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

#331

Post by charonn0 » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 5:02 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

They can and they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

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

#332

Post by goatforce5 » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 6:03 PM UTC

someone234 wrote: post #324

Nikker wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> OK, what if I threaten you with imprisonment if you don't?

You and what army?

(Not trying to be snarky. That quote seems very apt.)

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

#333

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #316

dragontamer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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")

If Ferguson was exceptionally handled, merely competently handled situations presumably somewhat resemble the plot of Jurassic Park.

I appreciate the criticism actually. But lets look at this rationally.

When the FBI sent in 40 agents to a town with only 52 cops, to investigate a single murder... Eric Holder was sending a very strong message to the Ferguson community.

Remember, Ferguson Police and the St. Louis Police were the bad guys in Ferguson. The FBI came in with their Black leader (at the time: Eric Holder) and reassured the community that the African American President (and African American-led FBI) got their back.

Eric Holder then announced that the 40 Agents were going to hold an independent investigation and conduct a 3rd independent autopsy.

With the FBI's arrival, the riots immediately stopped and trust was restored.

Now true, the Ferguson Police and St. Louis Police were _absolutely_ terrible. But the Federal response (specifically FBI's under direct order of Eric Holder) was extremely effective and exemplary IMO.

Remember, we have a federal system in the US. Cities are independent of the county, counties are independent of the state, and states are independent of the nation. Eric Holder holds no responsibility for the poor behavior of Ferguson City cops or St. Louis County Cops. But... he was able to use the FBI's influence to pressure the local cops to do the right thing.

Remember too: Eric Holder does not have the authority to prosecute Darren Wilson on murder or assault. The best the FBI can do is prosecute him (and the police department) on racism charges. Murder / Assault is a charge that can only be delivered from the local government in this case. For the most part, the Feds don't have much legal authority over the situation.

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

#334

Post by kabdib » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 6:19 PM UTC

I read the article without noticing who wrote it.

Stewart Baker.

Yeah, that figures.

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

#335

Post by ultramancool » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #331

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…

> 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. They can and they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

The thing is, parallel construction won't work out unless there's another legitimate path which exists anyways.

Scream it all you want, but if there's no other way to the conclusion, there's still no way to use the evidence short of outright lying and falsifying evidence.

I don't think parallel construction is nearly as big of a threat as people seem to make it out to be. It gives law enforcement nothing more than a hint and some unusable evidence. There still needs to be a path that works legally.

And that's not even getting into the fact that iOS is heavily reverse engineered, often searching for backdoors and cryptographic vulnerabilities and Android is open source and publicly reviewable. I've reviewed some of the key derivation code myself as I was curious if it was being done properly.

I'm all for paranoia, it just need to be useful paranoia under a given threat model. Beyond that, it's nothing more than speculation and a waste of time.

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

#336

Post by pdkl95 » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #322

csandreasen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Law enforcement (and the powers it necessarily must be granted) is intended to be harder. That's the whole point of the various requirements and procedures that make up "due process". Yes, we could catch more criminals a lot faster if we relaxed those requirements, but history shows that always increases the error rate.

If the situation has changed and there are legitimate law enforcement needs that simply didn't exist in the past, then they should request a change to the social contract through legitimate channels and propose the necessary amendment to the constitution. Law enforcement's failure to even try going through proper channels speaks loudly to how little they actually respect the law.

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

#337

Post by Varcht » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 7:38 PM UTC

Estragon wrote: post #263

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…

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?

I have to wonder if this is in part driven by a disdain for civic observance. Seems like every week I hear about instances of people getting their phones taken away at least temporarily for video taping police actions only to receive their phones back with the video deleted.

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

#338

Post by Zigurd » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

tedks wrote: post #247

Zigurd wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

The oligrachs have little or no money to lose on those issues.

You used the word "extralegal." What does that apply to if not the use of encryption in mobile devices?

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

#339

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 8:16 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #87

donohoe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if I was trying to break the law then, yeah, I would absolutely go an get an Apple phone if I didn't already have one.

I'd also buy a Toyota or a Honda car, since it's less likely to break down while fleeing the police. Clearly, reliable automobiles are part of a pro-crime agenda.

I think your analogy is unfair. A standard car does make it harder but isn't being specifically modifed to make the action of police/TLA more difficult. A more appropriate analogy would probably be an armoured car or military humvee, possibly a tank. Should the public be allowed to buy a tank? It has got other uses than evading police but it makes the police's job much harder as they need to up their technology (bazookas and their own tanks) in order to handle criminal use of the tech in question.

Just to be clear I'm not commenting at all here on the question of limiting availability of crypto-lockers to the public.

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

#340

Post by csandreasen » Wed, Oct 01, 2014, 10:19 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #336

mikeash wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Law enforcement (and the powers it necessarily must be granted) is intended to be harder. That's the whole point of the various requirements and procedures that make up "due process". Yes, we could catch more criminals a lot faster if we relaxed those requirements, but history shows that always increases the error rate. If the situation has changed and there are legitimate law enforcement needs that simply didn't exi…

> Law enforcement's failure to even try going through proper channels speaks loudly to how little they actually respect the law.

Why do you say they aren't going through the proper channels? Law enforcement officials have just as much right to make their viewpoints heard through the press as you and I have. If they feel the need to seek new legislation, they would need to make the argument in advance in order to gain support any bills being proposed. Unless the Supreme Court thinks otherwise, I doubt a constitutional amendment would be necessary, but that depends largely on what was being proposed. I haven't seen any evidence that any law enforcement official is disrespecting any law with regards to this issue.