The logical conclusion of his argument is to make it mandatory for everyone to wear microphones and video cameras 24 hours a day wherever they are, so that the government can check that they're not terrorists or other criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him complaining that the government has no access to our thoughts.
Hello 1984.
The USA has forgotten what liberty is.
Certainly they have ... but not as badly as the UK
Let's see if you privacy nuts sing a different tune when one of your family members is kidnapped and the perp has their location on their iPhone and won't give the cops the password.
the easy solution to this is just keep the kids in your house and don't let them leave and they can't get kidnapped. Problem solved. Also I think all cars should be illegal since more people are killed by cars in a day then any other way. What else should change to make sure the "children" are safe? The issue is people are innocent until proven gulity. A back door (which the government has never had and still some how catches people) just opens it up to abuse, not just by law enforcement, but to hackers who will find a way in
If police departments and the FBI can get into your phone then it is reasonable to assume that hackers, the Chinese government, customs and immigration, etc. will also be able to do the same, at will, without a warrant.
A bunch of low-life hackers got into dozens of celebs accounts to steal extremely personal information. How many of our congressmen are now working for the Chinese government (or worse) because they are being blackmailed with info hacked from their phones?
In some sense the problem is that it's actually not that pesky. People no longer feel that the constitution is sufficient to protect them from an overreaching police state.
Of course, it's probably fair to say that people have the government they deserve. Since Nixon (at least), politicians have been using the threat of crime, commies, and terrorists as reasons to weaken people's civil rights and increase police powers. The courts have become stacked with authoritarian-minded judges who support that agenda, so things that would have once been deemed unconstitutional are accepted gleefully. We've reached the point where the chickens really are coming home to roost.
If police departments and the FBI can get into your phone then it is reasonable to assume that hackers, the Chinese government, customs and immigration, etc. will also be able to do the same, at will, without a warrant.
A bunch of low-life hackers got into dozens of celebs accounts to steal extremely personal information. How many of our congressmen are now working for the Chinese government (or worse) because they are being blackmailed with info hacked from their phones?
US debt and obligations to China and other foreign powers has already hopelessly compromised US sovereignty.
Well, I, for one, think this is a problem both technology companies and the government have to figure out together. It really is a problem that the government has been able to vacuum up everybody's data to analyze (though those same technology companies have been doing the same thing with far fewer complaints).
On the other hand, it would really suck if my kid was abducted and the police had no possible way of locating the captor or intercepting his/her phone messages. This is a real conundrum that I think a lot of people on here won't care to even acknowledge. Just another day of black-and-white thinking in the AI community...
This is a deeply interesting topic and thread. Quite insightful on many levels.
Try this one on for size: in the 21st century, is encryption technology a form of "arms" the 18th century writers of the US Constitution meant in the Second Amendment? That amendment is read by many as securing a right of the people to oppose an oppressive government.
And yes, I expect this comment to bring out some looney tunes, but I'm not trolling for that. Genuinely interested in the legal argument someone might raise.
The incentive to giving up your secure code already exists: Disobeying a subpoena will keep you in jail until you oblige.
He's tugging at heart strings by insinuating that every situation that they can't get the code results in rape or murder; a little disingenuous. It's code for, "We want to be able to read the phones of every inner-city, low-level drug dealer on a whim, without a court order, so we can catch the big fish. {Note to peace officers when doing this: Apply masking tape over your badge before grabbing phones from perps' hands, reading the contents, then giving the phone back.}."
To play the devil's advocate, your incentive only works while a suspect is in custody. What about while the crime is being committed...while people are (hypothetically) being killed/maimed/abused/exploded?
Well, I, for one, think this is a problem both technology companies and the government have to figure out together. It really is a problem that the government has been able to vacuum up everybody's data to analyze (though those same technology companies have been doing the same thing with far fewer complaints).
On the other hand, it would really suck if my kid was abducted and the police had no possible way of locating the captor or intercepting his/her phone messages. This is a real conundrum that I think a lot of people on here won't care to even acknowledge. Just another day of black-and-white thinking in the AI community...
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
This is a deeply interesting topic and thread. Quite insightful on many levels.
Try this one on for size: in the 21st century, is encryption technology a form of "arms" the 18th century writers of the US Constitution meant in the Second Amendment? That amendment is read by many as securing a right of the people to oppose an oppressive government.
And yes, I expect this comment to bring out some looney tunes, but I'm not trolling for that. Genuinely interested in the legal argument someone might raise.
It is interesting to think that something that protects someone from an oppressive government can be turned around and used to actually harm me. Protection from one entity means being un-protected from another entity.
Our Constitution has seen repeated violations over the decades. The problem is there are so few avenues available to us as individuals to protect our constitutional rights if our own government is actively working to destroy them.
And yet in this instance the F.B.I. does appear stymied, go figure.
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
Yeah, also. I'll get right on teaching my newborn jujitsu. Also, surveilling him at all times, with my own physical eyes, and never take any possible sensory-altering drugs to make sure he can never be abducted. Oh, and immediately divorce my wife so she can't possibly be around him to take him anywhere he could be harmed. Oh, and handcuff myself to a somewhat distant location so that I can't harm him either.
Keyword: A LITTLE paranoia is justifiable. But a little paranoia could be used just as easily to justify being able, in some not-yet-concieved way, to stop or thwart crimes using technology.
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
So far I've seen no examples of how the global information dragnet has contributed significantly to either general security or advancing our individual liberties. Quite the opposite.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from disclosing your knowledge of the code. Cases where the people have been ordered to give up passwords involved data the government already knew about. There's no case I'm aware of where someone's Fifth Amendment rights were overruled to compel them to reveal a code based on the government wanting to fish through unknown data.
Hence the FBI's concern. They've been able in the past to 'fish through' phones and gmail accounts etc surreptiously, because the lock was either trivial and the remote access didn't require a court order (or at worst a FISA court order). Apple's design change to not escrow any keys has basically pushed that court order away from Apple (and in a FISA order, Apple was compelled not to leak the fact they were allowing the gov't access to an individual's data) and directly to the individual, which exposes the search to the suspect, which can then easily (we hope), 'wipe' the data.
That's the gist of the Fed's concern. The act of issuing a warrant basically to the individual allows digital evidence to be destroyed quickly.
Comments
James Comey is an ass.
The logical conclusion of his argument is to make it mandatory for everyone to wear microphones and video cameras 24 hours a day wherever they are, so that the government can check that they're not terrorists or other criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him complaining that the government has no access to our thoughts.
Hello 1984.
The USA has forgotten what liberty is.
Certainly they have ... but not as badly as the UK
If police departments and the FBI can get into your phone then it is reasonable to assume that hackers, the Chinese government, customs and immigration, etc. will also be able to do the same, at will, without a warrant.
A bunch of low-life hackers got into dozens of celebs accounts to steal extremely personal information. How many of our congressmen are now working for the Chinese government (or worse) because they are being blackmailed with info hacked from their phones?
Pesky Constitution of the United States...
In some sense the problem is that it's actually not that pesky. People no longer feel that the constitution is sufficient to protect them from an overreaching police state.
Of course, it's probably fair to say that people have the government they deserve. Since Nixon (at least), politicians have been using the threat of crime, commies, and terrorists as reasons to weaken people's civil rights and increase police powers. The courts have become stacked with authoritarian-minded judges who support that agenda, so things that would have once been deemed unconstitutional are accepted gleefully. We've reached the point where the chickens really are coming home to roost.
US debt and obligations to China and other foreign powers has already hopelessly compromised US sovereignty.
Well, I, for one, think this is a problem both technology companies and the government have to figure out together. It really is a problem that the government has been able to vacuum up everybody's data to analyze (though those same technology companies have been doing the same thing with far fewer complaints).
On the other hand, it would really suck if my kid was abducted and the police had no possible way of locating the captor or intercepting his/her phone messages. This is a real conundrum that I think a lot of people on here won't care to even acknowledge. Just another day of black-and-white thinking in the AI community...
This is a deeply interesting topic and thread. Quite insightful on many levels.
Try this one on for size: in the 21st century, is encryption technology a form of "arms" the 18th century writers of the US Constitution meant in the Second Amendment? That amendment is read by many as securing a right of the people to oppose an oppressive government.
And yes, I expect this comment to bring out some looney tunes, but I'm not trolling for that. Genuinely interested in the legal argument someone might raise.
The incentive to giving up your secure code already exists: Disobeying a subpoena will keep you in jail until you oblige.
He's tugging at heart strings by insinuating that every situation that they can't get the code results in rape or murder; a little disingenuous. It's code for, "We want to be able to read the phones of every inner-city, low-level drug dealer on a whim, without a court order, so we can catch the big fish. {Note to peace officers when doing this: Apply masking tape over your badge before grabbing phones from perps' hands, reading the contents, then giving the phone back.}."
To play the devil's advocate, your incentive only works while a suspect is in custody. What about while the crime is being committed...while people are (hypothetically) being killed/maimed/abused/exploded?
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
That is just the perfect advertising for Apple! Congratulations!
This is a deeply interesting topic and thread. Quite insightful on many levels.
Try this one on for size: in the 21st century, is encryption technology a form of "arms" the 18th century writers of the US Constitution meant in the Second Amendment? That amendment is read by many as securing a right of the people to oppose an oppressive government.
And yes, I expect this comment to bring out some looney tunes, but I'm not trolling for that. Genuinely interested in the legal argument someone might raise.
It is interesting to think that something that protects someone from an oppressive government can be turned around and used to actually harm me. Protection from one entity means being un-protected from another entity.
Our Constitution has seen repeated violations over the decades. The problem is there are so few avenues available to us as individuals to protect our constitutional rights if our own government is actively working to destroy them.
And yet in this instance the F.B.I. does appear stymied, go figure.
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
https://keybase.io/blog/2014-10-08/the-horror-of-a-secure-golden-key
Do you seriously think a kidnapper wouldn't think of destroying or tossing a kidnap victim's phone in the course of capture?
It would be far better to teach children self-defense and escape techniques. A little paranoia is justifiable and prudent. Expecting government or the police to solve everything is irrational.
Yeah, also. I'll get right on teaching my newborn jujitsu. Also, surveilling him at all times, with my own physical eyes, and never take any possible sensory-altering drugs to make sure he can never be abducted. Oh, and immediately divorce my wife so she can't possibly be around him to take him anywhere he could be harmed. Oh, and handcuff myself to a somewhat distant location so that I can't harm him either.
Keyword: A LITTLE paranoia is justifiable. But a little paranoia could be used just as easily to justify being able, in some not-yet-concieved way, to stop or thwart crimes using technology.
So far I've seen no examples of how the global information dragnet has contributed significantly to either general security or advancing our individual liberties. Quite the opposite.
Beyond the law! Ain't it cool.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from disclosing your knowledge of the code. Cases where the people have been ordered to give up passwords involved data the government already knew about. There's no case I'm aware of where someone's Fifth Amendment rights were overruled to compel them to reveal a code based on the government wanting to fish through unknown data.
Hence the FBI's concern. They've been able in the past to 'fish through' phones and gmail accounts etc surreptiously, because the lock was either trivial and the remote access didn't require a court order (or at worst a FISA court order). Apple's design change to not escrow any keys has basically pushed that court order away from Apple (and in a FISA order, Apple was compelled not to leak the fact they were allowing the gov't access to an individual's data) and directly to the individual, which exposes the search to the suspect, which can then easily (we hope), 'wipe' the data.
That's the gist of the Fed's concern. The act of issuing a warrant basically to the individual allows digital evidence to be destroyed quickly.