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

#321

Post by mikeash » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 1:08 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #268

mikeash wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ignoring the actual legalities involved, if some three-letter agency went to Apple and said "we want all the data on the Apple devices belonging to to so-and-so," Could Apple theoretically access it, and hand it over? If not, then I'll concede I was massively too paranoid, which wouldn't be the first time when it comes to Apple (and Google.. definitely and Google cars, and Adobe as soon as they pulled that BS with Cr…

That's the whole root of the discussion here. The answer used to be, yes, Apple could help extract user data from an iPhone and hand it over to authorities (although I think the authorities still needed to take physical possession of the device first). Now they're building it so that Apple can't access your data regardless, because it's encrypted with keys they don't have. This naturally annoys law enforcement.

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

#322

Post by mikeash » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 1:09 PM UTC

csandreasen wrote: post #264

mikeash wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about encasing something in 20ft of reinforced concrete and then sinking it to the bottom of the ocean? Strong encryption may be tougher to break but I disagree that it's entirely different. It's merely a quantitative difference. It's a standard principle that the police can break into whatever they can if they have a warrant, but they can't force you to make things easy for them ahead of time.

You can keep coming up with analogies that are increasingly more difficult for the cops to get into, but ultimately it's just an exercise in sophistry. Only when people begin commonly storing their belongings inside 20ft of reinforced concrete at the bottom of the ocean will it become analogous to seeking a warrant to gain access to their phone.

Even so, there's nothing that says we have to make it easy, or even possible, for police to execute a warrant against us.

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

#323

Post by Nikker » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 1:39 PM UTC

someone234 wrote: post #304

rogerhoward wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Law = A written order issued by your rulers. "

Don't be so obtuse. A law is a written order, adding the remainder is just an inflammatory accusation that undermines the public at large.

You may believe that the public or those governed by which ever particular law you select are too scared or ignorant and have the law imposed on them from outside interests but the greater numbers always win in the end. A particular rule of law may be arduous today and for many more consecutive days but one day the rule will change.

This is evident throughout history and will continue to be.

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

#324

Post by someone234 » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 2:10 PM UTC

Nikker wrote: post #323

someone234 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Law = A written order issued by your rulers. " Don't be so obtuse. A law is a written order, adding the remainder is just an inflammatory accusation that undermines the public at large. You may believe that the public or those governed by which ever particular law you select are too scared or ignorant and have the law imposed on them from outside interests but the greater numbers always win in the end. A particular…

> A law is a written order, adding the remainder is just an inflammatory accusation that undermines the public at large.

Undermines the public how?

> A particular rule of law may be arduous today

"Rule of law" is a misnomer. It's actually rule by those who decide what the laws are. That would be the "elected representatives", ie. politicians of course.

In other words, politicians are our rulers because they make the rules that are ultimately enforced at gunpoint, if you don't feel like obeying at first.

But a law is just text somewhere. But even if the text contains a decree on what everyone must or must not do, that alone does not change people's behaviour one bit.

For example, if I write down on a piece of paper that you have to give 30% of your income to me, will you do it? OK, what if I threaten you with imprisonment if you don't?

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

#325

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

meowface wrote: post #266

Estragon wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's such a big deal for law enforcement investigators. They'll still be able to force Apple and Google to send trojan clients to targets, as happened with Hushmail, won't they?

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…

“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.

Sure, they're dissatisfied. But the roots of their dissatisfaction seem to be that they've tasted the forbidden fruit, and now believe that they have a fundamental right to watch our communications. Their fundamental attitude is that they should have visibility, and that anyone who wants privacy must be trying to hide something. It's just the old saw "you don't need secrecy if you've nothing to hide", restated from the law enforcement perspective.

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

#326

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by pmontra » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 3:26 PM UTC

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.

They can ask. A court order to reveal your password is enough. If you don't comply you usually run into troubles. This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law explains how it works in some countries.

There has been a ruling about that in the USA recently http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defen...

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

#328

Post by atlantic » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 3:50 PM UTC

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!

Or putting it another way, law enforcement will still be able to break into individual phones, but indiscriminate collection of data on a large scale will become that much more difficult. Which is a good thing.

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

#329

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 3:52 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #327

thaumasiotes wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They can ask. A court order to reveal your password is enough. If you don't comply you usually run into troubles. This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law explains how it works in some countries. There has been a ruling about that in the USA recently http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/26/mass-supreme-court-defen...

So how does that work if you are using an encryption method that allows plausible-deniability?

"Legally, you must give us the key which probably does not exist"

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

#330

Post by tkinom » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 4:06 PM UTC

chaz72 wrote: post #114

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…

Apple has staked their reputation on the line and said "send us an NSL if you like, we have nothing we can give you". And the cryptographic principles, if executed properly, are sound. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible. See I figure, if you're a threat to Nati…

If some Gov Agency wants clone your phone's data, isn't the process as simple as get an NSL to own your email/phone number for a few hours, go thru the password reset sequence and own your iCould account and "backup" the data to a new phone they have access to?

An easier methods maybe to get someone from Apple Store to do password reset on a phone #. Any local police can probably do this - kind of scary now I think of it.

How can Apple or anyone prevent this?