Prosecutors press on with 'think of the children' campaign against encryption in iOS, Android
Law enforcement officials have continued to make their case?against the new, heftier encryption introduced last year by Apple and Google for their respective mobile operating systems, charging once again that the changes are standing in the way of capturing murderers, pedophiles, sex traffickers, and terrorists.
FBI director James Comey is among those who have argued for a government-accessible backdoor in consumer encryption systems.
"The new encryption policies of Apple and Google have made it harder to protect people from crime," a group of police and prosecutors wrote in an opinion piece published Wednesday by The New York Times. Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., Paris chief prosecutor Fran?ois Molins, City of London Police commissioner Adrian Leppard, and chief prosecutor of the High Court of Spain Javier Zaragoza share the byline.
They argue that allowing people to encrypt their data without a backdoor amounts to forcing law enforcement "to proceed with one hand tied behind [their] backs," and that the actions which precipitated these changes --?including the NSA data collection scandal --?may be unfortunate, but do not justify the response.
"The new Apple encryption would not have prevented the N.S.A.'s mass collection of phone-call data or the interception of telecommunications, as revealed by Mr. Snowden," the piece reads. "There is no evidence that it would address institutional data breaches or the use of malware. And we are not talking about violating civil liberties -- we are talking about the ability to unlock phones pursuant to lawful, transparent judicial orders."
The relative lawfulness and transparency of those orders was not addressed.
Inaccessible, encrypted iPhones are said to have held up investigations including "the attempted murder of three individuals, the repeated sexual abuse of a child, a continuing sex trafficking ring and numerous assaults and robberies." Oddly, no such data for Android devices was offered, nor were any statistics that may have shed light on the benefits of encryption in stopping identity theft, blackmailing, or similar crimes when handsets are stolen.
This is not the first attack by law enforcement on widespread mobile phone encryption, and it is unlikely to be the last. Arguing that such encryption provides only "marginal benefits," Vance, Molins, Leppard, and Zaragoza call on government to regulate it --?a policy which has been tried, and failed, before.
FBI director James Comey is among those who have argued for a government-accessible backdoor in consumer encryption systems.
"The new encryption policies of Apple and Google have made it harder to protect people from crime," a group of police and prosecutors wrote in an opinion piece published Wednesday by The New York Times. Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., Paris chief prosecutor Fran?ois Molins, City of London Police commissioner Adrian Leppard, and chief prosecutor of the High Court of Spain Javier Zaragoza share the byline.
They argue that allowing people to encrypt their data without a backdoor amounts to forcing law enforcement "to proceed with one hand tied behind [their] backs," and that the actions which precipitated these changes --?including the NSA data collection scandal --?may be unfortunate, but do not justify the response.
"The new Apple encryption would not have prevented the N.S.A.'s mass collection of phone-call data or the interception of telecommunications, as revealed by Mr. Snowden," the piece reads. "There is no evidence that it would address institutional data breaches or the use of malware. And we are not talking about violating civil liberties -- we are talking about the ability to unlock phones pursuant to lawful, transparent judicial orders."
The relative lawfulness and transparency of those orders was not addressed.
Inaccessible, encrypted iPhones are said to have held up investigations including "the attempted murder of three individuals, the repeated sexual abuse of a child, a continuing sex trafficking ring and numerous assaults and robberies." Oddly, no such data for Android devices was offered, nor were any statistics that may have shed light on the benefits of encryption in stopping identity theft, blackmailing, or similar crimes when handsets are stolen.
This is not the first attack by law enforcement on widespread mobile phone encryption, and it is unlikely to be the last. Arguing that such encryption provides only "marginal benefits," Vance, Molins, Leppard, and Zaragoza call on government to regulate it --?a policy which has been tried, and failed, before.
Comments
Congratulations. The terrorists have won. In the 14 years since we were directly attacked, we have proceeded to give away almost everything in the name of security against the bogeyman (in whatever form that may take, terrorists, murderers, kidnappers, etc, ad nauseum.)
Why should they even bother to launch another attack? Just half heartedly cook up a plan to keep the spectre alive, and all goes well. We are doing a bang up job whittling away on nearly everything they hate about us.
Dear government.
F U.
Exactly!
They really just need to iron out the due process requirements for private electronic equipment and come up with a standard that the public is comfortable with. I think the real fear for the majority of the public is the idea that the government has played fast and loose with due process standards after the Patriot Act became law, not that the government shouldn't be allowed to search private electronic equipment if they've followed a fair due process that protects civil and constitutional rights. From what I've heard Tim Cook say, I get the impression that what he really wants to avoid is Apple being treated like a shortcut around an individual's right to due process.
We must grant the chancellor emergency powers.
The only consolation in all of this is that the people who are slowly removing our civil liberties and abandoning the constitution will some day fall victim to their own actions. They won't always be in power and those who take over will turn this back onto the creators for their own purposes. Careful what you ask for, as it is said.
As a 19 year law enforcement veteran I can certainly sympathize in wanting to have every resource possible to prosecute pedophiles and other serious criminals. I also want every resource available to track terrorists and prevent any more attacks. With that being said, I of all people do not trust the federal government with this power because they have shown over and over again through the years what extent they are willing to abuse their authority against the citizens. I am a citizen and hold our Constitution sacred and would do anything to preserve its integrity in protecting citizen freedoms and rights. There are plenty of ways to make cases against people, arguing the critical and absolute necessity of phone access is a sign of a weak minded officer who lacks creativity or willingness to work, much like the lazy traffic guys who can't work without a radar, nevermind the other several hundred traffic statutes available to enforce.
Even though it's more convenient to use a fingerprint to unlock a device, I use a PIN on general principle.
It would be trivial for law enforcement to hold you down and place your finger on the sensor. But they can't compel you think of your PIN and enter it.
You are a stud. That was said perfectly. Thank you.
'Think of the children' - how about all that sugar-products in the supermarket? This influences and makes miserable millions of people. And enriches corporations.
How about guns? People could kill 'children' with them. Terrorist could use them to kill you.
But that would be their guns.
No one can kill with MY phone (highly unlikely, let's say so).
Leave my phone out of your policies!
Yes, think of the children: ban door locks, and curtains, and video cameras, and...
Encryption is like the cornerstone of catching pervs?
Yes. And access to your iPhone is the most critical!
What do you have to hide? Give us access to your phone! /s