U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#241

Post by rosser » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:29 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #134

GHFigs wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth -- and here I have to wonder how much it's worth to criticize someone's point of view based on a photograph of them -- that's a dress uniform . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform

Sometimes a photo tells you all you need to know about a person: e.g., http://i.imgur.com/4CIFpFe.jpg . Modern American law enforcement: a gang of wannabe tinpot dictators with weapons they have no business with, and that they probably have no idea how to use. Finger off the trigger, Sheriff.

You do realize that's Joe Arapio, right? He's the poster child for law enforcement that's so egregiously overreaching it's become self-parody.

Of course he's holding a cocked firearm with his finger on the trigger. He pretty much doesn't have any other state.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#242

Post by seanflyon » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:31 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #196

sitkack wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but... the law is not rational. It will execute the code you give it.

It is JIT-compiled though, and courts will throw compiler errors from time to time.

But those jury nullification errors are non-deterministic, so you can't rely on them.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#243

Post by SEJeff » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:33 PM UTC

Watch every Android vendor and Apple stock go down massively if this actually happens due to all non US companies switching phone vendors.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#244

Post by rosser » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:36 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #191

GHFigs wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Instead of criticizing one person based on a picture, I criticize thousands of people based on a picture! That'll show him!"

Yeah, stereotypically speaking, it's the 90% of bad cops that give the 10% a bad name. Funny, though, the "good" 10% don't seem to have a problem with that.

The ratios are nothing like 90 bad:10 good. That kind of hyperbole is uninformed at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#245

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:42 PM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #231

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it isn't a crime then they aren't criminals.

I disagree, though I note your adherence to the dictionary definition of the word criminal.

Defining "criminal" to mean wrongful rather than illegal doesn't actually help you. Aaron Swartz or graduate students publishing crypto code would not be doing anything wrongful either. And no one is suggesting that we remove the laws against unarguably wrongful things like fraud or homicide, none of which could plausibly be used to charge any of those people.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#246

Post by seanflyon » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:45 PM UTC

Arjuna wrote: post #120

happyscrappy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them.

"You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them." To add to the other great comments: I understand that it is via warrant. In fact, the article states that Apple said, "It's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants [...]". My concern is perhaps more nuanced. Put aside the warrant issue for a mome…

> Put aside the warrant issue for a moment

I don't think we can put aside the warrant issue when talking about your right to be secure. Your right to be secure is only against unreasonable search.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

You could argue that we should have the unqualified right to be secure, but the constitution disagrees. I think a better argument is that warrants are issued without probably cause or not explicitly describing what is to be searched.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#247

Post by tedks » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:50 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #227

tedks wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're wrong. The United States is, whether you like it or not, a democracy. Voters can be influenced, but they still decide the outcome. Everything backends to them. If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.

Gilens and Page think they have shown that's only true for trivial matters: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-... People vote all the time in all kinds of undemocratic systems. Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?

The interview you link to points out numerous problems with that study, but beyond that, the very existence and success of activist groups disproves that premise. If the United States was truly an oligarchy, gay marriage or marijuana legalization would never have happened.

Lawrence Lessig is making serious progress with his Rootstrikers group, and the fact that he's doing so proves that ordinary citizens do have political influence. Battles aren't won overnight, but

>Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?

Do you think I'm saying this? If so, where?

Or are you asking leading questions in order to put words in my mouth? In which case, are you seriously saying that democracy is an idea we should totally abandon in order to embrace the rule of whoever-can-summon-the-most-technological-power?

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#248

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 10:54 PM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #207

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being charged with a crime and being found not guilty can still bankrupt you and consume years of your life. You can't be charged with a crime that isn't on the books.

You also can't stop criminals with a crime that isn't on the books.

> You also can't stop criminals with a crime that isn't on the books.

If you make this sentence mean anything at all, which requires redefining "criminals" as something like "moral wrongdoers, independent of whether their wrongdoing is actually a crime", then it still isn't true, as the existence of a law prohibiting an act is neither necessary nor sufficient to create disincentives to committing the act.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#249

Post by mikeash » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 11:10 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #233

mikeash wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own the content on my iPhone because Apple put a U2 album on there for me if I checked the box that says "automatically download new purchases". That's the worst argument I've seen in quite a while.

Judging by the amount of karma i'm shedding, the consensus would seem to agree with you....

Just to clarify, I strongly dislike Apple's controlling policies on iOS. I think it's ridiculous that they won't allow sideloading apps or downgrading your OS, let alone installing custom OS builds. However, going from "they can tell your phone to download a U2 album if you ticked the box" to "thus they own your vacation photos" is still a complete non-sequitur.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#250

Post by dragontamer » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 11:14 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #172

syshax wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's how I see it. Since Apple's software isn't open source, it's possible they're lying. However, if they are, at some point the government is going to try to present evidence they gleaned through this lie, and that fact will leak out. I think it would be an enormous risk for Apple to blatantly lie about something they put in black and white on their website. So I tend to think they're telling the truth. May…

Why do you assume the fact will leak out? I thought the FBI disclosed they used parallel construction as an MO.

DEA. Not FBI. Keep your agencies in check.

Granted, both are under the Attorney General (formerly Eric Holder)... but Holder's recent MO has been to improve race relations between the Police Agencies and the general public. (See his exceptional handling of Ferguson... but his less-than-exceptional handling of "Fast and Furious")