Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 350 posts

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

#301

Post by adventured »

keevie wrote: post #229
whistlecrackers wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really two parties? Are they really that different? What's the difference between ISIS and WMDs? Barack Obama and George W. Bush?

I see your point, but the difference between ISIS and WMDs [in Saddam Hussein's Iraq] would be. . . ISIS is unquestionably real.

Real and directly caused by the US Government's actions. Just like theocratic Iran and Al Qaeda.

Did they ever figure out what Saddam did with the large stock of WMD that we know he had prior? Trucked off to Syria before the invasion? Where did it all go?

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

#302

Post by yellowapple »

diminoten wrote: post #237
sanderjd wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't another workable definition of the word. Maybe you want a word like "deviant" or "degenerate".

(of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking. Now that we've gotten to quoting dictionary definitions to words, I think we've killed any good spirit that may have been left in this conversation.

What dictionary does your definition come from? According to multiple sources[0], the closest match to your definition (American Heritage's "Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.") is typically used in a figurative sense ("that spinach dip is criminally awful").

[0]: https://www.wordnik.com/words/criminal

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

#303

Post by thaumasiotes »

ruloo wrote: post #272
meowface wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it still makes their jobs a lot more difficult. I'm of the opinion that this is not a ruse or scheme, and that law enforcement are genuinely dissatisfied with this. Note that law enforcement and the NSA have a tenuous relationship at best. Even if the NSA still do have privileged access after default mobile encryption is fully rolled out, law enforcement generally will not be able to tap into that except in…

Law enforcement is far over reaching in my opinion. This data is still hackable because all data is hackable. the fact it is inconvenient is a good thing. This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. They can still acquire the data but they will need to spend significant resources to do it. Invading your citizens privacy should be difficult!

> This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to.

Well... there's no real need to say that, because it's already the case. If they want to open your locks, they will.

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

#304

Post by someone234 »

rogerhoward wrote: post #187
xnull wrote: post #103

I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…

But the article isn't just talking about the NSA and National Security Letters - this is about law enforcement . If Apple and Google claim to be technically unable to comply with LE requests, it won't take long to see whether that is indeed the case or not - unlike national security-related demands, law enforcement won't be able to keep their successes or failures at demanding access to this data a secret. If this wa…

> But the article isn't just talking about the NSA and National Security Letters - this is about law enforcement.

No it's not. It's just that "law enforcement" sounds more comforting than "tyranny".

Here's how to interpret "law":

    Law = A written order issued by your rulers. 
    Lawful = Good = Anything your rulers want you to do.
    Unlawful = Bad = Anything your rulers don't want you to do.
    Law enforcement, verb = Forcing you to do what they want you to.
    Law enforcement, noun = People whom laws don't apply to.

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

#305

Post by someone234 »

xnull wrote: post #103

I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…

What will really blow your mind is that Snowden is a PsyOp.

If Snowden is saying things governments don't want you to hear, it's highly strange that the government-controlled mainstream media keeps yapping on and on about Snowden and publishing "his" material.

Cue shadowban in 3.. 2.. 1..

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

#306

Post by saul_d »

lotu wrote: post #238
saul_d wrote: post #49

You can never trust any "encryption" that you don't handle entirely yourself. This seems to be some more theater, aiming to deceive the general public with regards to the "safety" of this "encryption".

Of course if you implement encryption yourself you almost certainly did it wrong and are leaking data. This assumes you even know how to "do it yourself".

I didn't mean "write your own solution", I meant:

You can only trust public key encryption and you need to create all keys yourself and you need to have 100% exclusive access to the private key.

And then, you need to pray and hope that the NSA hasn't figured out a way around it and won't too soon.

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

#307

Post by ObviousScience »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #303
ruloo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law enforcement is far over reaching in my opinion. This data is still hackable because all data is hackable. the fact it is inconvenient is a good thing. This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. They can still acquire the data but they will need to spend significant resources to do it. Invading your citizens privacy should be difficult!

> This is like saying you should only be allowed to have car or house locks that law enforcement has keys to. Well... there's no real need to say that, because it's already the case. If they want to open your locks, they will.

You're not obligated to make the lock unlockable for them, though.

The government can probably break many consumer-grade encryption schemes if they so choose to as well, but much like having to break in to your house through your locks instead of merely unlocking them, it raises the cost of law-enforcement doing so, and incentivizes them to make more restrained choices (eg, not taking literally everything they can get their hands on).

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

#308

Post by Shivetya »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #168
declan wrote: post #152

I was living in DC during the first Crypto Wars of the late 1990s and covering them as a reporter (I've since shifted to working on recent.io, of course). It sure looks like this will be Crypto Wars II: the Feds Strike Back. From my experience a key question to ask is: What would the eventual law say? Will it make it a federal felony to possess an encrypted phone? Or a federal felony to sell one? The FBI endorsed H.R…

I find it interesting that on one hand the government is telling a technology company they can't create technology which makes communication private and on the other hand the government is charging the CEO of a tech company[0] for creating technology which removes the privacy from communication.[0] "In the first prosecution of its kind, federal officials said that StealthGenie violated the law by offering the ability…

The state tends to reserve a great many powers for itself that it will not permit the people to have. Congress itself routinely excludes itself from laws it writes with the full cooperation and support of the Administrative branch. It is rare if ever that the Judicial branch steps in because each loves its ability to act outside the law.

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

#309

Post by psykovsky »

seanflyon wrote: post #257
psykovsky wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's saying the decryption key will be a simple passcode for an encrypted private key stored on apple's servers, or something even worse than that. Promising, ain't it? ...with the examples we have of the type of passwords people use...

Is the decryption key something the user chooses like a password, or is it random noise generated on the device that the user does not need to know?

Not sure. I suspect it is chosen by the user, going by what I've read.

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

#310

Post by psykovsky »

Zigurd wrote: post #273
freehunter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police do have official events to attend. In my state capital there is a yearly event to honor fallen officers where representatives from every police force in the state show up in their dress uniforms for a mass memorial service.

They could wear suits. That might remind them they are of the people, and their first priority is to serve the people. They might also consider attending the memorial service for Mike Brown. In suits.

The ones who work at NSA/CIA wear shorts and suits. I don't think they are reminded of who they are and what their priorities are, by it.
Post reply on HN