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

341–350 of 350 posts

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

#341

Post by csandreasen »

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.

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

#342

Post by pdkl95 »

csandreasen wrote: post #340
pdkl95 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Parallel construction is one huge disrespect for the law; it hides the real accusation and necessarily requires hiding evidence from the defendant. It is a blatant attempt to bypass the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and the 4th amendment. There are probably other legal problems too, depending on the specifics of the case.

I'm not really suggesting that an amendment is (or should be) necessary, because the surveillance that is going on (and being passed down[1] from the NSA to the FBI, DEA, and local departments). These activities should not be necessary at all for law enforcement, as the warrant system is easily sufficient to allow any necessary searches. Even if a specific device such as cell phone is inaccessible (despite having a valid warrant), that doesn't stop any policeman from conducting traditional (in person) surveillance or upstream wiretaps.

Yet police insist they need far broader access and we have numerous examples of the 4th Amendment warrant requirements being ignored[2]. IFF their claims have merit, the proper way to get exceptions to needing warrants would be an amendment, which has not been suggested. There could be some edge cases where "merely" a circuit court or SCOTUS ruling could "find" additional powers for police, but it doesn't matter - I don't see the the various TLAs trying to setup a test case on this matter, either. Instead we see many cases where law enforcement (and/or people in Obama's administration) have tried to prevent lawsuits from going forward.

[1] [pdf] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1011... Some of the training slides and request forms. Especially interesting is how often they repeat the need to keep the practice secret, including having a 24-hour hotline local police can use to get advice on how to hide the source even if they have to immediately give testimony in court. I believe (and a friend of mine who is a lawyer agrees) that these repeated statements like "To use it, we must protect it, or lose it." easily counts as mens rea.

[2] Riley v. California being a notable exception, though I know at least two friends that had their phones searched (in their presence) just a couple weeks ago in Oakland, CA; some departments haven't gotten the message yet, unfortunately.

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

#344

Post by mikeash »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #339
mikeash wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (bazo…

I think it's fair. These measures protect against all unwanted intrusion, whether criminal or government.

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

someone234 wrote: post #305
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..

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by csandreasen »

pdkl95 wrote: post #342
csandreasen wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Parallel construction is one huge disrespect for the law; it hides the real accusation and necessarily requires hiding evidence from the defendant. It is a blatant attempt to bypass the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and the 4th amendment. There are probably other legal problems too, depending on the specifics of the case. I'm not really suggesting that an amendment is (or should be) necessary, because the su…

Two points with regards to that: 1) Parallel construction has nothing to do with the iPhone encryption issue. 2) People tend to overlook a few key points from the original Reuters article[1] that introduced the concept of parallel construction:

(emphasis mine)

"...Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE. ...

...Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst."

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE....

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

#347

Post by someone234 »

goatforce5 wrote: post #332
someone234 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

You seem to be overlooking the point. Would it be morally permissible for me to scribble down arbitrary rules and enforce them on you if I had an army with which to ensure your compliance?

Laws are just arbitrary rules decided on by a small group of people, much like they were with Kings and their inner circles. Laws are enforced in much the same way too - there's no practical difference between getting assaulted by the King's Guard and getting assaulted by men in blue costumes.

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

#348

Post by pdkl95 »

csandreasen wrote: post #346
pdkl95 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel construction is one huge disrespect for the law; it hides the real accusation and necessarily requires hiding evidence from the defendant. It is a blatant attempt to bypass the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and the 4th amendment. There are probably other legal problems too, depending on the specifics of the case. I'm not really suggesting that an amendment is (or should be) necessary, because the su…

Two points with regards to that: 1) Parallel construction has nothing to do with the iPhone encryption issue. 2) People tend to overlook a few key points from the original Reuters article[1] that introduced the concept of parallel construction: (emphasis mine) "...Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bou…

Nonsense - parallel construction (and any other widespread use of the capabilities the NSA/etc is providing to other "their customers" (DEA/FBI/various-local-PD)) is likely the primary reason for this attack on Apple and encryption on the iPhone. The data covered by that kind of encryption would likely be of very limited use for national security; the NSA gets most of the data at the backbone switches anyway, and encryption doesn't do anything to prevent relationship mapping from logs of routing metadata. Also, any kind of targeted investigation could simply bypass encryption by installing custom firmware. Several of the tools in the TAO catalog were based on that style of attack.

What would be lost with local iPhone encryption keys is the ability to gather large amounts of data by strong-arming Apple (Prism, possibly). Note that most of the people freaking out over Apple's changes are not NSA. It is law enforcement who is fearing losing their access; the same law enforcement that would be using parallel construction to actually use the data that logically they didn't have a warrant to search and seize. (if they did have a warrant, they can bypass the encryption with various other ways, which apparently includes compelling passwords)

As for the Reuters article, I linked to a specific document that was a follow-up to that Reuters article, which had very little to do with foreign governments, and a lot to do with protecting access to the surveillance infrastructure. If you want the TL;DR version (understandable; it's 300 pages of slides and forms), [1] is a decent overview though it lacks some of the relevant details.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140203/11143926078/paral...

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

#349

Post by csandreasen »

pdkl95 wrote: post #348
csandreasen wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points with regards to that: 1) Parallel construction has nothing to do with the iPhone encryption issue. 2) People tend to overlook a few key points from the original Reuters article[1] that introduced the concept of parallel construction: (emphasis mine) "...Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bou…

Nonsense - parallel construction (and any other widespread use of the capabilities the NSA/etc is providing to other "their customers" (DEA/FBI/various-local-PD)) is likely the primary reason for this attack on Apple and encryption on the iPhone. The data covered by that kind of encryption would likely be of very limited use for national security; the NSA gets most of the data at the backbone switches anyway, and enc…

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the NSA. As you point out yourself, this applies only to data stored locally on the phone. When was the last time the NSA had physical access to your phone?

Your argument seems to be that law enforcement wants to keep the phones unencrypted so that they can seize them with a warrant, hand them over to the NSA, and then the NSA can hand the data back to the police using "parallel construction" in order for the police to hide where the data came from (i.e.: acquired lawfully by the police with a warrant)

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

#350

Post by charonn0 »

ultramancool wrote: post #335
charonn0 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's not about the rules of evidence. It's about the rule of law. Parallel construction is an unconstitutional and dangerous abuse of law-enforcement power that cannot be tolerated.
Post reply on HN