FBI director says iOS and Android privacy features put users 'above the law'

2456710

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post



    We would all be safer if the government inspected our homes twice daily and made notes on suspicious behavior. That WOULD prevent some murders--including murders of children.



    I'd hate to have to tell people "we couldn't save that kid" because the police were not able to search all homes daily.



    Build a case against criminals. Want to bug their house? Get a warrant. Want to see their financial records? Get a warrant. The fact that privacy is sometimes possible doesn't mean that detective work can no longer be done.



    I hope you were not being serious with those comments. Are you aware that the police are just as prone to corruption, murder, theft, domestic abuse, drug abuse and other negative behaviors as the general population? Putting on a suit and carrying a badge does not create an angel out of a human being, just as being a powerful elected leader does not imbue a person with supernatural or godlike powers.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

     

    I could dig up examples all day if necessary... Or you could just look at the daily headlines and find some example of unfettered corruption or other crime by people who supposedly represent your interests.

  • Reply 22 of 188
    The FBI isn't about the law either. I hope they consider that when faced with a changing technological landscape and not take the position that its better to say you are sorry later than to ask permission today, which is what so much of our government seems to be doing.
  • Reply 23 of 188
    I am interested to see if and when the EU will have to say about this feature in iOS8. Not even mentioning China...

    I find the statement of this FBI director quite presumptuous and preposterous. And also, the fact that they need "evidence" from a mobile phone to always frame a criminal, is disturbing.
    I would like to remember that 09/11 happened well before all this "above the law" placing of one's personal data was even remotely possible.... It happened in 2001 in case somebody forgot.

    What did the FBI do back then? Were they prevented in avoiding the tragedy by accessing (warrant or not) encrypted data on some US company's servers or somebody's GSM phone? Please.

    This argumentation about personal data encryption is ridiculous. It's almost like accusing people of an act, just because they think about it. Facts count, not encrypted bits of emails and contacts and pictures on a server or mobile phone.... Encrypted bits don't kidnap kids, or make terrorists kill people. Actions, guns, social problems, poverty, etc do that.
  • Reply 24 of 188
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Google has not yet implemented this promised feature.

    Yes they have. They did so some years ago as a matter of fact. What you are probably thinking of is the upcoming Android L when encryption becomes "default on" out-of-the-box rather than requiring users to enable it manually. But the option to encrypt your Android data has been there quite awhile, since version 2.3 something (Gingerbread). Just like with the new iOS feature the keys are stored on your device, inaccessible by Google, and only you can decrypt it...

    as long as you don't share it with anyone. I've been surprised more than once by the willingness of some to share passwords.
  • Reply 25 of 188

    Freaking government. Ugh.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Google has not yet implemented this promised feature.


     

    Well, they haven't automated. I've been able to operate above the law for two years now, so this guy better worry for the past too.

  • Reply 26 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Yes they have. They did so some years ago as a matter of fact. What you are probably thinking of is the upcoming Android L when encryption becomes "default on" out-of-the-box rather than requiring users to enable it manually...

     

    Ah, yes. You're right.

  • Reply 27 of 188
    Very little sympathy for LE and intel communities. You can only get away with abusing your power for so long before you encounter this kind of backlash.
  • Reply 28 of 188
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post



    "I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well how come you can't save this kid,'"



    Think of the children!

     

    Screw the children. My rights are more important.

  • Reply 29 of 188
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    What am I missing here?  Did SCOTUS not just vote 9-0 requiring warrants for cell phones?  Is it that hard for them to go to a judge get a warrant?  Shouldn't the top law enforcement officer be willing to follow the law of the land?

  • Reply 30 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    What am I missing here?  Did SCOTUS not just vote 9-0 requiring warrants for cell phones?  Is it that hard for them to go to a judge get a warrant?  Shouldn't the top law enforcement officer be willing to follow the law of the land?




    Clearly, complying with the law and the Constitution is too much to ask.

  • Reply 31 of 188
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,004member
    Go Apple. Go Google (did I just say that). Everyone should send all communications encrypted. Overwhelm the monitoring stations with stuff to decrypt.

    No one is putting themselves above the law. The law says that with a warrant, they can inspect your phone. The law says nothing about it having to be plain text. Let them try and break it.
  • Reply 32 of 188
    I bet Chinese govt doesn't like the encryption either. Could that be the reason iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus is not launched there yet?
  • Reply 33 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mubaili View Post



    I bet Chinese govt doesn't like the encryption either. Could that be the reason iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus is not launched there yet?



    Yes, that is a possibility. They may in fact reject the iPhone for this reason without saying so. Could also be possible that they will demand to have their own servers funneling the App Store, mail and message information, so Apple could still say that no one has access to their servers 'and they never will'. Remember, Saudi Arabia and other countries demanded Blackberry hand over the 'keys' to their messaging service and they buckled.

  • Reply 34 of 188
    judas wrote: »
    <p style="color:rgb(20,24,35);margin-bottom:6px;">"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law,"</p>

    <p style="color:rgb(20,24,35);display:inline;margin-top:6px;">“Above the law” - How about Outside The Law? How about go f*<span class="huddler-mention">@!</span> yourself?</p>

    Exactly!
  • Reply 35 of 188
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

    The law says nothing about it having to be plain text. Let them try and break it.

     

     

    Of course, this creates an entirely new set of problems for the government that they’d be unwilling to undertake, so you’re right in that it’s safe.

  • Reply 36 of 188
    john.b wrote: »
    What am I missing here?  Did SCOTUS not just vote 9-0 requiring warrants for cell phones?  Is it that hard for them to go to a judge get a warrant?  Shouldn't the top law enforcement officer be willing to follow the law of the land?
    Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.
  • Reply 37 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post





    Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.

     

    Wait, what?

     

    A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.

     

    Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).

  • Reply 38 of 188
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Yes, that is a possibility. They may in fact reject the iPhone for this reason without saying so. Could also be possible that they will demand to have their own servers funneling the App Store, mail and message information, so Apple could still say that no one has access to their servers 'and they never will'. Remember, Saudi Arabia and other countries demanded Blackberry hand over the 'keys' to their messaging service and they buckled.
    I would guess they already host it all on Chinese-owned servers. A story a couple weeks back reported iCloud in China goes to China Telecom servers. While Apple says CT doesn't have access to the encryption keys I don't recall a statement that the Chinese government itself does not, tho perhaps they said so in a statement somewhere. No one outside of Chinese and Apple officials would even have known about the changes in iCloud storage there if not for an inadvertent posting on a government information page. Quickly removed of course.
    http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/why-did-apple-move-its-chinese-icloud-data-storage-to-china-telecom.html/?a=viewall
  • Reply 39 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post





    Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.



    Hahahaha! How naive.

  • Reply 40 of 188
    Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.

    I think you might want to hold on to your privacy and other rights. The US is already bordering on being a police state since post-9/11 legislation.

    Or give it all up in exchange for "safety" - see if I care, I live in europe.
Sign In or Register to comment.