I have no trouble with government being able to unlock and examine phones.
But, it needs to follow the same procedures established centuries ago for unlocking and examining one's home or office.
I find it highly unlikely that all these agencies are doing that.
Or, possibly, this has nothing to do with searching a phone and instead is being used by IT departments to unlock phones after their user left the organization and the phone was returned to the IT dept -- or the user simply forgot the passcode and IT has unlock it for them?
I don’t think the government should have this power. Just as I don’t think the police should be allowed to go into your house without getting your permission, like in the case of a no knock warrant. I would also argue that you might have a little too much faith in the government if you think they’re not using the phone to unlock criminals phones. Not to mention the government loves wasting money.
For the essay portion of your test:
If you don't think governments should have this power, should for-profit corporations have this power? Compare and contrast. Further, are you saying a suspect should be able to destroy evidence, rape, kill or conduct any criminal activities as long as he/she doesn't answer the doorbell (PS To prevent this is why they have "exigent circumstances" in certain cases to allow law enforcement to enter a a building without announcing their presence)
Good points.
Yes, "no knock warrants" are sometimes necessary.
The problem comes in when they are abused. When police are at war with the people they are paid to protect. When they barge into a home in the middle of the night looking for a petty criminal on a hunch and then gun down somebody sleeping on a coach because they feel threatened. That ain't democracy at work there.
We like to equate democracy with 'the rule of law'. From its very beginnings, American history is filled, with examples of the law being used by extremists at all levels of government to subvert the rights of the people. That isn't democracy.
Democracy is not some magic thing that always works. It takes work, hard work. Hard work by people with integrity willing and able to fight for the principles it is based on -- not just using it or its laws to further their agendas or personal beliefs and prejudices.
In the case I sited above, every person involved needs to, at the very minimum, lose their position in that government. For democracy to work, it and the values and principles it is based, on has to be defended at all levels every day. We don't have an autocrat to tell us right from wrong -- it's up to us. "Democracy" (in quotes) won't save us.
I could care less about whether Apple has one of these devices but I do want to know what kind of procurement justification these government buyers used. In my opinion none of them have any legitimate justification to buy one, especially from a sensitive country like Israel. This requires additional paperwork and high level approval, except for those three-letter agencies that get dark money from Congress. Looking at the list I can't see how any of them received the justification for a hacking tool. I hope someone files a FOIA request for procurement records because I doubt they had any justification for buying them. As for the pharmaceuticals and oil refineries, I could see this hacking tool used to make sure employees aren't stealing corporate information but there's other ways of dealing with that (MDM systems logging all communications made by company devices, which is absolutely legal). Government-procured mobile devices have the same right to access all their devices and shouldn't have to rely on hacking tools, if they're configured properly the system administrator already has all the information they need. This is why certain politicians use personal phones to conduct government business (illegal) to not get caught so easily.
This was my first thought. WTH does Social Security or HUD need with a hacking tool? Can’t be for an investigation because if they suspect fraud then it gets turned over to the Justice Department. And I don’t buy @GeorgeBMac ‘s idea that they would use it for routine IT functions like unlocking a phone when the PW is lost. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a spider.
Your assumption that fraud investigations just get turned over to the Justice Department is not correct. Each agency has its own law enforcement office that will investigate. Many of those offices do their own digital forensics work and might have a device like this for criminal investigations involving employees. When the investigations are completed, they could go to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
If you want security, never write anything down on any media both hard and digital. Never discuss sensitive matters in any building or public place. Perhaps five miles out in the desert or ocean and putting up a shield to preclude reading of lips, one might have secure communications between two people. Anything else could be compromised.....
I could care less about whether Apple has one of these devices but I do want to know what kind of procurement justification these government buyers used. In my opinion none of them have any legitimate justification to buy one, especially from a sensitive country like Israel. This requires additional paperwork and high level approval, except for those three-letter agencies that get dark money from Congress. Looking at the list I can't see how any of them received the justification for a hacking tool. I hope someone files a FOIA request for procurement records because I doubt they had any justification for buying them. As for the pharmaceuticals and oil refineries, I could see this hacking tool used to make sure employees aren't stealing corporate information but there's other ways of dealing with that (MDM systems logging all communications made by company devices, which is absolutely legal). Government-procured mobile devices have the same right to access all their devices and shouldn't have to rely on hacking tools, if they're configured properly the system administrator already has all the information they need. This is why certain politicians use personal phones to conduct government business (illegal) to not get caught so easily.
This was my first thought. WTH does Social Security or HUD need with a hacking tool? Can’t be for an investigation because if they suspect fraud then it gets turned over to the Justice Department. And I don’t buy @GeorgeBMac ‘s idea that they would use it for routine IT functions like unlocking a phone when the PW is lost. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a spider.
Your assumption that fraud investigations just get turned over to the Justice Department is not correct. Each agency has its own law enforcement office that will investigate. Many of those offices do their own digital forensics work and might have a device like this for criminal investigations involving employees. When the investigations are completed, they could go to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Searching a person's private property without their consent or a warrant is breaking and entering. Law enforcement can get away with it using a number of excuses (err, sorry, "reasons"), but I doubt if somebody simply claiming to be law enforcement could get away with it.
I could care less about whether Apple has one of these devices but I do want to know what kind of procurement justification these government buyers used. In my opinion none of them have any legitimate justification to buy one, especially from a sensitive country like Israel. This requires additional paperwork and high level approval, except for those three-letter agencies that get dark money from Congress. Looking at the list I can't see how any of them received the justification for a hacking tool. I hope someone files a FOIA request for procurement records because I doubt they had any justification for buying them. As for the pharmaceuticals and oil refineries, I could see this hacking tool used to make sure employees aren't stealing corporate information but there's other ways of dealing with that (MDM systems logging all communications made by company devices, which is absolutely legal). Government-procured mobile devices have the same right to access all their devices and shouldn't have to rely on hacking tools, if they're configured properly the system administrator already has all the information they need. This is why certain politicians use personal phones to conduct government business (illegal) to not get caught so easily.
This was my first thought. WTH does Social Security or HUD need with a hacking tool? Can’t be for an investigation because if they suspect fraud then it gets turned over to the Justice Department. And I don’t buy @GeorgeBMac ‘s idea that they would use it for routine IT functions like unlocking a phone when the PW is lost. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a spider.
Your assumption that fraud investigations just get turned over to the Justice Department is not correct. Each agency has its own law enforcement office that will investigate. Many of those offices do their own digital forensics work and might have a device like this for criminal investigations involving employees. When the investigations are completed, they could go to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Searching a person's private property without their consent or a warrant is breaking and entering. Law enforcement can get away with it using a number of excuses (err, sorry, "reasons"), but I doubt if somebody simply claiming to be law enforcement could get away with it.
I'm not referring to "somebody claiming to be law enforcement" but rather to actual law enforcement legally gaining access to a device. You might not like the reasons (sorry, "excuses") but that is beside the point.
If you'll recall, the story is about various government agencies buying Cellebrite devices. One poster was under the impression that the Department of Justice handles all fraud investigations when in fact each of those agencies has its own law enforcement component. Whether that's the best way for the government to do things is also beside the point. That's how it is.
I could care less about whether Apple has one of these devices but I do want to know what kind of procurement justification these government buyers used. In my opinion none of them have any legitimate justification to buy one, especially from a sensitive country like Israel. This requires additional paperwork and high level approval, except for those three-letter agencies that get dark money from Congress. Looking at the list I can't see how any of them received the justification for a hacking tool. I hope someone files a FOIA request for procurement records because I doubt they had any justification for buying them. As for the pharmaceuticals and oil refineries, I could see this hacking tool used to make sure employees aren't stealing corporate information but there's other ways of dealing with that (MDM systems logging all communications made by company devices, which is absolutely legal). Government-procured mobile devices have the same right to access all their devices and shouldn't have to rely on hacking tools, if they're configured properly the system administrator already has all the information they need. This is why certain politicians use personal phones to conduct government business (illegal) to not get caught so easily.
This was my first thought. WTH does Social Security or HUD need with a hacking tool? Can’t be for an investigation because if they suspect fraud then it gets turned over to the Justice Department. And I don’t buy @GeorgeBMac ‘s idea that they would use it for routine IT functions like unlocking a phone when the PW is lost. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a spider.
Your assumption that fraud investigations just get turned over to the Justice Department is not correct. Each agency has its own law enforcement office that will investigate. Many of those offices do their own digital forensics work and might have a device like this for criminal investigations involving employees. When the investigations are completed, they could go to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Searching a person's private property without their consent or a warrant is breaking and entering. Law enforcement can get away with it using a number of excuses (err, sorry, "reasons"), but I doubt if somebody simply claiming to be law enforcement could get away with it.
I'm not referring to "somebody claiming to be law enforcement" but rather to actual law enforcement legally gaining access to a device. You might not like the reasons (sorry, "excuses") but that is beside the point.
If you'll recall, the story is about various government agencies buying Cellebrite devices. One poster was under the impression that the Department of Justice handles all fraud investigations when in fact each of those agencies has its own law enforcement component. Whether that's the best way for the government to do things is also beside the point. That's how it is.
Calling yourself a cop doesn't make you a cop.
There are three guys sitting in jail right now who tried that.
Comments
Searching a person's private property without their consent or a warrant is breaking and entering. Law enforcement can get away with it using a number of excuses (err, sorry, "reasons"), but I doubt if somebody simply claiming to be law enforcement could get away with it.
If you'll recall, the story is about various government agencies buying Cellebrite devices. One poster was under the impression that the Department of Justice handles all fraud investigations when in fact each of those agencies has its own law enforcement component. Whether that's the best way for the government to do things is also beside the point. That's how it is.