Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:02 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
If you honestly believe that Apple and Google have your best interests in mind more so than the US government does, then you may as well switch your party registration now and sign on for Santorum '16, because you've long since abandoned anything liberal in your soul.
  #102  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:05 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
They did quietly capitulate, and
...then they got caught engaging in conspiracy against their customers and found themselves forced back into line.

You seem to be the last Pacific-island holdout in favor of the Gilded Age practice of corporate conspiracy against the consumer.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #103  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:07 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You'd think that if the matter had already been settled, then there wouldn't be a public outcry and publicity campaign from the Fibbies because the phone companies would already have quietly capitulated. Apparently, somebody in government didn't get the word that they have already won the battle.
Maybe you'd like to drop them a note?
Actually, he could drop a note to anybody at all... at least until the tech improvements become standard features of the various networks.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #104  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:21 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
They did quietly capitulate, and that would have been that if not for the treason of a certain bespectacled Putinist.
What can I say in the face of such sad self-parody?
  #105  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:46 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post

Never thought I'd see the day when people who claimed to call themselves liberals were cheering for the triumph of multinational conglomerates over the government.
Never thought I'd see the day when people who claimed to be conservative cheered the expansion of government power. Then it happened in late 2001, and has snowballed since. It's a disgusting sight to behold. Government power should be strictly limited to only that minimum needed to function within Constitutional boundaries.
  #106  
Old 09-28-2014, 06:02 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Never thought I'd see the day when people who claimed to be conservative cheered the expansion of government power. Then it happened in late 2001, and has snowballed since. It's a disgusting sight to behold. Government power should be strictly limited to only that minimum needed to function within Constitutional boundaries.
Does this mean you are claiming Smapti for your side? Because I certainly don't want him on mine!
  #107  
Old 09-28-2014, 06:13 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
Does this mean you are claiming Smapti for your side? Because I certainly don't want him on mine!
I don't want him either. If I have to take him, then we get to bat first and last, and his outs don't count.

Or maybe he could play catcher for both teams....
  #108  
Old 09-28-2014, 07:23 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
How domestic spying program generates profits for NSA

I picture an endless loop of "The Peni--, er, The Profit Is Evil... The State Is Good..." as smoke pours from his ears.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #109  
Old 09-28-2014, 07:34 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If you honestly believe that Apple and Google have your best interests in mind more so than the US government does, then you may as well switch your party registration now and sign on for Santorum '16, because you've long since abandoned anything liberal in your soul.
[ TRELAINE ] Oh, really, you must try harder; this is too easy! [ /TRELAINE ]

Quote:
Santorum: Public should not know

People do not have a right to know the government is collecting information on their phone calls, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said during a Friday visit to Shippensburg.

Santorum said the ability of the National Security Agency to track phone calls is just another tool in the government's war against terrorism and not something that should have been made public....
I guess when you froth at the mouth about this issue, you're expressing solidarity with your intellectual soulmate.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-28-2014 at 07:35 PM.
  #110  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:16 PM
Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
So why are you so worried that the government will find out you're behaving legally?
Just because it is illegal for the government to persecute you on the basis of your constitutionally protected actions doesn't mean they don't do it if you give them the chance. For example, the United States government has been caught strong-arming banks to suppress a variety of "undesirable" yet protected enterprises, such as producers of pornography and journalism protected by the First Amendment and enablers of gun ownership protected by the Second Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
This isn't just about protection from overweening government agents. A bunch of famous people have just had some of their private pictures leaked all over the Internet. If The Company (whichever company it is) has a "backdoor" to my data, that is not only something that can be used by the government (either legitimately, acting upon a warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the object of the search...or maybe not so legitimately), it is also potentially something that some busy little hacker could find out about and exploit.

If there's been a rash of home invasion robberies in my neighborhood, I have a right to install stronger doors and put burglar bars on my windows. That this might also inconvenience some hypothetical SWAT team is just too darned bad.
This. Even if you are gullible enough to believe the government never abuses its power despite all the evidence to the contrary, it's not just the government you want to give backdoor access to your phone.
  #111  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:52 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Cite?
My cite is the several dozen threads where you've argued about this.
Quote:
I expect liberals to cheer for the entity that exists to protect and serve them over the entity that exists to exploit and profit from them.
If it were doing that, they might cheer for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If you honestly believe that Apple and Google have your best interests in mind more so than the US government does
I don't think they're acting with the public's best interest in mind. I think they might be trying to please their consumer base. And I think it's possible Apple's actions will protect the public's interest because the government has shown it won't do that - and this lawsuit, unfortunately, is more proof of that.
  #112  
Old 09-29-2014, 03:38 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You insist on calling me names as if name-calling suffices for an argument. Do you think I'll be so shamed by a dirty name that I'll concede to being wrong?
But I didn't call you a name did I?

It wasn't for lack of legitimate opportunity mind you but still, I didn't do it and had you paid more than cursory attention to my post you would comprehend that.

I said your "train of thought" was beloved of fascist states everywhere. And that is true. Yours is exactly the sort of mindset that they want to encourage. At no point did I call you a fascist.

Hope that clears it up for you.
  #113  
Old 09-29-2014, 04:40 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
[ TRELAINE ] Oh, really, you must try harder; this is too easy! [ /TRELAINE ]



I guess when you froth at the mouth about this issue, you're expressing solidarity with your intellectual soulmate.
And Santorum probably would use the intelligence apparatus for the kind of petty spying you're so paranoid of. Liberals wouldn't, because they don't need to. You're opposing liberals for using something they can be trusted with because you can't trust conservatives with it, and therefore you make it easier for conservatives to get into power and abuse that something.

You're doing more to elect Santorum by opposing this program than I am by defending it.
  #114  
Old 09-29-2014, 04:44 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Never thought I'd see the day when people who claimed to be conservative cheered the expansion of government power. Then it happened in late 2001, and has snowballed since. It's a disgusting sight to behold. Government power should be strictly limited to only that minimum needed to function within Constitutional boundaries.
So conservatives want big government and liberals want corporations to help people break the law.

And I'm the crazy one.
  #115  
Old 09-29-2014, 04:59 AM
JimNightshade is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 266
On behalf of all lurkers: Yes. Yes you are.
  #116  
Old 09-29-2014, 05:25 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And Santorum probably would use the intelligence apparatus for the kind of petty spying you're so paranoid of. Liberals wouldn't
FDR wasn't a liberal? News to me....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You're opposing liberals for using something they can be trusted with
What "something" is that? We've established that it isn't the subject of this thread.

In any case, you need to polish your rhetorical skills in order to better support the candidate who fits your ideology -- get Slick for Rick!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And I'm the crazy one.
A glimmer of self-awareness peeks out. There may be hope for you yet....
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-29-2014 at 05:28 AM.
  #117  
Old 09-29-2014, 05:25 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
But I didn't call you a name did I?

It wasn't for lack of legitimate opportunity mind you but still, I didn't do it and had you paid more than cursory attention to my post you would comprehend that.

I said your "train of thought" was beloved of fascist states everywhere. And that is true. Yours is exactly the sort of mindset that they want to encourage. At no point did I call you a fascist.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Although given this, it's hardly "name-calling" to label one who believes such things a fascist. Just like it's not name-calling to label the grand wizard of the KKK a racist, or Stalin a communist. Simply because a political label becomes undesirable does not negate its use as a label. Smapti is a fascist, in the same way I'm a liberal, adaher is a conservative. Even if I don't self-identify as such. Now, you want name-calling, and there's plenty we could offer in the pit. But calling him a fascist is not that.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-29-2014 at 05:28 AM.
  #118  
Old 09-29-2014, 06:16 AM
grude is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Does anyone really believe they will produce an encryption that the government won't be able to bypass when needed? Given the resources the government has, it seems highly unlikely.
It is absolutely mathematically possible to produce encrypted data that it would take an adversary more computational than exists in the entire universe to decrypt.

This makes a lot of assumptions though, it assumes it is perfect and that the NSA hasn't weaseled errors into the most used algorithms or standards or software(we know they have tried). We know from Snowden's leaks for example they couldn't crack Tor routing, so they were attacking it indirectly.
  #119  
Old 09-29-2014, 06:17 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Santorum
Dude, you've got Santorum on your post.
  #120  
Old 09-29-2014, 06:24 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
FDR wasn't a liberal? News to me....
Well, that settles it - the Second War Powers Act should definitely be repealed.
  #121  
Old 09-29-2014, 06:45 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by grude View Post
It is absolutely mathematically possible to produce encrypted data that it would take an adversary more computational than exists in the entire universe to decrypt.

This makes a lot of assumptions though, it assumes it is perfect and that the NSA hasn't weaseled errors into the most used algorithms or standards or software(we know they have tried). We know from Snowden's leaks for example they couldn't crack Tor routing, so they were attacking it indirectly.
There are ways to circumvent encryption on a case-by-case basis (e.g. planting a keyboard bug). However, these require targets to be picked and accessed one at a time, and leaves detectable traces. That's OK for a government that obeys the law and conducts limited searches based on individual suspicion, but it just doesn't work for Feds who are building naked selfie collections.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #122  
Old 09-29-2014, 08:47 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
There are ways to circumvent encryption on a case-by-case basis (e.g. planting a keyboard bug). However, these require targets to be picked and accessed one at a time, and leaves detectable traces. That's OK for a government that obeys the law and conducts limited searches based on individual suspicion, but it just doesn't work for Feds who are building naked selfie collections.
If that is happening, it is unprofessional and unacceptable and I fully support executing the employees responsible, but the acts of a handful of petty criminals hardly constitute a government that disobeys the law.
  #123  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:09 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
There are ways to circumvent encryption on a case-by-case basis (e.g. planting a keyboard bug). However, these require targets to be picked and accessed one at a time, and leaves detectable traces.
Yes, but where does that leave police? I'm not talking about the G-men, I'm talking about the detectives in every jurisdiction across the country who are busy solving murders, rapes, robberies, drug trafficking, and so on. I have a hard time believing that these police departments are going to hire computer security experts to get a warrant to use spearphishing attacks on criminal suspects to get them to click a link that implants a virus that allows a backdoor into the data held on a phone that most likely has incriminating information.

Sure, that may be an option for the FBI to go after the ten most wanted, but you think Jimmy McNulty is going to use these complex tactics against Avon Barksdale when he has problems getting a police cruiser that isn't in maintenance?

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-29-2014 at 09:10 AM.
  #124  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:11 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If that is happening, it is unprofessional and unacceptable and I fully support executing the employees responsible, but the acts of a handful of petty criminals hardly constitute a government that disobeys the law.
(italics mine)I'm sure you do.
  #125  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:19 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If that is happening, it is unprofessional and unacceptable and I fully support executing the employees responsible, but the acts of a handful of petty criminals hardly constitute a government that disobeys the law.
The fact that this routinely goes on completely unpunished* does constitute a government that disobeys the law.

*I'm interested in justice, not dick-measuring, so I'll settle for a year or so of jail time and a five-figure payment to each victim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yes, but where does that leave police? I'm not talking about the G-men, I'm talking about the detectives in every jurisdiction across the country who are busy solving murders, rapes, robberies, drug trafficking, and so on. I have a hard time believing that these police departments are going to hire computer security experts to get a warrant to use spearphishing attacks on criminal suspects to get them to click a link that implants a virus that allows a backdoor into the data held on a phone that most likely has incriminating information.

Sure, that may be an option for the FBI to go after the ten most wanted, but you think Jimmy McNulty is going to use these complex tactics against Avon Barksdale when he has problems getting a police cruiser that isn't in maintenance?
I'm not seeing the problem -- simply reallocate some of the money that's been going to put Jimmy McNulty inside an armored SUV cradling a machine gun.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-29-2014 at 09:23 AM.
  #126  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:42 AM
theR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yes, but where does that leave police? I'm not talking about the G-men, I'm talking about the detectives in every jurisdiction across the country who are busy solving murders, rapes, robberies, drug trafficking, and so on. I have a hard time believing that these police departments are going to hire computer security experts to get a warrant to use spearphishing attacks on criminal suspects to get them to click a link that implants a virus that allows a backdoor into the data held on a phone that most likely has incriminating information.

Sure, that may be an option for the FBI to go after the ten most wanted, but you think Jimmy McNulty is going to use these complex tactics against Avon Barksdale when he has problems getting a police cruiser that isn't in maintenance?
Are you just misunderstanding the concept of data at rest and data in motion? The encryption we're discussing here is the data on the phone, meaning data at rest. If you make a call using traditional mobile technology then it can still be accessed by a court order for a wiretap.

In fact, law enforcement still has access to much more information from mobile phones with encryption than they do if someone has no phone. There is still plenty of data that various parties could provide even if encryption prevented access to the physical device. Some examples of data that could still be accessed with a warrant to someone besides the phone owner would be iCloud backups, records of SMS messages, call records, GPS records, email, and lots of other information that has to travel over a network or is replicated in another location besides your phone. Apple and/or Google, among many others, host a ton of information from phones, like email, backups, photos, and more.

They would be able to do everything done in The Wire except perhaps capture the images in the SMS tests when the criminals used the clock code for meetings. Even for that, it would only be prevented by using a non-SMS messaging app that provided encryption, which is completely separate from the encryption for data at rest that we're discussing. These apps have actually been around for a while though they're more popular "post-Snowden" as everyone is now denoting the era.

Let's also not forget in that instance on the fictional show you mentioned, the police were actually running an illegal wiretap.

Last edited by theR; 09-29-2014 at 09:44 AM.
  #127  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Unless you're aware of some secret Supreme Court ruling that overturned FISA and the Patriot Act, then yes, it has been.
There is no law in the US that prohibits encryption that is unbreakable. Prove me wrong.

I could imagine an encryption system that requires a rotating key that is generated at a remote location outside of the US jurisdiction. A user would be unable to produce a password and therefore should not be in contempt for not doing so.

The new tech that is in the news is only because it's easier and more accessible.

Last edited by Bone; 09-29-2014 at 10:25 AM.
  #128  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:25 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
I'm not seeing the problem -- simply reallocate some of the money that's been going to put Jimmy McNulty inside an armored SUV cradling a machine gun.
I know this is mostly meant as a throwaway clever comment, but it also exposes your lack of understanding of the issue. One key reason why so much military equipment has ended up in the hands of local law enforcement is that it is either free or at a very low cost, either from DoD surplus or from grants issued by DOJ or DHS. So if you think that some police department paid $1 million for an MRAP and they could have used that money more wisely, you're missing the fundamental point that they did not pay $1 million for the MRAP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theR View Post
Are you just misunderstanding the concept of data at rest and data in motion? The encryption we're discussing here is the data on the phone, meaning data at rest. If you make a call using traditional mobile technology then it can still be accessed by a court order for a wiretap.

In fact, law enforcement still has access to much more information from mobile phones with encryption than they do if someone has no phone. There is still plenty of data that various parties could provide even if encryption prevented access to the physical device. Some examples of data that could still be accessed with a warrant to someone besides the phone owner would be iCloud backups, records of SMS messages, call records, GPS records, email, and lots of other information that has to travel over a network or is replicated in another location besides your phone. Apple and/or Google, among many others, host a ton of information from phones, like email, backups, photos, and more.

....

Let's also not forget in that instance on the fictional show you mentioned, the police were actually running an illegal wiretap.
Now, I wasn't literally talking about the precise things that Jimmy did in the TV show, but you make valid points. The main intent of my post is that using specialized methods to overcome encryption on devices by planting various tools is just simply beyond the reach of most police departments. (Steve MB got my point in the post before yours.)

You make totally fair points that quite a bit of data may be available in other ways. However, I don't think you, me, or anyone else here is actually qualified to make broad statements about what sort of information the police need, or do not need, to make a case against a particular criminal or suspect. Sure, if someone takes a photo of their crime and it is synced to iCloud and the GPS tagging is on, that's helpful to the police. But, what if someone knows a meager amount about technology yet knows to turn GPS tagging off and does not sync to iCloud? So that photo of the crime (or the calendar information of "Be at major drug deal at 2:30pm at the Bay City Warehouse, etc) only exists on the phone in an encrypted format? You seem to be arguing that if police couldn't get that specific information, then they should just simply make their case elsewhere. I don't think it's fair to police to have probable cause, a judge's sign-off, but no technical means to execute the warrant for potentially very valuable information (at least in this context).

It seems to me that such evidence would be extremely valuable, and quite likely beyond the reach of law enforcement due to both the encryption scheme used and the application of the Fifth Amendment (in which someone quite possibly -- but not certainly -- might not be compelled to give up passwords, combinations, or that sort of testimonial information).
  #129  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:35 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I know this is mostly meant as a throwaway clever comment, but it also exposes your lack of understanding of the issue.
I understand the issue just fine.

Quote:
One key reason why so much military equipment has ended up in the hands of local law enforcement is that it is either free or at a very low cost, either from DoD surplus or from grants issued by DOJ or DHS.
So let them get the technology to individually target suspects' phones either free or at very low cost, either out of FBI surplus or from grants issued by the FBI. Problem solved.

Quote:
I don't think it's fair to police to have probable cause, a judge's sign-off, but no technical means to execute the warrant for potentially very valuable information (at least in this context).
Most grownups have figured out that life is unfair. If the police have probable cause and a judge's sign-off to execute a warrant for paper documents, but they have no technical means to view the documents because the owner shredded and burned them, do we ban office equipment and matches? By your argument, yes.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-29-2014 at 10:35 AM.
  #130  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:57 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
So let them get the technology to individually target suspects' phones either free or at very low cost, either out of FBI surplus or from grants issued by the FBI. Problem solved.
Come on, there isn't a box called "military surplus iPhone hacking mo-sheen: press red button to hack bad doodz phones." You surely know that this type of investigation is about people doing things, and people with technical expertise like this don't come as surplus equipment.

Quote:
If the police have probable cause and a judge's sign-off to execute a warrant for paper documents, but they have no technical means to view the documents because the owner shredded and burned them, do we ban office equipment and matches? By your argument, yes.
No, and it's pretty fucking stupid if you believe that's what I have said.

In these cases, the information is not destroyed. It's perfectly secured and also totally available to someone -- if they have the password. If a phone or paper record is physically destroyed, its contents are available to nobody. The question is, if electronic evidence is completely under control and at the disposal of a person under the investigation, should that information be beyond the reach of the justice system? Like I've said several times, this is probably increasingly inevitable, but it doesn't serve the cause of justice well. You bias is showing in that you assume that this is all about big government spying on innocent people: the key evidence that may be beyond the reach of anyone could equally easily be exculpatory evidence that would prevent an innocent person from going to jail.

It's always a little disappointing when threads in GD are peppered by really, really, poorly thought out arguments like the ones offered in the previous post.

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-29-2014 at 10:58 AM.
  #131  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:29 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The question is, if electronic evidence is completely under control and at the disposal of a person under the investigation, should that information be beyond the reach of the justice system?
Yes.

No one should be compelled to provide information that may incriminate them. That means that I can encrypt my data, and law enforcement can ask for the encryption key, or get a warrant to try and obtain it, but they can never ever get it unless I divulge it. The justice system and third party systems can not and should not be trusted with the ability to acquire information they have no business having. Some law enforcement will be thwarted. So be it.

If the justice system desires this information, they can attempt to acquire it by other means.
  #132  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:38 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
No one should be compelled to provide information that may incriminate them. That means that I can encrypt my data, and law enforcement can ask for the encryption key, or get a warrant to try and obtain it, but they can never ever get it unless I divulge it. The justice system and third party systems can not and should not be trusted with the ability to acquire information they have no business having. Some law enforcement will be thwarted. So be it.

If the justice system desires this information, they can attempt to acquire it by other means.
What if those other means were to require the providers of the electronics to provide a backdoor for lawful warrants? Then you wouldn't be incriminating yourself, and law enforcement would be able to get the data on the child molester they're trying to take off the streets, or whatever.
  #133  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:38 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Well, I wish it had been my question (thanks).

Upthread, an allusion was made to case law about such situations. Can you help, please, Bricker, esq.

My opinion, as uninformed as it is, is that of course a warrant should compel a person to disclose his password (as well as to surrender the phone that uses it). If not, the warrant is a powerless tool and I will presume that would be unacceptable to legislators and the courts.

Regarding the specific defence of 'self incrimination', such a tactic obviously won't work to deny law enforcement entrance into your home if they had a warrant to search it. "Officers, don't come in because what you find here may incriminate me"? How are smartphones different?
The Fifth Amendment protects you against being forced to be a witness against yourself.

It doesn't protect you against officers searching your belongings -- if they find contraband it's not you being a witness against yourself. (The Fourth Amendment requires that such searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant or under one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.)

So the question is: is making you supply the password considered testimonial evidence against yourself?
  #134  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:45 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Come on, there isn't a box called "military surplus iPhone hacking mo-sheen: press red button to hack bad doodz phones." You surely know that this type of investigation is about people doing things, and people with technical expertise like this don't come as surplus equipment.
That argument makes sense if you assume that militarization of law enforcement is a simple matter of transporting physical equipment to the Podunk Sheriff's Office, no special knowledge or training required. That is, it makes no sense at all.

Quote:
In these cases, the information is not destroyed. It's perfectly secured and also totally available to someone -- if they have the password. If a phone or paper record is physically destroyed, its contents are available to nobody.
Irrelevant. The issue is that "sometimes it will be physically impossible to obtain certain information, warrant or no warrant" is a simple fact of life that must be accepted.

Quote:
The question is, if electronic evidence is completely under control and at the disposal of a person under the investigation, should that information be beyond the reach of the justice system? Like I've said several times, this is probably increasingly inevitable, but it doesn't serve the cause of justice well.
Since it is inevitable, arguing about it is as useless as arguing over the number of angles that can dance on a pinhead.

Quote:
You bias is showing in that you assume that this is all about big government spying on innocent people
Maybe you should direct this complaint to the government functionaries whose behavior led people to that assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What if those other means were to require the providers of the electronics to provide a backdoor for lawful warrants?
That invites damage up to and including the destruction of the economy, given the fact that a built-in backdoor renders the system fundamentally insecure.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-29-2014 at 11:47 AM.
  #135  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:45 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What if those other means were to require the providers of the electronics to provide a backdoor for lawful warrants? Then you wouldn't be incriminating yourself, and law enforcement would be able to get the data on the child molester they're trying to take off the streets, or whatever.
Currently there is no law or ruling that compels providers of electronics to oblige law enforcement. I would be opposed to any such requirement. The government can not be trusted not to abuse such ability.

Even if there were such a law, there would exist encryption that would be able to thwart it - and then we're in the same situation.
  #136  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:54 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So the question is: is making you supply the password considered testimonial evidence against yourself?
The case law is recent (and thus not settled at a high level), but the answer so far is that they can't demand the password per se, but can demand unencrypted copies of specific information pursuant to a warrant.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #137  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:10 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Irrelevant. The issue is that "sometimes it will be physically impossible to obtain certain information, warrant or no warrant" is a simple fact of life that must be accepted.
And that is unacceptable.
  #138  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:12 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
That argument makes sense if you assume that militarization of law enforcement is a simple matter of transporting physical equipment to the Podunk Sheriff's Office, no special knowledge or training required. That is, it makes no sense at all.
Actually, most of the critics of the DoD program are upset that police departments do not get training on the equipment that they acquire: "The 1033 Program does not require training on how, when and where to use the equipment. As a result, it becomes dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how and when to use it. It’s like giving a child a gun."

Or...

“Among other things, the president has asked for a review of whether these programs are appropriate,” said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the internal assessment. The review also will assess “whether state and local law enforcement are provided with the necessary training and guidance; and whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding.”
Quote:
Irrelevant. The issue is that "sometimes it will be physically impossible to obtain certain information, warrant or no warrant" is a simple fact of life that must be accepted.
I wonder if you have the same feeling about corporations who stash profits overseas in order to avoid U.S. taxation: "Eh, whatevs. Sometimes regular people just have to pay more in taxes because corporations are free to hide their profits where they don't have to pay their fair share. It happens, get over it."
Quote:
Maybe you should direct this complaint to the government functionaries whose behavior led people to that assumption.
I can direct the comments to as many people as I like, and I do have blame for those who have misused legitimate surveillance tools in the past; but I also believe that there are quite a few ordinary people who have gone around the bend in thinking that the boogeyman is carrying out counterterrorism investigations on them -- or they might soon. This paranoia of "teh government is spying on everyone!!!" and yet, the government appears to be doing nothing with all this information it is supposedly collecting on innocent Americans -- people will laugh about the FBI reading emails that have the word "bomb" in them, and yet, nothing happens to those people who write those emails.

Quote:
That invites damage up to and including the destruction of the economy, given the fact that a built-in backdoor renders the system fundamentally insecure.
I see what you mean: I notice that Apple has been fundamentally destroyed as a corporation over the last 7 years of selling iPhones without this type of encryption. I also notice that Google is teetering on the brink of collapse because they, too, followed judges' orders to produce information. My god, the calamity. Does Silicon Valley look like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome yet? I haven't visited since 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Currently there is no law or ruling that compels providers of electronics to oblige law enforcement.
In a slightly different case, telephone companies are obliged to assist the government in espionage and terrorism cases. And for the most part, civil libertarians seem to be cheering the USA Freedom Act, which increases the burden on industry to retain such data as may be used in those investigations.

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-29-2014 at 12:14 PM.
  #139  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:13 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The Fifth Amendment protects you against being forced to be a witness against yourself.

It doesn't protect you against officers searching your belongings -- if they find contraband it's not you being a witness against yourself. (The Fourth Amendment requires that such searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant or under one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.)

So the question is: is making you supply the password considered testimonial evidence against yourself?
Is that different from making you unlock the trunk of your car, or your front door, once they've got a warrant? Granted, for cars & such they can just break in, but does the non-break-innable aspect of this encryption require a change in law?
  #140  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:14 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that is unacceptable.
It's unacceptable that sometimes the police can't find a fingerprint? That seems like a pointless complaint.
  #141  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:14 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that is unacceptable.
Maybe you should get together with King Canute and direct the tides to extinguish any fires that might be used to burn any documents that the Feds might someday wish to peek at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Is that different from making you unlock the trunk of your car, or your front door, once they've got a warrant? Granted, for cars & such they can just break in, but does the non-break-innable aspect of this encryption require a change in law?
There is no non-break-innable aspect. Breaking in simply requires more sophisticated tools (e.g. keyloggers to obtain data prior to encryption). What the Feds are whining about is that having to rely on those tools 1)is too much like work and 2)effectively limits them to individual targeted surveillance rather than the fishing expeditions they prefer.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-29-2014 at 12:17 PM.
  #142  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:26 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It's unacceptable that sometimes the police can't find a fingerprint? That seems like a pointless complaint.
The closer analogy would be that a suspect would have a Fifth Amendment right to withhold his fingerprints from the police after his arrest.
  #143  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:29 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The closer analogy would be that a suspect would have a Fifth Amendment right to withhold his fingerprints from the police after his arrest.
Yes, that'd be closer. But Smapti seemed to be saying something different and truly weird, which is why I asked him about the statement he made rather than changing the analogy.
  #144  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:32 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Maybe you should get together with King Canute and direct the tides to extinguish any fires that might be used to burn any documents that the Feds might someday wish to peek at.
Again, this is a stupid analogy. You're making out like nobody is allowed to do something for fear that the government might want that information in the future; which is clearly silly. We're referring to cases where a judge has found probable cause for a search to be executed on a device, but that search cannot be fulfilled. Geez, there's so many hyperbolic posts around here that it's almost like the topic of the debate has to keep being explained.

Quote:
There is no non-break-innable aspect. Breaking in simply requires more sophisticated tools (e.g. keyloggers to obtain data prior to encryption). What the Feds are whining about is that having to rely on those tools 1)is too much like work and 2)effectively limits them to individual targeted surveillance rather than the fishing expeditions they prefer.
How is such a keylogger supposed to get on a phone if the government cannot unlock it?
  #145  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:33 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So the question is: is making you supply the password considered testimonial evidence against yourself?
Do you know of any case law around this? People being forced to give up safe combinations or the location of a hidden information stash say?
  #146  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:43 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Maybe you should get together with King Canute and direct the tides to extinguish any fires that might be used to burn any documents that the Feds might someday wish to peek at.
This isn't analogous to documents being destroyed, the information still exists but is hidden. The question is, should a company be able to provide something that keeps the information intact but prevents legitimate authorities viewing it? It's the equivalent of keeping a safe deposit box (that, for the sake of argument, can't be broken into), then refusing to open it when the authorities come with a warrant, claiming you don't have a key.

Encrypting your own data is different, that would be the equivalent of obtaining an impenetrable box yourself and refusing to tell the police where the key is.
  #147  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:57 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
How is such a keylogger supposed to get on a phone if the government cannot unlock it?
If you don't understand the difference between an operating system and a set of data files, I don't think anybody here can help you navigate this discussion.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #148  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:01 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Is that different from making you unlock the trunk of your car, or your front door, once they've got a warrant? Granted, for cars & such they can just break in, but does the non-break-innable aspect of this encryption require a change in law?
The police can not make you unlock the trunk of your car, or even open your front door. Not unlocking the car, or opening the front door is not a crime, even in the face of a warrant. You can not be compelled to take an action in this way. The police with a warrant may search the vehicle, or enter a residence. They can do this through force. There is no requirement that you assist them.

If the police have a warrant to search my physical safe, I'd be in my best interest to open it for them since they will do so anyways, and likely cause more damage in the process. If they want access to my encrypted information that resides on my computer or my phone, they are perfectly able to confiscate those items. They can attempt to break the encryption, but I am not obligated to 'open the door' so to speak.

This applies more broadly that Google or Apple and backdoors to their products. User encrypted information will exist that fits this same criteria.
  #149  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:21 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
If you don't understand the difference between an operating system and a set of data files, I don't think anybody here can help you navigate this discussion.
Well, explain it to me. You could change my mind.

Also explain how your proposal to use keyloggers square with what is probably the more common occurrence: someone is arrested and all their personal effects are seized. This includes the phone, and cops want to inspect what's being stored on his phone due to testimony that there is relevant evidence to be found. Obviously, the idea of loading a keylogger onto the phone and giving it back to him in hopes of his revealing his passcode is... well, a lame idea. So what are the police supposed to do in that case? Seems like your idea only works if there is an extensive, long-term surveillance operation that happens before the suspect is arrested.
  #150  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:42 PM
Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that is unacceptable.
Too bad. Blame God, blame the universe, blame the cold and implacable laws of mathematics. Information obeys laws that make strong encryption possible, and in a connected age, that is a genie you cannot put back in the bottle. Encryption is available to everybody, and its inherent ability to create networks of trust and verifiability is so useful we've built a new global economy on its back. People like you who wish to see it undermined are asking for nothing less than the destruction of our way of life.

(Not to mention asking for the very universe to bend its structure to your statist agenda. I thought the roaring success of Lysenkoism would have been an adequate object lesson, but for those who either refuse to study history or are incapable of grasping the principle, I suppose object lessons are less than useful.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
Does this mean you are claiming Smapti for your side? Because I certainly don't want him on mine!
Smapti is on no one's side, because no one is on Smapti's side.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017