Manhattan DA calls on US Congress to support bill requiring mandatory decryption
The District Attorney of New York County is reportedly lobbying members of U.S. Congress in the hope they'll back legislation requiring companies like Apple to decrypt data on-demand following court orders.
"What we're doing is talking to political leaders, to try and convince them that they should address this [encryption issue] with federal legislation. I think that has to be the solution," Cyrus Vance told a crowd at the non-governmental Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday night, according to BuzzFeed News.
Vance claimed that the strong encryption used in platforms like Apple's iOS 9 and Facebook's WhatsApp creates "warrant-proof devices," in which criminals can act without being worried about government surveillance.
"We now live in a world where we are not getting all the facts," Vance continued. "Many of the facts are on smartphones, because criminals, just like you and me, have moved off paper and onto digital devices."
The district attorney said that his office has 230 Apple devices it can't break into, tied to crimes such as murder and child abuse, and argued that law enforcement should be able to search encrypted devices in the same way police can gain rights to go through cars, homes, and safety deposit boxes.
His stance met with opposition at the CFR event however, including from Adam Segal, director of the organization's digital efforts, who pointed out that a U.S. ban on strong encryption wouldn't stop the technology from being developed elsewhere.
Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff argued that the current encryption debate is just the most recent "species of a problem" involving law enforcement's need to gather evidence.
"Maybe it should be impossible to delete your email," Chertoff commented. "Maybe there should be a rule that you can never shred a piece of paper."
Segal worried that a future terrorist attack could potentially lead to dangerously rushed laws on the matter, which Vance then suggested was a reason for tech companies and legislators to work on laws now instead.
A draft decryption bill proposed by U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016, has been strongly opposed by both tech corporations and civil liberties organizations worried that the bill would effectively force the creation of backdoors and expose the public to hackers, criminals, and/or spy agencies, whether foreign or domestic. Some companies -- particularly Apple -- have taken to marketing privacy and security as core features.
"What we're doing is talking to political leaders, to try and convince them that they should address this [encryption issue] with federal legislation. I think that has to be the solution," Cyrus Vance told a crowd at the non-governmental Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday night, according to BuzzFeed News.
Vance claimed that the strong encryption used in platforms like Apple's iOS 9 and Facebook's WhatsApp creates "warrant-proof devices," in which criminals can act without being worried about government surveillance.
"We now live in a world where we are not getting all the facts," Vance continued. "Many of the facts are on smartphones, because criminals, just like you and me, have moved off paper and onto digital devices."
The district attorney said that his office has 230 Apple devices it can't break into, tied to crimes such as murder and child abuse, and argued that law enforcement should be able to search encrypted devices in the same way police can gain rights to go through cars, homes, and safety deposit boxes.
His stance met with opposition at the CFR event however, including from Adam Segal, director of the organization's digital efforts, who pointed out that a U.S. ban on strong encryption wouldn't stop the technology from being developed elsewhere.
Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff argued that the current encryption debate is just the most recent "species of a problem" involving law enforcement's need to gather evidence.
"Maybe it should be impossible to delete your email," Chertoff commented. "Maybe there should be a rule that you can never shred a piece of paper."
Segal worried that a future terrorist attack could potentially lead to dangerously rushed laws on the matter, which Vance then suggested was a reason for tech companies and legislators to work on laws now instead.
A draft decryption bill proposed by U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016, has been strongly opposed by both tech corporations and civil liberties organizations worried that the bill would effectively force the creation of backdoors and expose the public to hackers, criminals, and/or spy agencies, whether foreign or domestic. Some companies -- particularly Apple -- have taken to marketing privacy and security as core features.
Comments
Think about that..
LOL this was my favorite line from the article... "Maybe it should be impossible to delete your email," Chertoff commented. "Maybe there should be a rule that you can never shred a piece of paper." I have to find the exact quote in context, because I'm not sure f he's serious or not. Either way ROFLMAO That's the funniest suggestion for either side of the argument I've heard.
i didn't know that iPhones committed crimes? Maybe every door in every building should have has a master key held by law enforcement? Where does it end? Maybe put more effort into old school police and detective work instead of putting all users of technology at risk.
I know these law enforcement and political people are idiots, but maybe Apple has got to do a better job of explaining to them that it's not that simple.
It's time for a national referendum legalizing encryption. Congress isn't going to help us so we have to help ourselves.
Part of the problem is that many of these law enforcement representatives don't seem to understand mathematics or computer decision making. Encryption is math. As I have recently become fond of saying, 2+2=4, regardless of whether you believe in truth, justice, and the American way. The computer can only differentiate between people who have the owner's authenticating token (passcode) and people who don't. It can't tell if a person who doesn't is a mugger or a cop. It can't tell if someone with the token is the legitimate owner or not, either.
A few years ago, when the various attorneys general asked Apple and others to render phones useless to people who are not the owner, this was the only possible result. If you make it possible for a cop who is not the owner of the device to access it, you also make it possible for a mugger who is not the owner to access it in the same way.
Going back to the analogy of searching a home, I wonder how the law deals with devices that burn documents when they detect unauthorized entry. Those same methods could potentially be applied to people who use the automatic wipe of the device after X incorrect passcode tries.
The he government needs a warrant to get me to open my door for a search. They will need a warrant to get me to open my phone.
My but I don't have to give the government the key for coded notes I wrote.
I I won't give the key for digital files either.
They want all financial transactions to be sent in a way that can be compromised at any time?
They want an universal key for all encryption in every app, tunnel and OS?
They want to make the use of encryption without that universal key illegal?
Is the War on encryption going to fill prisons left vacant after the war on drugs has been declared moronic?
Why not another useless "war".!
That's a totally garbage declaration; up there with demanding a mandatory lobotomy.