> “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”
One thing the FBI does not realize, or does not care, is that THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THE BACKDOORS WORK FOR.
A backdoor is a backdoor. Period. When so much private information is on a single device it's not just about being beyond the law (which is a great reason in and of itself because law enforcement is itself beyond the law). It's about being safe.
Agreed, and it's shocking that this Washington Post article does not raise these points at all, or consult an "expert" that is not repeating the same PR rhetoric. For normal people to understand the issue and take a stance on it both sides should be illuminated. It could have been as simple as including Apple's or Google's original statements as to why they are taking this stance.
This story was likely published because the companies themselves told them to take a hike, and they are now trying to garner public sympathy. I don't think they are going to get it. Unauthorized intruders, whether or not they have a piece of paper signed by a guy that wears a robe to work, are not welcome in my phone.
I hope Apple & Google take a hard line on this, at least until the US government passes a law making it illegal to engineer things in a manner that makes it impossible for companies to comply with search warrants. I'm sure that will come, but hopefully it will take a while.
Step 1: Have the stenographers at the Washington Post publish your scary press release as "news" full of emotionally charged hyperbole like "Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile".
Step 2: After the next telegenic kidnapping / bombing / school shooting, claim "I told you so" as the perpetrator would have been stopped if not for a secure phone / encrypted chat / requirement to get a warrant.
Step 3: 95% of the public demands mandatory backdoors, criminalizing strong encryption, and warrantless dragnet surveillance.
I hope you're right. Outside of my tech-oriented friends, most people I've discussed surreptitious electronic government surveillance with are either unconcerned about it or actually for it. And these are highly educated people who should know better.
My guess is more that the DoJ has agreed with their collaborators to help repair their tarnished public images. Shouting loudly about not being able to unlock a phone and get its content is pretty meaningless when they still have total access to everything that ever transits the network to/from that phone.
But it will make some people think "good, these companies are finally standing up for us" which reduces the chances that people will look into products and services that offer end-to-end encryption or from companies that aren't as enthusiastically cooperative.
The quote that plants this firmly in pretending-to-be-serious land: “The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone.”
That was my thought, too. That assertion is a re-working of the sentiment that only people who have done something wrong have something to hide, and it's a dangerous one.
Let's be honest, improved encryption is going to restrain the government's ability to enforce the law. Beyond pedophiles, there are definitely going to be cases where innocent people get hurt as a result.
I'm okay with that. The whole idea of our government and society is that the mass of law-abiding and decent people are stronger than the criminal and malicious minority. People are by and large responsible, which is why they can and should govern themselves. Limiting the government's ability to snoop and intrude on citizens is a crucial check on the very real (if long-term) threat of government over-reach.
But let's not kid ourselves that our privacy, and its constraints on the government, is without consequences.
Maybe he is trying to explain why so many people in his department have recently purchased Apple phones. Latent criminal tendencies are the only possible explanation.
Hey FBI, if you want the data on the phone get a Warrant that requires the person who owns the phone to unlock it for you - or go to jail for not complying. You don't go to a next-door neighbor who has the key to a house and serve him the Warrant to get into your their neighbors house. Don't go to Apple or Google and make them unlock the phone. 4th Amendment, unlawful search and seizure and all that jazz.
Unless they know that the owner has the password, and can recall it, this potentially infringes on the 5th amendment. This has been tested repeatedly in court, although not always with the same result.
FTA: The irony, some say, is that while the legal and technical changes are fueled by anger over reports of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, the consequences are being felt most heavily by police detectives, often armed with warrants certifying that a judge has found probable cause that a search of a smartphone will reveal evidence of a crime.
Funny: "That led investigators to a Facebook post, made two days after the homicide, in which another man posed in a cell phone selfie with the same gun."
You'd think a selfie would be enough to find someone the traditional way, but they seem to think they needed to locate the phone that took the picture.
It's possible to positively, uniquely identify a gun from a selfie? Was the selfie of the gun, showing it's most intimate private parts: the serial number?
So is this whole thing REALLY about the US Government losing access or more about them not wanting to expose their over-the-air code execution techniques?
Since presumably if they capture an already running device, they can just get the warrant, and ask the cellular network to send their specially crafted packet (which can unlock the phone, SMS the encryption key, or similar).
Sorry but if the Intelligence Services cannot unlock an encrypted device STILL RUNNING then I'll eat my hat.
> So is this whole thing REALLY about the US Government losing access or more about them not wanting to expose their over-the-air code execution techniques?
Obviously, the latter.
More to the point, the type of regular police who would push for this probably aren't even aware that such code execution techniques might exist.
He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” - I guess the FBI and the NSA don't talk much?
Hey if the FBI were obeying the law, then I might have some concern for them. But they aren't. They're going out there, organizing groups of people, setting them up with terrorist plots, providing them with material and financial support, and then busting them. Whether that's entrapment or not, I don't care--- it is a violation of anti-terrorism conspiracy laws.
Not to mention the NSA, and I believe FBI, conducting illegal spying operations.
Government has proven it cannot be trusted, now complains when companies stop trusting it?
Fortunately as yet there is no way for the USG to grant a monopoly on the manufacture of mobile devices in exchange for access to the contents. An alternate route they can take is through the monopolies granted on various radio frequencies. FCC approval in the future may require backdooring.
Would that prevent the end user from adding another layer of security onto the device? Kind of how you can log on to my machine, but that doesn't make it any easier to decrypt my Truecrypt partition (I think...).
This is pretty funny. It will be interesting to watch the narrative, and it is surprising how overtly partisan it is. I just wish I had a big PR budget I could use to place articles in the right places to adjust the narrative.
Well if they have a well-formed wallet they actually do have that right. The constitution contemplates the issuance of warrants precisely because there are circumstances where seizure is entirely appropriate.
Not just the NSA. The regular ol' police gives off the appearance of being at war with the citizens it's supposed to protect sometimes. They are extremely militarized, very technologically advanced, but not always fair and even-keeled.
The FBI is more than talented enough to get into phones, or areas, they just need to invest more time if something's locked. Which honestly, is a good thing. It means they'll have to actually choose on a targeted basis who is worth surveilling, which is more conductive to democracy than just saying, "Give us all your keys". An easy system to crack is an easy system to crack, period.
When I made a point about Orrin Kerr shilling for the law enforcement agencies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8349006 one or two people didn't agree. I guess it is now obvious what that piece was about.
The disingeneous dimension to this issue is that smart phones are basically powerful hand held personal computers which make calls and take photos on the side. Less than 1% of their capability is used for for making calls. Orrin Kerr pretends not to understand this. He wouldn't insist that Microsoft, Apple and Linux developers weaken the encryption on regular laptops, desktops or servers for law enforcement to have access to data.
Why should he insist on it for smart phones which these days are just as powerful as PCs, the only difference being that people carry them around, make calls and store contact details on them?
Steve Job and Apple's desire to have complete control and have access to users information brought this situation about, and in doing so made themselves virtually accessories to whatever crimes people stored on their phones. Now they realize that it made them appear as agents and collaborators with the investigative agencies, they have decided to extricate themselves from that situation leaving them close to being labelled 'pedophile and terrorist facilitators'.
[+] [-] randyrand|11 years ago|reply
One thing the FBI does not realize, or does not care, is that THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THE BACKDOORS WORK FOR.
A backdoor is a backdoor. Period. When so much private information is on a single device it's not just about being beyond the law (which is a great reason in and of itself because law enforcement is itself beyond the law). It's about being safe.
[+] [-] opendais|11 years ago|reply
"Leave your front door unlocked. Just in case we want to search you for drugs/obscene material/weapons/etc."
I don't know about you, but I don't want to leave my house unlocked 24/7 "just in case" the FBI wants to serve me with a warrant.
[+] [-] michaelone|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
I hope Apple & Google take a hard line on this, at least until the US government passes a law making it illegal to engineer things in a manner that makes it impossible for companies to comply with search warrants. I'm sure that will come, but hopefully it will take a while.
[+] [-] panarky|11 years ago|reply
Step 2: After the next telegenic kidnapping / bombing / school shooting, claim "I told you so" as the perpetrator would have been stopped if not for a secure phone / encrypted chat / requirement to get a warrant.
Step 3: 95% of the public demands mandatory backdoors, criminalizing strong encryption, and warrantless dragnet surveillance.
[+] [-] idiot900|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otakucode|11 years ago|reply
But it will make some people think "good, these companies are finally standing up for us" which reduces the chances that people will look into products and services that offer end-to-end encryption or from companies that aren't as enthusiastically cooperative.
[+] [-] tedks|11 years ago|reply
In saying this, you are literally placing yourself above any law. Above democracy itself, and in doing so, above all other humans.
In realizing this, you should abandon either the concept of democracy, or of your own importance above it.
Choose wisely.
[+] [-] droob|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intopieces|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chernevik|11 years ago|reply
I'm okay with that. The whole idea of our government and society is that the mass of law-abiding and decent people are stronger than the criminal and malicious minority. People are by and large responsible, which is why they can and should govern themselves. Limiting the government's ability to snoop and intrude on citizens is a crucial check on the very real (if long-term) threat of government over-reach.
But let's not kid ourselves that our privacy, and its constraints on the government, is without consequences.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jandrewrogers|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kenrikm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neltnerb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rylinks|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickbauman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacehome|11 years ago|reply
That's certainly rich.
[+] [-] kenrikm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|11 years ago|reply
You'd think a selfie would be enough to find someone the traditional way, but they seem to think they needed to locate the phone that took the picture.
[+] [-] vlunkr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thwarted|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|11 years ago|reply
PDF(!) https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot12/woot12...
So is this whole thing REALLY about the US Government losing access or more about them not wanting to expose their over-the-air code execution techniques?
Since presumably if they capture an already running device, they can just get the warrant, and ask the cellular network to send their specially crafted packet (which can unlock the phone, SMS the encryption key, or similar).
Sorry but if the Intelligence Services cannot unlock an encrypted device STILL RUNNING then I'll eat my hat.
[+] [-] nhaehnle|11 years ago|reply
Obviously, the latter.
More to the point, the type of regular police who would push for this probably aren't even aware that such code execution techniques might exist.
[+] [-] malanj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MCRed|11 years ago|reply
Not to mention the NSA, and I believe FBI, conducting illegal spying operations.
Government has proven it cannot be trusted, now complains when companies stop trusting it?
Plus the iPhone is sold globally.
[+] [-] fbi4life|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x86_64Ubuntu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8369963
[+] [-] Tloewald|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrocat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frandroid|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teleclimber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisAntaki|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zikes|11 years ago|reply
Edit: -because you think you might have left your oven on.
[+] [-] mcintyre1994|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xemoka|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bakennedy|11 years ago|reply
It's concerning that a veteran police investigator considers consumer privacy "backwards."
[+] [-] otakucode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vfclists|11 years ago|reply
The disingeneous dimension to this issue is that smart phones are basically powerful hand held personal computers which make calls and take photos on the side. Less than 1% of their capability is used for for making calls. Orrin Kerr pretends not to understand this. He wouldn't insist that Microsoft, Apple and Linux developers weaken the encryption on regular laptops, desktops or servers for law enforcement to have access to data.
Why should he insist on it for smart phones which these days are just as powerful as PCs, the only difference being that people carry them around, make calls and store contact details on them?
Steve Job and Apple's desire to have complete control and have access to users information brought this situation about, and in doing so made themselves virtually accessories to whatever crimes people stored on their phones. Now they realize that it made them appear as agents and collaborators with the investigative agencies, they have decided to extricate themselves from that situation leaving them close to being labelled 'pedophile and terrorist facilitators'.