Deputy AG Rosenstein says companies like Apple are trying to 'defeat legitimate law enforc...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Keynoting a cybercrime conference on Thursday, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein attacked the encryption stances of companies like Apple while simultaneously arguing for the importance of security.

Rod Rosenstein


"We need to place security on the same footing as novelty and convenience, and design technology accordingly," said Rosenstein, quoted by Politico's Eric Geller. Shortly thereafter, however, Rosentein claimed that "we cannot accept a culture in which technology companies considers it part of their responsibility to defeat legitimate law enforcement."

Intentionally or not the comment implicated Apple, which holds a strict privacy stance in which encryption is central. iPhones and iPads, for example, have been protected with full-disk encryption since iOS 8, putting the company in a perpetual race with data recovery and forensics teams. Both FaceTime and iMessage conversations use end-to-end encryption, making them impossible to intercept midstream, even by Apple.

Services like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram also use end-to-end encryption, which law enforcement and spy agencies have complained are sometimes being used by terrorists and other criminals. People like former FBI director James Comey have complained about communications "going dark" to legitimate law enforcement requests.

Apple has maintained that it's impossible to build a backdoor into its platforms without fundamentally weakening security, exposing people to hackers and mass surveillance. The company infamously fought with the U.S. Department of Justice over the iPhone 5c of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, only for the DoJ to abandon the case when the FBI succeeded with a third-party forensics solution.

The federal government has been slowly working towards privacy legislation in the face of scandals like Equifax and Cambridge Analytica. Apple CEO Tim Cook has suggested "it's inevitable that there will be some level of regulation," and even supported the cause, for example praising the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    Defeating law enforcement is only a side-effect of doing the right thing, not their motivation. These "leaders" are clueless and feel victimized.
    baconstangradarthekatsteven n.magman1979dysamorialostkiwiStrangeDayswatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 52
    Who remembers the "secure" version of Netscape Navigator that needed to be purchased? Anything that supported a certain level of encryption was considered a threat to US National Security.

    magman1979dysamoriawatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 52
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
  • Reply 4 of 52
    Quite the interesting comment from such a whipped, milquetoast DAG.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 52
    "we cannot accept a culture in which technology companies considers it part of their responsibility to defeat legitimate law enforcement"
    Rosenstein lying again. Apple is not trying to defeat law enforcement, but rather is trying to protect client's info via means of encryption.
    The fact that it will make law enforcement harder is secondary, just like walls and locks in doors makes it harder for the law enforcement to enforce the law.
    By that same logic, he would need to advocate the removal of those as well, or at least its regulation. The reality is - Rosenstein is a person who rubber-stamped FISA court order on illegal wire-tapping of the presidential candidate without using any facts to back up that FISA warrant. Rosenstein is the enemy of privacy, clearly, as he cared very little about violating the concept of individual freedoms (especially when a person is innocent). Of course, knowing that, it is no surprise that he is advocating for the "regulation" of the technology that would prevent people like him from collecting any info they want. He does not care at all that by "regulating" it, the encryption will be maid weaker and the keys will be made available to the bad players in no time.. Very dangerous person, but sadly not that many average voters care about that.


    baconstangmagman1979uraharadysamorialostkiwiwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 6 of 52
    Who remembers the "secure" version of Netscape Navigator that needed to be purchased? Anything that supported a certain level of encryption was considered a threat to US National Security.

    Yes, the 128 bit version.
    magman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 52
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    Technology has enabled the government to monitor and store massive amounts of personal data “just in case it’s needed” in the future- all in the name of security. Would you feel differently if the government recorded everything that went into your house or car in case they needed to know in the future? The government has shown through history that they are constantly pursuing more power and control over the people.  Your opinion is that of a simpleton who has no comprehension of the bigger picture. 
    thtbaconstangbadmonkfastasleepmagman1979djkfisheruraharabrucemclostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 52
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 5,007administrator
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    That's not even close to what Cook says on the matter, or what Apple does when served with a warrant. Not even remotely close, and I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
    edited November 2018 king editor the gratethttmaybaconstangfastasleepmacxpresscmd-zradarthekatmwhitemagman1979
  • Reply 9 of 52
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,055member
    Defeating law enforcement is only a side-effect of doing the right thing, not their motivation. These "leaders" are clueless and feel victimized.
    I think the single and only reason is Apple is trying to protect user privacy and security. And Apple has made this statement numerous times public. Why the AG choose to ignore it? At least he should make an argument why law enforcement is above user privacy and security.
    tmayradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 52
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,752member
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    Safety deposit boxes are not prone to people outside of being the owner, and law enforcement from obtaining access to the contents.  Your analogy is the equivalent of using a 20-ton steel front door to protect the contents, all the while using drywall on the back exterior wall to the vault.  

    People like you seem to experience difficulty in understanding that creating weakened security, or a backdoor to any "legal" entity means giving that same privilege to any other nefarious parties that won't seem to care that the backdoor is not meant for them.  Law enforcement's mentality does not understand that reality, and neither do you.

    If that same backdoor gives some rogue government, or hacker access to my phone contents, steals data/credentials and wipes out my bank account, will you cover my losses?  I suspect you'll go to the farthest corner of the room and pretend to look the other way.
    tmaybaconstangfastasleepmagman1979mark fearingDeelronuraharaurashidlostkiwijony0
  • Reply 11 of 52
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,516member
    And what is Rod's smartphone of choice?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 52
    Shouldn't he be Acting AG Rosenstein? I thought Sessions was gone?
    baconstang
  • Reply 13 of 52
    Appleish said:
    Shouldn't he be Acting AG Rosenstein? I thought Sessions was gone?
    He SHOULD be, but Trump went out of the line of succession to appoint Sessions’ chief of staff Matt Whitaker as acting AG because he’s more likely to obstruct the Mueller investigation. 
    edited November 2018 baconstangStrangeDays
  • Reply 14 of 52
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,027member
    As such it is difficult catching criminals so there is the truth against companies making devices harder to peek into when dealing with criminals. Privacy vs fighting crime battle not going away anytime soon and there is NO clear cut way to address in win-win and make both side happy.
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 15 of 52
    Whitacker was appointed AG after Sessions stepped down. Rosenstein is a moron,  like way to many in government and law enforcement your personal privacy means nothing if they think they can win a case or arrest you for something, because of something they "find" in your car, your house, or your smartphone, computer if you let them, which in most cases, unless they have a warrant, they can't look or touch....     Which leads to the next problem is way to many people are clueless, and that is the real problem.
    thtmacseeker
  • Reply 16 of 52
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    That's not even close to what Cook says on the matter, or what Apple does when served with a warrant. Not even remotely close, and I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
    It’s interesting that it’s always the people with a small number of posts that spread FUD about what Apple is doing to protect users privacy and data.

    Some might even say its (mighty) suspicious...
    baconstangleavingthebiggmark fearinguraharabrucemclostkiwi
  • Reply 17 of 52
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    That's not even close to what Cook says on the matter, or what Apple does when served with a warrant. Not even remotely close, and I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
    Some folks seem to like generating their own fake news ...
  • Reply 18 of 52
    Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now over the size and power our federal government has reached.
    SpamSandwichmacseekertedz98lostkiwi
  • Reply 19 of 52
    lenn said:
    The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
    It is quite apparent that you have no idea about how computer system security works. Things are either secure so nobody can get into therm, good guys and bad guys, or they are insecure and everyone can get into them, good guys and bad guys. It is not possible to build a back door that only would be used by law enforcement ie "the good guys". Within a few days it would have been leaked and every criminal would be able to buy it on the internet. Secure ultra violet level keys to systems are REGULARLY lost, stolen, sold to the "bad guys" be trusted people. So if Apple were forced to build a way so "only" the FBI could get into iSystems, almost immediately all security on all iSystems would be compromised. Bank accounts would be cleaned out. Credit cards maxed out. Apple, the industry, and the economy would suffer massive losses.

    Or we can keep our systems secure. Yes it makes the FBI, CIA, and local and state police's job harder, but that's the way it is. That's the price we pay for living in a "free" country.
    edited November 2018 baconstangleavingthebiggmagman1979Deelronuraharadysamorialostkiwi
  • Reply 20 of 52
    Paranoid fucks.
    magman1979dysamoria
Sign In or Register to comment.