:Why do you think that's limited to just encrypt

[Nidi62]

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.