You desire that for yourself or for everyone? In your mind, what is the difference between an encrypted phone and a phone with encrypted data?
Imagine this scenario. A police officer stops you for speeding. He asks for your license, registration and proof of insurance. You now have everything electronically on your iPhone so you hand it to him to take a look. He proceeds to take it back to his cruiser and connects it to his "backdoor iPhone access" device and just starts looking around on your phone. Would you be cool with that?
No. That's an illegal search. However, if the data is encrypted, he can only gain access to what I allow. An encrypted phone can't be accessed without the appropriate password. Once accessed, the data is accessible unless it, too, is encrypted.
An open phone with encrypted data may be open but if you choose to do it, the data is still not accessible without the password.
None of that should be accessed without permission except by court order.
Of course all arguments are moot if you realize that a law/abiding citizen will give up access to their encrypted (or not) phone if presented with a court order. Right?
It's also a bit moot if one is no longer living?
Since we seem to have straw man arguments prophesying doom, let me offer a new one:
You are in a terrible accident. Access to your financial data is on your encrypted phone. Your wife needs the information to access your accounts but, because she is not the account holder, she can't without court order. Unfortunately, you being secretive, have all the information on your phone but it's encrypted and, because of your injury (or stroke or... or...) it can't be accessed.
I bet your family would wish it could accessed via a back door.
That straw man is about as likely as terrorists killing you but it presents a good reason for one.
By the way, if you are single and have an accident or stroke and can't talk… that is a bit more likely.
I do not extend any courtesy to those who ignorantly, and willfully hand over their rights to freedom and privacy in the name of empowering a power-hungry police state government, which uses the oldest excuses in the book to gain complete and total power over its population. It's quite obvious you haven't read any of the data that's been revealed by the likes of Wikileaks or Edward Snowden, who show just how many freedoms people have lost because of their government, who feeds incessantly on people like you who willfully give them that ability.
You don't know what I do or do not know. But, I do know what and who your are. Your need to insult is very telling.
Get real. If a court order is issued to search a particular device, then that person needs to unlock their device to allow access. If they don't, are they not in contempt of court, and could possibly go to jail as well?
Depends on the country. In the US there is the 5th amendment that allows a defendant the right to not incriminate themselves. In other countries you can be fined and sent to jail, however, the defendant can still decide if the contempt of court penalty is worse than the penalty they might face when the encrypted information is found to be incriminating of a more serious crime.
Many extreme terrorists on the most-wanted list don't even use technology anymore. They communicate by courier via hardcopy encrypted with good old-fashioned classical (pen/paper) cryptography techniques, which, by the way, if used in sequence (i.e. multiple techniques) can even be made impenetrable to the big brains and fancy computers of the NSA.
I don't care what phone you use, there are going to be some signals intelligence and/or digital breadcrumbs left behind, and the more extreme terrorists know this and avoid it.
There is a huge difference between what this DA is asking for and what hackers and the NSA (or the KGB used to) do everyday.
Invasion of user privacy takes four forms:
A. Direct or passive remote monitoring or intercept of user information and data — much like hackers do. Or, the NSA.
B. Active, targeted observation — e.g., wire taps (which are legal when authorized by a court), surveillance drones, wireless transmitters.
C. Active reading of phone or computer data via external electronic devices — the so-called mobile forensic devices police sometimes use to read smartphone data.
D. Physical access — whether by stolen password or court-ordered forensic examination.
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
Absolutely if that is the only evidence they should go free. Are you nuts?
First, I don't recall reading anything about it being physical access. Where did you read that at??? He needs a back door to bypass the encryption. How does physical access change that?
How else can you read the contents of a phone? If it's hacked, it only what is transmitted can be read. If it is not physically in their possession, just how do you think they can read it at all. Personally, I don't believe they are asking to remotely read a phone. But, even if they could, who is so egotistical to believe that they are a target? Too many people. Too much data.
Hell, they can't even keep track of who is dead. Do you really think they have the time, inclination or interest in trying to track everyone?
Depends on the country. In the US there is the 5th amendment that allows a defendant the right to not incriminate themselves. In other countries you can be fined and sent to jail, however, the defendant can still decide if the contempt of court penalty is worse than the penalty they might face when the encrypted information is found to be incriminating of a more serious crime.
Yes. You have the right to not incriminate yourself. That right does not extend itself to written records you prepare or maintain, i.e., email, journals, computer records.
Absolutely if that is the only evidence they should go free. Are you nuts?
No. Are you? Would you be OK with denying the authorities to written communications between conspirators too? If not, just how is that any different than the authorities access what is on a phone?
You don't know what I do or do not know. But, I do know what and who your are. Your need to insult is very telling.
You don't know me in the slightest, and my comments should be telling as ones from an individual who cannot stand ignorance and stupidity... You on the other hand have demonstrated you're an individual who gladly sacrifices the right to personal freedom and security, because your government tells you so.
No. That's an illegal search. However, if the data is encrypted, he can only gain access to what I allow. An encrypted phone can't be accessed without the appropriate password. Once accessed, the data is accessible unless it, too, is encrypted.
An open phone with encrypted data may be open but if you choose to do it, the data is still not accessible without the password.
None of that should be accessed without permission except by court order.
Of course all arguments are moot if you realize that a law/abiding citizen will give up access to their encrypted (or not) phone if presented with a court order. Right?
It's also a bit moot if one is no longer living?
Since we seem to have straw man arguments prophesying doom, let me offer a new one:
You are in a terrible accident. Access to your financial data is on your encrypted phone. Your wife needs the information to access your accounts but, because she is not the account holder, she can't without court order. Unfortunately, you being secretive, have all the information on your phone but it's encrypted and, because of your injury (or stroke or... or...) it can't be accessed.
I bet your family would wish it could accessed via a back door.
That straw man is about as likely as terrorists killing you but it presents a good reason for one.
By the way, if you are single and have an accident or stroke and can't talk… that is a bit more likely.
Since I don't want them to be able to access anything on my phone without my permission, then full phone encryption is ok, right?
Just like all arguments are moot if we assume no law enforcement person or government official will ever break the law, right? Also, if there's a device or process that allows backdoor access to devices, you have to realize sooner or later, those backdoor devices/processes won't only be in the possession of law enforcement/government employees, right?
Wills and power of attorney exist and would be used if I die (whether single or married). Perhaps you don't want all your stuff to go to your wife, but to your grandkids and that's what's stated in your will. Otherwise, it would be just like someone having a secret lock box at the bank only they know about and they die without their spouse/family knowing about it. If you're so secretive with your own family, there's probably a reason
No. Are you? Would you be OK with denying the authorities to written communications between conspirators too? If not, just how is that any different than the authorities access what is on a phone?
Today a court can compel someone to provide access to the data on their phone the same way they can compel you to provide access to anything. Anyone choosing not to provide access would be in jail until they did. Why do we need a backdoor so a secret FISA court that shouldn't even exist can issue a secret warrant that shouldn't even exist to access the data on my phone without my knowledge. There is no logical argument any reasonable person can make supporting this lunacy. It is unlikely you know a bigger supporter of law enforcement than me. I just happen to be a big fan of freedom too.
This backdoor would be nothing more than a convenience for law enforcement. Why should we weaken our personal security for convenience? It may be cliche, but if we continue ue to give up our rights, the terrorists win and our children lose. Get rid of secret courts issuing thousands of secret warrants and we can talk about I proving convenience. Should the government agencies only use devices with a backdoor to facilitate freedom of information requests?
I just think the whole paranoia culture that has developed around believing that everything the government does is highly calculated is nonsense. That said, I do feel that mindless passing of regulations which don't actually solve problems needs to be stopped.
Again, it's not a matter of paranoia or calculation, it's a matter of human nature and the fact that each one of us is self-interested. This simple fact was acknowledged in the creation of the US Constitution by the framers. They had the expanse of recorded human history as their guide. People today have become deluded with notions that because they can get "free stuff" from government their interests are taken care of, when in fact the opposite is true.
You don't know me in the slightest, and my comments should be telling as ones from an individual who cannot stand ignorance and stupidity... You on the other hand have demonstrated you're an individual who gladly sacrifices the right to personal freedom and security, because your government tells you so.
I have expressed my opinion. You chose to insult me for it. The anger in your response was unjustified. You are trying to justify insulting me. That about sums up the conversation. Please don't bother to reply if you don't have anything constructive to say or that is not a personal attack.
Since I don't want them to be able to access anything on my phone without my permission, then full phone encryption is ok, right?
Just like all arguments are moot if we assume no law enforcement person or government official will ever break the law, right? Also, if there's a device or process that allows backdoor access to devices, you have to realize sooner or later, those backdoor devices/processes won't only be in the possession of law enforcement/government employees, right?
Wills and power of attorney exist and would be used if I die (whether single or married). Perhaps you don't want all your stuff to go to your wife, but to your grandkids and that's what's stated in your will. Otherwise, it would be just like someone having a secret lock box at the bank only they know about and they die without their spouse/family knowing about it. If you're so secretive with your own family, there's probably a reason
your last graph raises an interesting question. Other than that, I can only say that life is about trade offs and compromises. None of us get all we want all the time.
If we don't compromise (e.g., your rights end where my nose begins), then society really cannot exist. And, because some can't live by generally accepted rules, we need laws to discourage bad behavior. Those laws, each and every one of them, interfere with someone's rights. Fair or not.
So, we have to agree to compromise. Somewhere. Refusing to do so, refusing to trust, polarization have given us the government we now have — one so polarized as to be either paralyzed or writing bad laws, depending on whether power is one-sided or balanced.
Fine, let them. But, why should we make it easier for them? As for the dumb petty criminals, we are making it easier for them too.
because it's a matter of risk vs reward. fact -- like all LE tools, a proposed backdoor would get abused, and the scenarios for using it would creep to anything you can think of. (remember: the FBI was stalking Martin Luther King Jr and other civil rights groups, and even tried to blackmail him into suicide...here, in the USA). so the risk of it being abused outweighs the reward of forcing some guy to unlock his phone which for some reason is the sole avenue of investigation for the LE agents involved (an unlikely scenario).
Fine, let them. But, why should we make it easier for them? As for the dumb petty criminals, we are making it easier for them too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
Because it's simply not a solution to the problem. Why should we all give up our privacy for a solution that isn't one?
I think auxio has stated this well. Terrorists will use Android phones with side loaded apps that provide whatever strong encryption they desire. Why should criminals be the only ones who have privacy? And why should we all be exposed to the well-known dangers that compromised security puts us in for absolutely no discernible benefit?
Today a court can compel someone to provide access to the data on their phone the same way they can compel you to provide access to anything. Anyone choosing not to provide access would be in jail until they did. Why do we need a backdoor so a secret FISA court that shouldn't even exist can issue a secret warrant that shouldn't even exist to access the data on my phone without my knowledge. There is no logical argument any reasonable person can make supporting this lunacy. It is unlikely you know a bigger supporter of law enforcement than me. I just happen to be a big fan of freedom too.
This backdoor would be nothing more than a convenience for law enforcement. Why should we weaken our personal security for convenience? It may be cliche, but if we continue ue to give up our rights, the terrorists win and our children lose. Get rid of secret courts issuing thousands of secret warrants and we can talk about I proving convenience. Should the government agencies only use devices with a backdoor to facilitate freedom of information requests?
I understand your points. I will only comment and say that there is a reason for secret courts, whether we like it or not. One cannot fight terrorists or criminal condpiracies when one has to broadcast what one is doing. Point: if an informant has to go to open court, they will be ineffective in the future and soon dead.
And last 8 years have proven Obama is the president of choice for Terrorists as well. Terrorists need to be killed and hunted down like animals they are regardless what phone they use. Cannot placate them like Obama and Hillary have done last 8 years. Do that we end up with dead ambassadors , dead via agents and dead Americans all over
because it's a matter of risk vs reward. fact -- like all LE tools, a proposed backdoor would get abused, and the scenarios for using it would creep to anything you can think of. (remember: the FBI was stalking Martin Luther King Jr and other civil rights protestors). so the risk of it being abused outweighs the reward of forcing some guy to unlock his phone which for some reason is the sole avenue of investigation for the LE agents involved (doubtful).
Comments
An open phone with encrypted data may be open but if you choose to do it, the data is still not accessible without the password.
None of that should be accessed without permission except by court order.
Of course all arguments are moot if you realize that a law/abiding citizen will give up access to their encrypted (or not) phone if presented with a court order. Right?
It's also a bit moot if one is no longer living?
Since we seem to have straw man arguments prophesying doom, let me offer a new one:
You are in a terrible accident. Access to your financial data is on your encrypted phone. Your wife needs the information to access your accounts but, because she is not the account holder, she can't without court order. Unfortunately, you being secretive, have all the information on your phone but it's encrypted and, because of your injury (or stroke or... or...) it can't be accessed.
I bet your family would wish it could accessed via a back door.
That straw man is about as likely as terrorists killing you but it presents a good reason for one.
By the way, if you are single and have an accident or stroke and can't talk… that is a bit more likely.
Get real. If a court order is issued to search a particular device, then that person needs to unlock their device to allow access. If they don't, are they not in contempt of court, and could possibly go to jail as well?
Depends on the country. In the US there is the 5th amendment that allows a defendant the right to not incriminate themselves. In other countries you can be fined and sent to jail, however, the defendant can still decide if the contempt of court penalty is worse than the penalty they might face when the encrypted information is found to be incriminating of a more serious crime.
Uh, nope. This guy is talking out of his ass.
For fringe libertarian privacy freaks, criminals, pirates, and drug pushers, or anyone who seeks to actively thwart the NSA, they'll use Blackphone:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone
Many extreme terrorists on the most-wanted list don't even use technology anymore. They communicate by courier via hardcopy encrypted with good old-fashioned classical (pen/paper) cryptography techniques, which, by the way, if used in sequence (i.e. multiple techniques) can even be made impenetrable to the big brains and fancy computers of the NSA.
I don't care what phone you use, there are going to be some signals intelligence and/or digital breadcrumbs left behind, and the more extreme terrorists know this and avoid it.
This goofball DA don't know jack.
Absolutely if that is the only evidence they should go free. Are you nuts?
Hell, they can't even keep track of who is dead. Do you really think they have the time, inclination or interest in trying to track everyone?
But... but... Snowden said Apple got the backdoor.. /s
You don't know what I do or do not know. But, I do know what and who your are. Your need to insult is very telling.
You don't know me in the slightest, and my comments should be telling as ones from an individual who cannot stand ignorance and stupidity... You on the other hand have demonstrated you're an individual who gladly sacrifices the right to personal freedom and security, because your government tells you so.
No. That's an illegal search. However, if the data is encrypted, he can only gain access to what I allow. An encrypted phone can't be accessed without the appropriate password. Once accessed, the data is accessible unless it, too, is encrypted.
An open phone with encrypted data may be open but if you choose to do it, the data is still not accessible without the password.
None of that should be accessed without permission except by court order.
Of course all arguments are moot if you realize that a law/abiding citizen will give up access to their encrypted (or not) phone if presented with a court order. Right?
It's also a bit moot if one is no longer living?
Since we seem to have straw man arguments prophesying doom, let me offer a new one:
You are in a terrible accident. Access to your financial data is on your encrypted phone. Your wife needs the information to access your accounts but, because she is not the account holder, she can't without court order. Unfortunately, you being secretive, have all the information on your phone but it's encrypted and, because of your injury (or stroke or... or...) it can't be accessed.
I bet your family would wish it could accessed via a back door.
That straw man is about as likely as terrorists killing you but it presents a good reason for one.
By the way, if you are single and have an accident or stroke and can't talk… that is a bit more likely.
Since I don't want them to be able to access anything on my phone without my permission, then full phone encryption is ok, right?
Just like all arguments are moot if we assume no law enforcement person or government official will ever break the law, right? Also, if there's a device or process that allows backdoor access to devices, you have to realize sooner or later, those backdoor devices/processes won't only be in the possession of law enforcement/government employees, right?
Wills and power of attorney exist and would be used if I die (whether single or married). Perhaps you don't want all your stuff to go to your wife, but to your grandkids and that's what's stated in your will. Otherwise, it would be just like someone having a secret lock box at the bank only they know about and they die without their spouse/family knowing about it. If you're so secretive with your own family, there's probably a reason
Today a court can compel someone to provide access to the data on their phone the same way they can compel you to provide access to anything. Anyone choosing not to provide access would be in jail until they did. Why do we need a backdoor so a secret FISA court that shouldn't even exist can issue a secret warrant that shouldn't even exist to access the data on my phone without my knowledge. There is no logical argument any reasonable person can make supporting this lunacy. It is unlikely you know a bigger supporter of law enforcement than me. I just happen to be a big fan of freedom too.
This backdoor would be nothing more than a convenience for law enforcement. Why should we weaken our personal security for convenience? It may be cliche, but if we continue ue to give up our rights, the terrorists win and our children lose. Get rid of secret courts issuing thousands of secret warrants and we can talk about I proving convenience. Should the government agencies only use devices with a backdoor to facilitate freedom of information requests?
I just think the whole paranoia culture that has developed around believing that everything the government does is highly calculated is nonsense. That said, I do feel that mindless passing of regulations which don't actually solve problems needs to be stopped.
Again, it's not a matter of paranoia or calculation, it's a matter of human nature and the fact that each one of us is self-interested. This simple fact was acknowledged in the creation of the US Constitution by the framers. They had the expanse of recorded human history as their guide. People today have become deluded with notions that because they can get "free stuff" from government their interests are taken care of, when in fact the opposite is true.
If we don't compromise (e.g., your rights end where my nose begins), then society really cannot exist. And, because some can't live by generally accepted rules, we need laws to discourage bad behavior. Those laws, each and every one of them, interfere with someone's rights. Fair or not.
So, we have to agree to compromise. Somewhere. Refusing to do so, refusing to trust, polarization have given us the government we now have — one so polarized as to be either paralyzed or writing bad laws, depending on whether power is one-sided or balanced.
because it's a matter of risk vs reward. fact -- like all LE tools, a proposed backdoor would get abused, and the scenarios for using it would creep to anything you can think of. (remember: the FBI was stalking Martin Luther King Jr and other civil rights groups, and even tried to blackmail him into suicide...here, in the USA). so the risk of it being abused outweighs the reward of forcing some guy to unlock his phone which for some reason is the sole avenue of investigation for the LE agents involved (an unlikely scenario).
Fine, let them. But, why should we make it easier for them? As for the dumb petty criminals, we are making it easier for them too.
Originally Posted by auxio
Because it's simply not a solution to the problem. Why should we all give up our privacy for a solution that isn't one?
I think auxio has stated this well. Terrorists will use Android phones with side loaded apps that provide whatever strong encryption they desire. Why should criminals be the only ones who have privacy? And why should we all be exposed to the well-known dangers that compromised security puts us in for absolutely no discernible benefit?