The FBI (and various police forces) have strongly condemned plans for both Apple iPhones and those coming from Google to soon be much more resistant to ‘cracking’. Here’s one of many articles of relevance.
Personally, I say good for Apple and Google (and everyone else who will surely follow). If police have reason to need to inspect a phone, they can get a warrant and compel the owner to open it for them. But, to continue to give law enforcement a potential carte blanche to remotely access and manipulate phones without the user’s knowledge is too ripe for abuse to remain unchallenged.
To listen to the FBI and police officials talk, you’d think (and they actually say) that only pedophiles and criminals want such security. The linked article above provides some rather hysterical/hyperbolic quotes by law enforcement officials in this regard. Worth a read.
Even though this is GD, I do have a question, though. Will this new generation of more strongly encrypted phones be resistant to the Stingray tracking system (and related programs)? I hope so.
When law enforcement tries to tell you that a warrant is too much hassle to solving crimes they are discharging high volumes of horse manure from their mouth. And also stomping on the Constitution.
Does the FBI really expect their rather shrill warnings to change anything?
In terms of warrants, btw, their claim seems to be that ‘what good is a warrant if the phone is uncrackable?’ But, wouldn’t the owner be compelled to give the key/password by the same warrant?
There have been several threads which demonstrate a mixed judicial record in compelling someone to reveal their passwords to obtain evidence.
I think there is a real legitimate law enforcement concern relating to placing a lot of information on a suspect’s phone as basically being unobtainable. However, I think it is pretty much inevitable that this is the future of this kind of technology, and there’s pretty much nothing that can be done about it.
From what I have read, the new OS’s will not be at all resistant to such software, and making them resistant would require fundamentally changing the way cellular networks operate. The Stingray device works by simulating a cell tower, and extracting technical information from the phone. Strong crypto primarily protects user generated data, which the Stingray device can’t get at even with unencrypted phones.
So, is the FBI stupid enough to believe that they are the only ones capable of exploiting security vulnerabilities, or do they just not care as long as it’s not the government’s ox being gored? Actively advocating that the American people should be made more vulnerable to crime just in case they want to exploit the same weakness is quite obnoxious.
Yes, they’re right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. We should also decry all those companies that provide walls for people’s homes since they can hide crimes. The purported reason of privacy is clearly bullshit and walls are actually made for those who have something to hide from the law.
Once upon a time, authorities also decried automobiles since they were instruments of crime and so much more technologically advanced than the horse and buggy.
This is a disingenuous criticism. Even with due process, judges, warrants, and everything else you can imagine, the information on the phones could be beyond retrieval. That’s the problem.
This issue is about the police being unable to obtain information despite having a warrant, it’s not a due process issue. I suspect the solution will be to force the manufacturers to reduce or remove the encryption by prosecuting them for failing to comply with warrants that oblige them to access the data on their phones.
This technology mainly exists to thwart law enforcement, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise. Whether that’s an acceptable use of technology is a major issue, and certainly there’s reason to want it in a repressive regime. But there’s no need for in in western countries. Unless anyone can show me that people have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit due to phone manufacturers releasing their data.
Also, it’s worth noting that none of this applies to a user choosing to, for example, encrypt their data and store it on an external hard drive, then “forgetting” the password if anyone asks for it. It is about information being encrypted by default.
One doesn’t have a right to privacy in the face of a warrant. Walls that prevent law enforcement from entering even with a warrant, and a lock on the door that the company who made it couldn’t bypass, would be a better analogy. And probably not something that would be sensible to allow.
I agree. Additionally, what can the FBI do when someone just claims the phone isn’t theirs, or that the don’t know the password, or if the owner is dead? I just see how the benefits outweighs the costs generally speaking.
I know this is a somewhat lame cite, but as a watch of the first 48 a lot of the time reading the victims last few messages leads to either witnesses or suspects.