Prosecutors press on with 'think of the children' campaign against encryption in iOS, Android

Posted:
in iPhone edited August 2015
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.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,135member
    Very disturbing.
  • Reply 2 of 69
    If the government is all upset about not getting a back door into my phone, then I salute Apple for doing the right thing and standing by their decision.
  • Reply 3 of 69
    jacodbjacodb Posts: 23member
    I want my phone encrypted. I live in a country that had and still has an intelligence service aka secret police that spied on people and not for the greater good but for their own protection and their own benefit. I like that my phone is encrypted, my iMessage and facetime calls are secure even if I have nothing to hide.
  • Reply 4 of 69
    All BS they can still track the phones, how was crime even solved before cell phones?
  • Reply 5 of 69
    stourquestourque Posts: 354member
    The old 'think of the kids' line, when they can't think of a better justification. That and 'the terrorists will get you.' Scaremongering at its finest.
  • Reply 6 of 69
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member
    Wow, I wonder If Mr. Corney would gladly left is phone unlocked into state trooper or a TSA agents hands.
  • Reply 7 of 69
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 269member

    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.

  • Reply 8 of 69
    imatimat Posts: 161member

    Dear government.



    F U.

  • Reply 9 of 69
    All BS they can still track the phones, how was crime even solved before cell phones?

    Exactly!
  • Reply 10 of 69

    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.

  • Reply 11 of 69
    mrboba1 wrote: »
    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.

    We must grant the chancellor emergency powers.
  • Reply 12 of 69
    kent909kent909 Posts: 709member

    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.

  • Reply 13 of 69

    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.

  • Reply 14 of 69

    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.

  • Reply 15 of 69
    thebudda wrote: »
    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.

    You are a stud. That was said perfectly. Thank you.
  • Reply 16 of 69
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 17 of 69
    uraharaurahara Posts: 231member

    '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!

  • Reply 18 of 69
    neilmneilm Posts: 612member



    Yes, think of the children: ban door locks, and curtains, and video cameras, and...

  • Reply 18 of 69
    Anytime you hear the government start saying things like "think of the children" and "this is for the good of the American people" then we're all about to lose some rights and freedoms. The government is seriously getting out of control and all you liberal idiots that want big government and more regulation can go jump off a cliff because you are literally destroying the principles this country was founded on. "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Benjamin Franklin
  • Reply 20 of 69
    uraharaurahara Posts: 231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dklebedev View Post

     

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.