I find this a bit concerning. Catching bad guys is all well and good but I wonder whether the various governments are overreaching. Selling a bugged phone to a known criminal is likely fine (cite: The Wire). But is it acceptable to sell a bugged phone to unknown/unidentified/random people and then use the phone's communications to determine if the owner is a crook and the owner's identity? The sole basis of suspicion…
Log it all, and use network discovery and the legal process to access each new device? The main problem for the feds is that the data will be gone. Since it's not gone, they can use the legal process at their leisure.
Anyone know how these applications work the architecture of them? To me it seems that encryption apps are trivial. Yet they keep getting compromised. You have a public key and private key you give public key away. You keep private key safe, what is so difficult?
This is already the third or fourth such app that was either infiltrated by the police, taken over by the police or outright constructed by them. Criminals have a vested interest in getting access to encrypted communications and they know that all of the common phone OSes and chat apps are compromised, so they will be looking to join such secure networks. This need for security is what makes the continued use of thes…
My impression is that in all those cases the root weakness was that those criminals liked to feel sophisticated, "in the know". So those special apps (special, from our perspective, as in euphemism for birth defect) could spread by fashion. The smalltimes like to imitate the big ones while the big ones try to stay ahead of the curve, eager to pick up anything new from upstarts before they become big. It might be my H…
That’s what I’m thinking too. A lambo looks faster, but in reality the beat up Toyota will get you around faster. You can park it in the sketchiest neighbourhood, go over 3’ potholes without slowing down, take a dirt road, park 1’ away from the next car and bash your door against it to get out, etc.
This is how police should get around the problems presented with encryption. This is real policing.
The PR barrage and faux posturing by the FBI to weaken encryption has always seemed like just lazy policing to me.
If anything, the hacking attacks on industrial centers has better illustrated than anything why encryption is necessary, and this new triumph has demonstrated that police can continue to function, even thrive in a world that permits encryption.
The shield and your comment list the UK and Scotland separately here, which (at least for now) is not accurate as I'm sure you're aware. Are there separate agencies involved that merit including both flags?
Scotland has an entirely distinct legal system with a single unified police agency (with it's own serious and organised crime division). There has never been a connection between the legal system in Scotland and that of England and Wales. Scots laws are primarily passed by the independent Scottish Parliament with only a small number of matters reserved for the UK Parliament in London which passes distinct statutory i…
To save everyone a google, the etymology of scot free is not based in Scottish juries.
The phrase in its oldest form literally refers to getting away without paying tax. Scot is cognate with the Danish (Scandinavian) word skat which means both tax and treasure - the latter meaning incidently being why it can be used as a term of endearment.
This later was broadened to mean getting away without any punishment. I could find no reference online to its use for show trials.
> Not without notice of the company Oh? The reports I read were that they could compel an individual to do something and not tell their employer.
The reports you read were likely based on commentary from techies who have no understanding about law, plus a handful of lawyers involved with digital rights organisations that have an incentive to play up the significance of the legislation a bit / talk about worst-case scenarios, worst possible interpretations of a dangerous law and the broadest possible interpretation of who constitutes a "designated communication…
> I don't think government lawyers are in the habit of arguing that the government _doesn't_ have power to do something.
Eh, from where I'm sitting, that's a pretty common tactic to pacify opposition to legislation that grants the government too much power.
This is how police should get around the problems presented with encryption. This is real policing. The PR barrage and faux posturing by the FBI to weaken encryption has always seemed like just lazy policing to me. If anything, the hacking attacks on industrial centers has better illustrated than anything why encryption is necessary, and this new triumph has demonstrated that police can continue to function, even thr…
Agreed entirely. This sort of thing is how it should be done, and clearly quite effective to boot. Hopefully this sends a loud message.
The shield and your comment list the UK and Scotland separately here, which (at least for now) is not accurate as I'm sure you're aware. Are there separate agencies involved that merit including both flags?
Scotland has an entirely distinct legal system with a single unified police agency (with it's own serious and organised crime division). There has never been a connection between the legal system in Scotland and that of England and Wales. Scots laws are primarily passed by the independent Scottish Parliament with only a small number of matters reserved for the UK Parliament in London which passes distinct statutory i…
> There has never been a connection between the legal system in Scotland and that of England and Wales. Scots laws are primarily passed by the independent Scottish Parliament
To add some important context here, the Scottish Parliament came into existence in 1999. So it’s by far not the case that the majority of laws in effect in Scotland were passed by the Scottish Parliament.