They can't download what's in my brain, so what's the difference? If the FBI wants to get into a phone, they will just have the figure it out on their own.
This guy is a total jackass. Above the law he says?! Really?! Let's get real. We need protection from the law, from government intrusion. Good for Apple and Google for taking a stand and standing on the side of the consumer. Look at it this way. Is it above the law to lock my doors? To have curtains over my windows? The real threat are people like this guy who think it's the right of the government to intrude where they please all in the name of "safety" and "security".
... Encrypted bits don't kidnap kids, or make terrorists kill people. Actions, guns, social problems, poverty, etc do that.
You just negated your own argument.
"Guns", in this case, are no different than the encrypted data... they can do nothing on their own, they are neither dangerous nor benevolent. It takes action by a person. It is merely a tool that a criminal (or idiot) can cause to be dangerous ... while the vast majority of Guns" (like the vast majority of encrypted data) are tools put to good use or used for protection from criminals. (The way the encryption prevents criminals from moving your bank balance to their own account.)
Presumably, by this argument, anyone using strong cryptography is placing themselves above the law. Is it illegal to "place yourself above the law", whatever that means?
I do believe the US Government claims ownership to ALL forms of encryption. So using a method they cannot crack is, technically, illegal. Yes. I believe current encryption is not un-crackable, it's just that it takes a long time to do so. For most users, that means nobody can crack it. But the US Government also has the strongest computers, so they can crack it first, if they need to. That's my understanding, anyway.
The problem is that law enforcement derived from a technical possibility to tap old analog phones a "right" to monitor all communications, and with future developments even your thoughts.
Such a capability didn't historically exist, and law enforcement had to collect evidence the old fashioned way.
It is key to put law enforcement back into their historical bounds, or else we'll have truth serum and advanced MRI-based thought reconstruction devices next.
Vulnerability is the price to pay for freedom, **** living in a gilded safety cage: it's still a cage, a prison. Who cares about a few hundred terrorism victims given that nobody cares about hundred thousands dying from processed food, tens of thousands dying from drunk driving, etc.? Not going to give up liberty and privacy to potentially save a couple of a few hundred terrorism victims, while much bigger problems remain unsolved. Also: why is it OK to loose thousands of soldiers in the battlefield "for our freedom", but it's not OK to loose a few dozen civilians due to the fact that them actually enjoying being free makes them somewhat more vulnerable? If we give up our freedom voluntarily for the illusion of safety, why even bother sending soldiers into battle? We might just as well live "happily ever after" as slaves.
They can't download what's in my brain, so what's the difference? If the FBI wants to get into a phone, they will just have the figure it out on their own.
IF you have to worry about the FBI getting into your phone in a meaningful way, I'm guessing your hiding more than your sexting pictures... ;-). I'd guess they'd simply bug, film the hell out of everything, and put a tracker too, no need to even get to your phone. Makes them work a bit more, but hey, this is your tax dollars at work.
Presumably, by this argument, anyone using strong cryptography is placing themselves above the law. Is it illegal to "place yourself above the law", whatever that means?
I do believe the US Government claims ownership to ALL forms of encryption. So using a method they cannot crack is, technically, illegal. Yes. I believe current encryption is not un-crackable, it's just that it takes a long time to do so. For most users, that means nobody can crack it. But the US Government also has the strongest computers, so they can crack it first, if they need to. That's my understanding, anyway.
I'm not sure that follows. Which law does the use of strong encryption contravene?
They can't download what's in my brain, so what's the difference? If the FBI wants to get into a phone, they will just have the figure it out on their own.
It won't be long before what you think will be able to be visualized in real-time, which may potentially lead to chemical or other types of treatments which could erase or modify what or how you think.
Law enforcement are entitled to gather evidence without knowledge by the suspect. It's a legitimate investigative process to help identify accomplices and new evidence. What you are proposing would constrain their ability to investigate without a suspect's awareness.
What you are saying then is we should blindly trust our law enforcement agencies because they have never been corrupt or stepped outside the law? Maybe you should drop off your banking information and password to your local Sheriff's office in case they need to check out your bank account.
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Yes, everyone of us posters are clearly criminals. We should inherently trust the government with everything because they ALWAYS have our best interest in mind. Just trust them blindly and without question.
You sir win the 2014 Internet Darwin Award for most ignorant comment of the year
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Should law enforcement have unfettered access to a person's safe in their house without that person's knowledge? The safe company should provide a back door to law enforcement?
Aren't you phoning in all of this nonsense from Canada, which is a constitutional monarchy? The US is the only country I'm aware of which has a constitution and Bill of Rights which protect individual rights above all else. At least that is the purpose of those founding documents.
I believe it was one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin I think, that said something along the lines of and I'm paraphrasing, those who would give up freedom in exchange for security deserve neither. Now I know this is a hard concept for some to understand but the cause of freedom and liberty actually does have a cost. Most in the United States would be willing to pay that cost and some have. This also get back to the other saying give me liberty or give me death. It doesn't say give me security or give me death it's give me liberty. Something this FBI director should probably go back and try to understand. What is even more shocking is that this current administration hasn't asked for this idiots resignation. But then that's something I should've expected from this administration.
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
That's assuming that the user is willing to comply with a warrant, or even around to unlock the device.
That doesn't stop LE from seizing the phone in case the suspect is not compliant while searching with a warrant. LE are allowed to enter the suspect's premises while he speaks to legal council.
Apple has handed the keys to user encrypted phones to the users. If LE want the keys, they need to issue a warrant to the user. You're arguing that Apple should retain a copy of all these keys so that LE can search it secretly. Apple is under no legal obligation to do so. What you really want is to live in China where privacy doesn't exist.
Just out of curiosity, do you agree with this characterization on Wikipedia?
The Canadian Bill of Rights[1] is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by Prime MinisterJohn Diefenbaker's government on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain quasi-constitutional[2]rights at Canadian federal law in relation to other federal statutes. It was the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level in Canada, though an Implied Bill of Rights had already been recognized in the Canadian Common Law.[2] The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect, but its widely acknowledged ineffectiveness arises in large part to its character as a federal statute only--although as to Canadian federal law, the Bill of Rights has subsequently acquired through judicial interpretation a quasi-constitutional status through the paramountcy doctrine.[3] These legal and constitutional shortcomings were a significant reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established as an unambiguously-constitutional-level Bill of Rights for all Canadians, governing the application of both federal and provincial law in Canada, with the patriation of the Constitution of Canadain 1982. Since patriation, its usefulness at federal law in Canada is mostly limited to issues pertaining to the enjoyment of property, as set forth in its section 1(a)--a slightly-broader "life, liberty, and security of the person" right than is recognized in Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to what I've read (and I'm no expert on Canadian law) the Monarchy and Federal (parliamentary democracy) government are more powerful than individual rights. Am I wrong?
Comments
... Encrypted bits don't kidnap kids, or make terrorists kill people. Actions, guns, social problems, poverty, etc do that.
You just negated your own argument.
"Guns", in this case, are no different than the encrypted data... they can do nothing on their own, they are neither dangerous nor benevolent. It takes action by a person. It is merely a tool that a criminal (or idiot) can cause to be dangerous ... while the vast majority of Guns" (like the vast majority of encrypted data) are tools put to good use or used for protection from criminals. (The way the encryption prevents criminals from moving your bank balance to their own account.)
/rant
Presumably, by this argument, anyone using strong cryptography is placing themselves above the law. Is it illegal to "place yourself above the law", whatever that means?
I do believe the US Government claims ownership to ALL forms of encryption. So using a method they cannot crack is, technically, illegal. Yes. I believe current encryption is not un-crackable, it's just that it takes a long time to do so. For most users, that means nobody can crack it. But the US Government also has the strongest computers, so they can crack it first, if they need to. That's my understanding, anyway.
Such a capability didn't historically exist, and law enforcement had to collect evidence the old fashioned way.
It is key to put law enforcement back into their historical bounds, or else we'll have truth serum and advanced MRI-based thought reconstruction devices next.
Vulnerability is the price to pay for freedom, **** living in a gilded safety cage: it's still a cage, a prison.
Who cares about a few hundred terrorism victims given that nobody cares about hundred thousands dying from processed food, tens of thousands dying from drunk driving, etc.?
Not going to give up liberty and privacy to potentially save a couple of a few hundred terrorism victims, while much bigger problems remain unsolved.
Also: why is it OK to loose thousands of soldiers in the battlefield "for our freedom", but it's not OK to loose a few dozen civilians due to the fact that them actually enjoying being free makes them somewhat more vulnerable?
If we give up our freedom voluntarily for the illusion of safety, why even bother sending soldiers into battle? We might just as well live "happily ever after" as slaves.
They can't download what's in my brain, so what's the difference? If the FBI wants to get into a phone, they will just have the figure it out on their own.
IF you have to worry about the FBI getting into your phone in a meaningful way, I'm guessing your hiding more than your sexting pictures... ;-). I'd guess they'd simply bug, film the hell out of everything, and put a tracker too, no need to even get to your phone. Makes them work a bit more, but hey, this is your tax dollars at work.
"FBI director says iOS and Android privacy features put users 'above the law'"
Where were the comments from the FBI when the NSA thought they were ABOVE THE FREAKING LAW!!!!
Screw you jerkheads!!!
I'm not sure that follows. Which law does the use of strong encryption contravene?
They can't download what's in my brain, so what's the difference? If the FBI wants to get into a phone, they will just have the figure it out on their own.
Um...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-figure-out-what-you-see-while-youre-dreaming-15553304/?no-ist=
(and a secondary source)
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/4/4184728/scientists-decode-dreams-with-mri-scan
It won't be long before what you think will be able to be visualized in real-time, which may potentially lead to chemical or other types of treatments which could erase or modify what or how you think.
Law enforcement are entitled to gather evidence without knowledge by the suspect. It's a legitimate investigative process to help identify accomplices and new evidence. What you are proposing would constrain their ability to investigate without a suspect's awareness.
What you are saying then is we should blindly trust our law enforcement agencies because they have never been corrupt or stepped outside the law? Maybe you should drop off your banking information and password to your local Sheriff's office in case they need to check out your bank account.
I'm not sure that follows. Which law does the use of strong encryption contravene?
The law of "we know better than you"...
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Yes, everyone of us posters are clearly criminals. We should inherently trust the government with everything because they ALWAYS have our best interest in mind. Just trust them blindly and without question.
You sir win the 2014 Internet Darwin Award for most ignorant comment of the year
It's pretty clear a lot of posters have a strong interest in hiding stuff from the police. It's exactly the actions and concerns that criminals spend their time on. They also like to plot and conduct their criminal activities more conveniently in secret.
Should law enforcement have unfettered access to a person's safe in their house without that person's knowledge? The safe company should provide a back door to law enforcement?
Aren't you phoning in all of this nonsense from Canada, which is a constitutional monarchy? The US is the only country I'm aware of which has a constitution and Bill of Rights which protect individual rights above all else. At least that is the purpose of those founding documents.
Yeahhhhhh..............no
That's assuming that the user is willing to comply with a warrant, or even around to unlock the device.
That doesn't stop LE from seizing the phone in case the suspect is not compliant while searching with a warrant. LE are allowed to enter the suspect's premises while he speaks to legal council.
Apple has handed the keys to user encrypted phones to the users. If LE want the keys, they need to issue a warrant to the user. You're arguing that Apple should retain a copy of all these keys so that LE can search it secretly. Apple is under no legal obligation to do so. What you really want is to live in China where privacy doesn't exist.
Yeahhhhhh..............no
Just out of curiosity, do you agree with this characterization on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights
According to what I've read (and I'm no expert on Canadian law) the Monarchy and Federal (parliamentary democracy) government are more powerful than individual rights. Am I wrong?
Are you a Canadian or not?
Spam, you are insulting me and all Canadians. Stop.