FBI Has Sights On Larger Battle Over Encryption After Apple Feud (bloomberg.com) 171
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Bloomberg: FBI Director James Comey said the FBI is exploring how to make broader use of the hack, used to access a San Bernardino terrorist's encrypted iPhone, while bracing for a larger battle involving encrypted text messages, e-mails and other data. The tool could "in theory be used in any case where there's a court order" to access data on an iPhone 5c running Apple's iOS 9 OS, Comey told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. However, accessing content on a phone, known as "data at rest," is only part of the challenge that encryption poses for U.S. investigators. Software applications and other services that encrypts texts, e-mails and other information in transit over the Internet, known as "data in motion," are "hugely significant," especially for national security investigations, Comey said. He said criminals are increasingly using services that encrypt data in motion, and he didn't rule out litigation against companies such as WhatsApp. "WhatsApp has over a billion customers, overwhelmingly good people," Comey said. "But in that billion customers are terrorists and criminals, and so that now ubiquitous feature of all WhatsApp products will affect both sides of the house." As for whether or not there will be litigation against WhatsApp down the road, Comey says, "I don't know." The FBI is trying to figure out how to allow "law enforcement around the country with court orders to be able to use our tool," Comey said. It's "tricky," he said, because using the tool to help state and local criminal investigations could mean that it would have to be revealed in a court preceding if there isn't a procedure in place to prohibit testimony about how it works.
They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Law of unintended consequences... (Score:3, Informative)
It is understandable the FBI wants to not have to deal with encryption. It is their sworn duty to uphold the law, and to them, encryption is something a crook can use to keep them from answering for their crimes.
However, the problem is that it creates a blowback effect. Before Biden and Lieberman introduced laws to ban encryption completely, nobody gave a rat's ass about it. What encryption there was was absolute shit and at best, just homegrown (lets seed and use rand.c and XOR that.) Want FDE? Stacke
Re:They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even a worse slippery slope. Not only do they want to be able to crack open all encryption, but they want to black box the process so they don't have to reveal how they obtained the information in open court.
"Well, you're honor, we have the Anti-encrypto-tron 5000, whose inner workings we can't reveal, because, you know, terrorists and pedophiles! But rest assured, we didn't just invent this incriminating evidence. You can trust us totally."
Re:They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
nice justice system you got there.
I wonder, can we go back to using ducks and scales? at least there, you have some transparency.
Re: (Score:1)
nice justice system you got there.
Best one money can buy!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Actually TOP SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL.
The Anti-encrypto-tron 5000
[Graphic REDACTED]
The Anti-encrypto-tron 5000 works by having an unlimited number of monkeys type away on an unlimited number of keyboards connected to the device with the encrypted data. Though the [SUPER S
Re:They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Informative)
I really hope that Americans aren't quite as dumb as I perceive and can see things for the way they are.
There's a large majority that are completely pissed off at the current (police) state of affairs.
However, the security state and corporatocracy have chipped away again and again, year after year at the power of the people and it's not clear there's any real power left.
Re:They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
the security state and corporatocracy have chipped away again and again, year after year at the power of the people and it's not clear there's any real power left.
The People, can have their power back at any point in time.
It just requires a larger sacrifice the longer it takes.
Last time, we had to sacrifice our humanity and decapitate other human beings.
Let's hope next time the new start can be achieved in a more civilized manner.
Re: (Score:1)
there is no slippery slope, there is just a deep shaft straight down to Stasi land
Re: (Score:1)
Call me crazy, but I think John McAfee should be the Vice President. [youtube.com]
He actually knows what's up with this encroachment on our privacy and the necessity for strong encryption not to have backdoors. I'll vote for McAfee over Hillary, write him in if I have to.
Re:They deny there's a slippery slope... (Score:5, Interesting)
Slipperly slope nothing, they're leaping off the cliff. Their latest argument is that part time traffic court judges in bumfuck Nebraska should be allowed to authorize hacks to literally any/every computer everywhere. [vice.com]
Perhaps, I don't know, the FBI's job is SUPPOSED to be hard. Whenever they use that as an excuse to shit over everyone's rights I get more than a little wary.
Re:Here's the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Before WhatsApp and the iPhone, there weren't any real obstacles. Given time and equipment, any physical safe can be opened.
It *can* be, but it won't be. John DOE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. 487 U.S. 201 (108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 L.Ed.2d 184).
"A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed."
The police did not subsequently obtain a warrant to break open the safe, because they could not produce probable cause that the safe contained the bank records which the police were seeking.
So no: there is no difference between encryption and a combination lock.
What's interesting, however, is that there is, likewise, no difference between a lockbox key and a fingerprint to unlock a phone. So if you are stupid enough to use a fingerprint lock, they can compel you to put your finger on the sensor.
The only difference here is that an iPhone is treated differently than a safe, because the iPhone isn't (yet) as secure as a safe, and the iPhone isn't (yet) treated as a container for data, rather than personal property. Obviously, the first time someone is smart enough to raise that precedent in an evidentiary hearing and get an iPhone hack in as an illegal search, things will go to hell for the police, and then for the FBI.
So for right now, I think they will use it only where they've used it so far: where the perp doesn't own the device, and the actual owner gives permission.
Of course, this means that, for most of the U.S., which buys their iPhone over time as part of agreeing to a service contract, until they go off contract, it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone, not the person in whose possession it happens to currently reside.
That should make a nice court case, as well: when the police go to the telephone company and obtain permission. Expect if e.g. AT&T actually grants permission, that the week following, there's going to be a LOT of new T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint customers.
I don't think that WhatsApp really understands what this means.
I think they do. I think they have a pretty damned good idea, in fact, having talked to a number of executive officers of the company personally about the issue.
Is this really what we want - for evidence of crimes to be unobtainable?
No.
In the "think of the children" argument you are making, this is what we want:
We want the police to arrest the child pornographers at the point of the creation of the pornography, prior to its distribution, and prior to the further abuse of the children in question. If they can't do that, then what good are they to anyone?
Great, you break into an iPhone, and find someone has a picture on it that was illegally created, and is illegal to posses. Big deal. For every copy you find, there are dozens or hundreds still out there. You haven't prevented the social harm by breaking into Guido The Child Perv's iPhone. You haven't even ameliorated it a bit, if Guido is a "leaf node" (i.e. he doesn't distribute the material himself).
Marching in after a crime has been committed and figuratively beating the crap out of the perpetrator, while the victim is still lying in a pool of blood is not a useful operation. It clearly does not prevent future victims, particularly for things like murder, where the penalty takes so freaking long to enact that someone can start by getting their GED and have multiple PhDs before they ever
Re:Here's the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
> it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone
I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:
1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights.
2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.
So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the phone company owning a users "financed" phone: The last
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. In fact, the San Bernadino and New York City FBI lawsuits against Apple along with the voluminous other backlogged cases speak loudly against your position. The recent FBI threats against Apple and WhatsApp along with the Burr-Feinstein
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Apple was not "the phone company." They are a manufacturer. Maybe you are ignorant of what a "phone company" is. Let me help you: https://www.google.com/#q=phon... [google.com] Do you see Apple on that page?
You origi
Re: (Score:1)
Posting to undo hamfisted mod...
Re: (Score:2)
> We want the police to arrest the child pornographers at the point of the creation of the pornography, prior to its distribution, and prior to the further abuse of the children in question. If they can't do that, then what good are they to anyone?
If they take that image with an iPhone then they can't ever obtain it prior to distribution.
Which is to say that you are arguing that there is no need for police.
Incorrect. They should battering-RAM down the door while the pornographer is there, with the naked child.
That's enough to throw them in prison for a very, very long time. If you are in a reasonable jurisdiction, they will throw them in prison for life, or until the other inmates find out what they are in for, if they happen to be in general population. Whichever comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
> Policework seems to be going down the same rathole that investigative journalism went down,
Police are just following where society has gone - online and into electronic communications. When two people in a night club conspire to assault the person sitting between them using WhatsApp, where do police turn to show that it was a premeditated crime and more serious than something random if phones cannot be broken into?
They get perp A to flip on perp B for some concession in sentencing. The police and prosecution have always done this with criminal conspiracies, and it is very rare that at least one person involved in the conspiracy does not flip.
In other words: good old fashioned police work.
> ... where the penalty takes so freaking long to enact ...
That's a completely separate problem but if relevant evidence that would speed things up is on a modern iPhone then it is no longer reachable.
In things like your first degree murder example, I mean enacting the death penalty quickly.
While some wrongly convicted (definitionally NOT innocent, as they were convicted) people may die as a result, the purpose of the penal syste
Re: (Score:2)
In things like your first degree murder example, I mean enacting the death penalty quickly.
While some wrongly convicted (definitionally NOT innocent, as they were convicted) people may die as a result, the purpose of the penal system is not to serve some epistemological Platonic ideal of "justice", nor is it to enact "vengeance", as some would argue (thus allowing victims families to testify prior to sentencing), it's to act as a deterrent to rule breakers *other* than the person being held up as an example of what society does to people who break the rules.
Logically, their guilt kind of doesn't matter all that much. So rapidity serves the public good, more than accuracy.
Actually, I saw that very thing happen this year in a DUI accident case (in the Baltimore County Circuit Court) - the judge asked the victims to speak prior to sentencing the defendant.
Maybe I'll put it like this: how do you envisage police obtaining evidence when a phone such as the iPhone (with WhatsApp) is used for all communication around planning a crime and executing it?
By demonstrating probable cause that the iPhone contains the evidence they seek.
And then getting a warrant and serving it on Apple to obtain access to the iPhone's contents from the iCloud backup, after not being fucking morons and causing the iCloud password to be changed.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
(definitionally NOT innocent, as they were convicted)
Innocent means you didn't do it. This is a matter of objective fact.
Convicted means that a court has concluded "beyond reasonable doubt" that you did it, which is a matter of judgement.
These two labels are not contradictory. It is entirely possible to be both innocent and convicted, i.e. you didn't actually do it but a court wrongly concluded that you did.
Re: (Score:3)
Very sad I cannot mod this up. (Score:2)
Very Very sad I cannot mod this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In so far as WhatsApp is concerned, there's nothing stopping WhatsApp from changing the app so that both needs are served.
Except that no one has ever found a way to create a backdoor that only law enforcement can use. An encryption backdoor can't distinguish between "good guys" and "bad guys."
The challenge for services using encryption is to ensure that only the parties that have a right to know what is being sent are aware of it and nobody else. That includes keeping out hackers *AND* the CIA/DHS/NSA (that don't have any rights to that material) as well as allowing the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized.
Same problem... a backdoor built for the "the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized" can be abused by the NSA or by FBI when not authorized. If you poke a hole in a wall, the hole doesn't know or care who looks through it.
I don't know why it stops here (Score:5, Funny)
I can walk down the street with a friend and have a conversation that is not recorded, is never discoverable in the future. Although millions of us are honest people, terrorists could have these types of conversations as well. I just don't know how we can let that happen. It seems that the government should require us to record conversations so that if there is a warrant in the future we can get that data. Why it is just unfathomable that there could be information that the government cannot discover! How could we have let this happen for so long?! It's just SO GREAT that the FBI is trying to protect us...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly a fair comparison as recording the two of you takes a good bit more work, either someone near by auto-recording everything, or that PI or PD following you with a parabolic dish is being compared to ones where copying the contents of a conversation is trivial.
I've a 24/7 recording camera in my home which does both audio & video... and I turn it off from time to time when
Re:I don't know why it stops here (Score:5, Funny)
I've a 24/7 recording camera in my home which does both audio & video... and I turn it off from time to time when I'm going to have a conversation which I want to reduce the possibility of someone ever being able to overhear.
I know.
The Chinese company that sells me access to the web site that lets me remotely monitor your (or anyone else's) camera and microphone for $9.95 a month pops up a dialog when you do that, and I have to click "Reenable" instead of "Ignore" on the little dialog box.
Luckily, I've written an Automator script to click the button for me, in case I'm away from home when you go into that mode, since I still want to record everything you say or do "just in case".
Re:I don't know why it stops here (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely it would make more sense to start recording when he presses the privacy button. The "temporarily disable recording" function is just a way to get victims to mark out interesting conversations for you, instead of having to waste your own time listening to irrelevant stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Hunt: America, override privacy mode.
Beka: Hold on. You can just override privacy mode just like that?
Captain Hunt: Yeah. America's at war. We can't afford secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
What privacy button? Perhaps I should have been more clear: when I turn it off... I yank the power cord.
Re: (Score:2)
Already being worked on. You think your phone is locked or off? Bad news, it can still listen to you and encoding and storing audio-data does not take a lot of power. Of course, at some point, anybody without a mobile phone or carrying one that cannot do this, will automatically be regarded as a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't "OK Google" automatically pick up the request while the screen is turned off (and charging?)?
The 17 people using Windows Phone have hands free "Hey Cortana."
In our homes we have always listening "Xbox, watch CNN" and "Alexa, add dish soap to my shopping list.
It is said that the 'wake word' is baked deep into these systems so they aren't 'really' listening & transcribing everything, but as you say, it's coming.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory this wake-on-voice feature uses a low power DSP that only recognizes one phrase ("OK Google" or "Hay Cortana"), and never sends the audio samples out over the network. Sending it out would kill the battery.
It could be abused by re-training it to use a different phrase ("allahu akbar") and then send the next 60 seconds of audio. Such an attack would be much more effective than simply recording all the time, because it would have much less impact on battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
My Droid Turbo had a feature that let me say an activation phrase and then perform tasks. I had it active for a short time but turned it off because it would hear anything as the activation phrase. We'd be talking about a random topic and suddenly my phone would beep to indicate that it Googled what we were talking about. So, yes, these features can be constantly listening and it wouldn't take much to turn them from "Ok, Google [now perform search]" to always sending recordings of you to some server some
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It has. In particular, it does not help at all here. Because it is, you know, an electro-static bag. That does not do anything for RF, which is electro-magnetic and not static at all. And recording voice does not even need an RF connection. I give you a "TRIPLE-FAIL!" and award you one virtual Popsicle. (The 3rd fail is that you apparently did not even try this. My phone is so unimpressed that it does not even drop a reception-bar.)
The only reliable way to do this (besides carrying a tin can or the like as
Re: (Score:2)
I can walk down the street with a friend and have a conversation that is not recorded, is never discoverable in the future. Although millions of us are honest people, terrorists could have these types of conversations as well. I just don't know how we can let that happen. It seems that the government should require us to record conversations so that if there is a warrant in the future we can get that data. Why it is just unfathomable that there could be information that the government cannot discover! How could we have let this happen for so long?! It's just SO GREAT that the FBI is trying to protect us...
Even this is a slippery slope. When all conversations are recorded then the terrorists will simply move to sign language. In this end we must also break everyones fingers to keep freedom safe or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure let them have WhatsApp (Score:1)
Who cares? Are they going to make illegal to use something else?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, they will go for requiring backdoors into everything. It is no surprise that ever since Hoover was in charge, the FBI loves backdooring anything and anyone they can.
Beyond reasonable doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
If the prosecution's case relies on evidence gathered by secret means then the data cannot be verified and it does not meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
"We have evidence that proves his guilt but we can't tell you about it" -- then you don't have evidence.
Re:Beyond reasonable doubt (Score:5, Informative)
That's why they use the illegally obtained evidence to make up a different story [wikipedia.org]. They even helpfully tell local police departments [scmagazine.com] to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they use the illegally obtained evidence to make up a different story [wikipedia.org]. They even helpfully tell local police departments [scmagazine.com] to do it.
Yes, that happens. Note that in this case, though, we aren't talking about illegally-obtained evidence, we're talking about legally-obtained evidence that can't stand up in court. So they don't need careful parallel construction to avoid "fruit of the poisoned tree" issues. If asked what put them on the track of the evidence that can be used in court, they can happily point to the decrypted data.
Where this creates real risks is if they claim to have gotten a lead from decrypted data in order to start a pa
two words (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A rubber-stamp procedure where one government employee pretends to be an advocate for the government's target while another one pretends to be a neutral magistrate, and a third pretends to be a legitimate officer of the court asking for a legal warrant, is not a court of law at all, and everyone participating in such a farce is complicit in a conspiracy to deny civil rights under color of authority.
Quoted for truth...
This is no different than the "special NAZI courts" that Hitler setup in the 1930s when the open courts weren't ruling "his way".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
---
The Special Courts came into being in 1933, soon after the passage of the Reichstag Fire Decree which all but eliminated civil liberties. The scope of its power was successively augmented by the
"Decree to Protect the Government of the National Socialist Revolution from Treacherous Attacks" (21 March 1933),
the "Law of 20 December 1934 against insidious Attacks upon the State and Party and for the Protection of the Party Uniform",
the "Law for the Guarantee of Peace Based on Law" of 13 October 1933
and a number of extensions when World War II commenced.
The number of Special Courts increased from 26 in 1933 to 74 in 1942.
A special court had three judges, and the defense counsel was appointed by the court. Even as heavy-handed as justice was in Nazi Germany, defendants were afforded at least nominal protections under the regular courts' rules and procedures. These protections were swept away in the special courts, since they existed outside the ordinary judicial system. There was no possibility of appeal, and verdicts could be executed at once. The court decided the extent of evidence to consider, and "the defense attorneys couldn't question the proof of the charges".
Re: (Score:2)
The Special Courts came into being in 1933, soon after the passage of the Reichstag Fire Decree which all but eliminated civil liberties.
It would be interesting to compare the intent of the wording of this with modern "Anti-Terorism" Acts that achieve this very same thing. For example:
Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications.
All of these things have been
Re: two words (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
then you don't have evidence.
They don't need no steenking evidence [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not so! First, you make this type of data "evidence" by law. Just use enough terrorists and child molesters, and that should be a breeze. And next, you just start making up evidence completely, thereby saving a ton of money and being able to put a lot more people in prison!
Re: (Score:2)
"We have evidence that proves his guilt but we can't tell you about it" -- then you don't have evidence.
Except in practice that's not what happens. What actually happens is thus. First, the evidence acquired by secret means remains secret or at least the source of it remains secret. Second, the evidence gathered from the first or secret source is used to launch a separate investigation that while arguably serendipitous none the less explains how the authorities became aware of and monitored the alleged criminal activity in ways that are both legal and allow for plausible deniability of any secret alternative
Clearly... (Score:2)
re: Clearly... (Score:1)
if you ever develop any mechanism that allows end users to encrypt data in ways that nobody other than the intended recipient can decrypt, [...] then law enforcement will want to come after you.
Doesn't even have to be popular. [project-retrograde.com]
~W8sJZuq7 boCJv0Mcr Q4npxqWWb SPWEjkPie
csURjLyyc HKtz3QEDq 8oP6j0HrQ u6JyC4b_g
z2Jzf7Kav 3.tilpIRF FAQ_y0dSo ryS4xPmIU
u5gZ3kH2h ekOx5vnJl 71Xfatwso qEXFPG05U
nRSbAZRBA g37p8l7MN NIeE2_XCv 9nokyg_ND
fSMYPfWDr 3LVcUq916 osfEWSsXV DgHRgYS8u
atUHjkrwN 2I3ozXKH3 4fvV1vdq1 TIng05Fm.
bV8rXOR2S yiYSqUl8H _a1ELHDb9 fHGMadoW2
tf7jnCUC6 TqnOHzFDH 00
Secret Key: hunter2
Re: (Score:2)
we can learn a lesson from WhatsApp [...] discourage it from ever becoming too popular
That's the lesson you've learned? Oi vey, I don't know if there's any hope for this Facebook generation. Here's a tip: don't centralize stuff you think is important. You send every message, encrypted or not, through a central hub of a private, for-profit, American company, and are surprised someone can just flick a switch and make it all go away? Look up XMPP and PGP. Tell your friends. Then, please apply this same criticism to every cloud service you use, social media account you have, and walled garden y
Secret investigations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Secret investigations are often necessary for a time to allow law enforcement investigations to proceed.
Right up until the moment when you take someone to court. If you don't disclose how evidence was obtained, then there is nothing to prevent en masse violation of the Constitution--no matter how good your intentions or how bad the people you are going after.
Comey needs to resign (Score:5, Interesting)
FBI Director James Comey needs to resign because he's made it very clear he does not have the American public's best interests in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
FBI Director James Comey needs to resign because he's made it very clear he does not have the American public's best interests in mind.
Not to mention his ignorance regarding fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention his ignorance regarding fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
agreed.
and btw, thanks for saying 'tenets' and not 'tenents'. the constitution has been rented out enough and its a bit tired from all the abuse. it needs some alone-time and maybe some ice cream.
Impeach him (Score:2)
Congress has the right to impeach any federal employee. Write to your congressman and ask for a vote on the matter.
Syed Rizwan Farook and the GoPro cameras (Score:1)
San Bernardino Jihadis Strapped GoPros to Their Body Armor [pamelageller.com]
Secret decryption tools are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
They're bad because any old file can be presented as coming from the encrypted device. It would be very easy for the fuzz to "plant evidence", so to speak. As in:
"Did you find this photo of the defendant wielding an ISIS flag on the defendant's phone Officer?"
"Yes your honor."
"How did you recover it?"
"I can't say your honor."
Good luck proving the phone only had lolcats on it.
The FBI director openly discussing how to subvert the justice system is yet another sign that the US is now a fully fledged totalitarian state.
Call the bluff (Score:2)
I think the claim, like many others, is a lie.
How many terrorists even use a timer on bombs let alone more advanced technology? They are just being used as an excuse to lie and push an agenda.
Time for WhatsApp to move off shore (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that it doesn't want to be subject to US harassment, it should find another country to be based in - and in which to pay
TAXES
it's only when the government is hit in its finances will it stop drifting towards a police state.
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
"WhatsApp has over a billion customers, overwhelmingly good people,"
And they live in 194 countries, 193 of them not giving a shit what the FBI wants.
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA/NSA will take care of those 193.
Re: (Score:1)
> Correction: 189 of them not giving a shit what the FBI wants.
You're thinking: USA, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ (5 eyes.)
What you're misunderstanding is that what the FBI wants is representative of what governments want.
Brazil has the same concern (re WhatsApp being blocked.) WhatsApp being allowed by appeal is temporary.
How do you think China will view this?
What about Burma? Myanamar? Singapore? Indonesia?
And so on.
Maybe a better question is this: which governments (and their law enforcement agencies) do
I told you (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what Apple was saying would happen if they released the patch. This hack is now to be used for all other phones that have some information, which have no bearing to the original case. This is exactly the slippery slope we where warning about would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
- would be Apple's to invent themselves, and keep it themselves. Not to give tool to gov agency- they only wanted the opened phone.
Where is that stated? Are you telling me that the FBI would have to give Apple the phone, which is part of evidence, and just let them handle it inhouse at their will at Apple with no government agent involved to supervise?
- that Apple themselves should be responsible for tool once it was created, again the agency felt it is Apple's business IP so not agency's to keep.
They don't need to own it, it is enough just have access to it to misuse it.
- Apple said that once a tool was invented (as you reference), it would leak into the wild. (See point above for Apple's own responsibilities and realize the insanity of their scolding other's for their own possible future leak).
Yes because at some point an agent has access to this tool and could duplicate it or take it with him and at that point it could be leaked into the wild. But even if it was only Apple employees, they are just huma
Such logic (Score:3)
Translation (Score:3)
FTA:
"WhatsApp has over a billion customers, overwhelmingly good people," Comey said. "But in that billion customers are terrorists and criminals, and so that now ubiquitous feature of all WhatsApp products will affect both sides of the house."
Translation:
"The United States has over 300 million people, overwhelmingly good people," Comey said. "But in that 300 million people are terrorists and criminals, and so that now-under-siege document called The Constitution will be further undermined by law enforcement agencies."
Demonization of Cryptography (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the interesting aspects of the Assault on Freedom being conducted by governments the world over is the incredibly selective, distorting arguments that they make. In this case, one of the FBI's central themes has been that "terrorists, criminals and paedophiles" use encryption to hide behind. The inference is that "general purpose encryption" is being used "to do or hide bad things".
Even assuming that this argument were true, or had been substantiated by the claimant [neither in this case] it seems to be somewhat self-defeating.
If we apply the same logic to, say, the right to private ownership of firearms [and, sorry for all those who wish to retain their Second Amendment rights, because I truly don't mean to come across as a troll] provides a very similar argument and case. The United States has some of the highest personal firearm ownership levels anywhere in the world, and some of the highest levels of firearms related murders and woundings. So if the FBI were to stand up and say, "Well, because so many people with firearms use them for criminal purposes, we'll just outlaw all personal firearm ownership..." Whether or not you consider that argument right or wrong is irrelevant in this case, because I am using it as a good example of the way that law enforcement are so selective when it comes to their arguments.
We have also seen how acts of states that are conducted behind closed doors and without full public scrutiny (Wikileaks, Snowden, Panama Papers, etc) lead to corruption and vast amounts of white-collar crime. So if we apply the same logic that the FBI are using to attack encryption - and in attempting to stamp out bribery, corruption, fraud and tax evasion, obviously the FBI will also be demanding completely transparent government, all key decisions made before public hearings, complete financial transparency, with additional requirements for anyone worth more than say $10 Million and so on?
What's that you say? No? Didn't think so...
I remember the Good Old Days... (Score:2)
... when Comey was still telling everyone he wasn't obsessed with encryption, back doors, and such. Nowadays he doesn't even bother to lie about it.
Words are hard (Score:2)
Isn't the genie out of the bottle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody help me out here. Since pgp is, essentially, open-sourced, how do government agencies expect to regulate encryption? Even if they force this company or that company to give them a "back door", what is there to prevent someone from running their own app? Do they not realize that criminal and terrorist organizations are capable of easily building their own encryption applications?
Re: (Score:3)
It will be like money laundering. Since there are 'approved' methods of encryption (funds transfer), anyone using an 'unapproved', not back-doored method MUST be a criminal. And then use of the unapproved method becomes a crime in and of itself.
Fine by me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? Because that's not the news making it's way around the internet today, as he did just shoot a hole in the talking points of the Clinton campaign today: [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the email was not a big deal with Palin but it is with Hillary - but it's still just being lazy instead of going after real scandals that are far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
First... get with the times, calling her 'Hillary' is sexist. [nypost.com]... doubly so when you only used last names of two other people.
I wasn't, I was replying to a comment of someone who was... and also citing a quote from the FBI director who currently has an investigation into the matter.
There are also the who
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not false equivalency or a big deal - plus OF COURSE a State Governor had access to classified and other sensitive information. Where did you put your brain today? Why bother replying when you are in such a state?
There are bigger scandals and she is part of them. Get off your backside and leave the petty shit alone - there's plenty to show she's done a lot worse than Palin because she's done a lot more than the ema
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the context of the conversation.
Yes, it remains a false equivalency, and your dismissing of the applicable laws further demonstrates it.
Apples, meet oranges.
Bullshit. What sort of *classified* (per federal law) information would Palin have had access to when governor of Alaska? Not sensit
Re: (Score:2)
Then how about we have a more serious one instead of pointless nitpicking that ignores more serious issues.
Also, you calling bullshit on the irrelevant side issue ignores that the there are military based in Alaska and some of them are even under the direct control of the governor of Alaska - where did you put your brain today?
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, shame you keep insisting on it and deflecting.
You keep making such claims, yet fail to substantiate *ANY* of it. It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about... or are you one of those being pai
Re: (Score:2)
If you had paid attention in high school I would not need to would I?
In short - people who are in charge of things tend to hear things about those those things (such as the National Guard etc) - I've got no idea why you are in denial of the obvious over what is really a side issue anyway.
Look up the Pfizer stuff - Hillary's email stuffup looks as trivial as Palin's in comparison to a real scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
Are you playing some stupid game here with rules that make you look like an idiot, such as playing "devil's advocate" to take a side you know is utter bullshit? That would explain the idiocy, since I keep thinking you cannot possibly be as dense as you appear to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about your HS, mine was rather boring and a waste of my time (not unlike this conversation)... which is why I went and got a GED and later a masters.
That is different than what you've said. My focus has been on legiti
Re: (Score:2)
OMG WTF LGBTQRST BBQ FTW!!!
It's called picking your battles, you should look into it!
I have cited specific sources several times, you have failed to do so, almost falling back to the tired line of the helpless of "educate yourself!". It is clear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I thought they were too busy... (Score:1)
And Blumenthal confirmed today that there is no "Clinton bombshell."
Re: (Score:2)
And Blumenthal confirmed today that there is no "Clinton bombshell."
Meanwhile, Trump confirmed that his daughter is a "bombshell."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The ironic thing is that this seems to be the exact same argument on another topic, except, passing everything through a 'sed s/guns/encryption/g' filter. Imagine how many rights we would have if the 1A defenders and the 2A defenders would stop pissing on each other and get along.
Re: (Score:2)