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

FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 219 posts

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#191

Post by lern_too_spel »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #144
lern_too_spel wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges absolutely can force work and do it all the time. See the discovery process Uber is going through now. For an example more relevant to the Apple case, look at the Lavabit court orders. The idea that writing software not intended for public release is compelled speech under the standard of Wooley v. Maynard is laughable. Nobody except a few gullible tech bloggers (are there any other kind?) took that argument s…

> Judges absolutely can force work and do it all the time. See the discovery process Uber is going through now. For an example more relevant to the Apple case, look at the Lavabit court orders. Discovery is different. Laws already require you to retain various records for later discovery. That's just general "shuffle stuff around" work that doesn't really require much effort. What the FBI was asking for was custom so…

> What the FBI was asking for was custom software development to be done to circumvent existing software and hardware functions.

Which is exactly what was requested in the Lavabit case, to the letter. I used the discovery example to show that courts compel work all the time, which you originally claimed they could not do.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#192

Post by white-flame »

pgodzin wrote: post #50

> We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way How is this possibly reconcilable?

It's not, but notice his wording. He has no clue if it's possible or not, he wants a mandate for the tech companies to "figure it out".

There have been voices from the tech industry saying it's impossible, but Comey doesn't want to hear that. He's literally called that response "emotional" and believes tech lovers simply are clinging to encryption and privacy irrationally.

He's not going to stop until he can hear what he wants to hear. I think the only thing that will satisfy him is a beltway bandit lying to him about their technology.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#193

Post by 0xfeba »

AJ007 wrote: post #99

Can someone call out these alleged encryption back doors for what they are? Junk science. If Apple and Google aren't legally able to build as secure as devices & infrastructure as possible, the DOJ, FBI, NSA, and CIA sure as hell won't be secure. Merry Christmas to Assange.

"Backdoor" is such a loaded term. But it could be done relatively securely with a dual key system. Apple (or you/your device), has one key; the government has some other key. Either one unlocks the phone.

But then you need the government to securely store a few master keys. Given the latest CIA, NSA and OPM leaks I doubt this is possible long-term. However, maybe changing the devices keys based on year of manufacture is a reasonable step to have some sort of safeguard.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#194

Post by phkahler »

panzer_wyrm wrote: post #90
phkahler wrote: post #76

I still don't understand. They want to be able to have a court order a device maker to decrypt data, but today they can already get a court to order the device owner to decrypt it. The device owner actually has the password or key. The truth is that they want to do this without the device owner knowing it's being done.

Passwords so far are somewhat protected under the fifth. And you have to go trough contempt of court. Firmware signing keys that belong to a third party are not.

So what's your point?

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#195

Post by dntrkv »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #138
dntrkv wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article specifically states that he doesn't want a backdoor: “We’ve had very good open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realizes we care about the same things. We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufac…

Hi, you're new here. In the USA when someone in government says something that you agree with, it may because they are sincere, or it may be because its what you want to hear. Politicians, and humans in political roles, may lie . Lying is when they say something that isn't true. They may do this for many reasons. A common reason is when they want an outcome X, and they say to you that they don't want outcome X. "Oh t…

Thanks for being a condescending asshole.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#196

Post by grandalf »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #173
mlindner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I've met who work in security at large companies would rather lose their job than participate in the erasure of security for all. Apple showed this pretty obviously, but I think many companies would have most of their software engineers quit before accepting such a request, even if it was a direct order. The government cannot order you personally to write software, that's blatant first amendment violation…

I have found people like to claim they would do the ethical/moral thing, but from what I have seen; it's maybe 1 out of a thousand that will walk, especially when it comes to their job/career. There's this weird denial that takes place. I see it in all professions.

I think people are reluctant to believe this, but practical evidence shows it to be true. Unethical behavior by groups is very common.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#197

Post by panzer_wyrm »

phkahler wrote: post #194
panzer_wyrm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passwords so far are somewhat protected under the fifth. And you have to go trough contempt of court. Firmware signing keys that belong to a third party are not.

So what's your point?

That it is easier to mandate mandatory decryption to the vendors than to power trough the fifth and get password from a defendant.

All writs on steroids.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#198

Post by [deleted] »

rconti wrote: post #170
Spooky23 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comey is a bureaucrat looking for more power to do his job. He's the runny nose. The flu is Feinstein. From the ridiculous controls that treat cold medicine like contraband, the Patriot act, and bullshit like this, the Senator is a wellspring of bad law and disrespect for the American people. Why do Californians keep electing this person?

I'm a Californian, and I don't think I've ever voted for her, but I can't say so for sure to be honest. However, a senior politician of marginal quality can be better for your state than a junior politician of superior quality. In theory they are able to score you all kinds of handouts and preferential treatment where the junior politician would just get ignored. I don't know if that's the case for Feinstein, but my…

[deleted]

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#199

Post by jjawssd »

mahyarm wrote: post #87
jjawssd wrote: post #34

Why do California Democrats vote this person in year after year?

Because they vote for their party, and california is a blue party state.

Is it possible to effectively publicize what candidates stand for and have historically voted for? Or is this impossible?

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#200

Post by gumby »

cryptarch wrote: post #155
miles wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hardly the first time engineered paranoia has gripped the country ... I was a kid during the mid-to-late Cold War (post "duck and cover") and somehow I was never able to take it seriously. Unfortunately, the threat was (and still very much is) real: Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831 Thank you Vasili Arkhipov, the man who stopped nuclear war ht…

I first got the impression you meant something like "the Red Menace", but I take it you meant: Engineered paranoia is still very real and a danger to our societies because of its reality-distorting effects that can result in violent overreactions. Did I get that right?

Yes, that is precisely what I meant.
Post reply on HN