# Is the FBI right in decrying the stronger encryption about to come to smartphones? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754 "2014-09-28T02:28:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/281 "2014-11-07T17:24:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not true – establishing that Horn knew the victim’s age might well have been necessary, and was certainly valuable to the prosecution for proof of aggravating factors. Given that the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Horn had personally strangled the victim, I’m not seeing much room for doubt as to whether or not Horn knew the victim’s age. Might one of the jurors have demurred if he’d concluded that Horn thought the victim was 14 rather than 12? > [@](#): > > Finally, I again emphasize that I do not favor weakening encryption in any way, shape, manner, or form. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/282 "2014-11-07T17:46:45Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Given that the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Horn had personally strangled the victim, I’m not seeing much room for doubt as to whether or not Horn knew the victim’s age. Might one of the jurors have demurred if he’d concluded that Horn thought the victim was 14 rather than 12? In Lousiana, the law provides that it’s a more serious crime to kill someone 12 and under (or 65 and over). They certainly would have convicted him of some variety of homicide, yes, but being able to prove he knew the child was 12 was legally significant. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/283 "2014-11-07T18:01:33Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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? Smart phones are different because they have our daily lives on them. Now a days people are texting more than ever - very personal deep conversations are available to law enforcement or anyone else with access to your phone - as is your pictures, (often) where you have been, emails, bank data, all kinds of stuff that would have been difficult to compile and search even 10 years ago. Years of case law had allowed law enforcement access to stuff while you were arrested - for example. Without even a warrant (recently this was reversed) - law enforcement abused this - cause they could (at least for a time). Even the Supreme Court has recognized the importance that smart phones play in our lives and the privacy protections they deserve. Law enforcement still has access to the same info they had say 10 years ago - they want to listen into phone calls - no problem - they can get a warrant. They want to eavesdrop on text - same thing - the stuff that goes through the telcos is still up for grabs. They want to read all the texts I’ve been sending for the past 2 years? Fuck them. I’d wager to say more people have evidence of something they’d be embarrassed about on their smart phones more than they do in the rest of their house. Without good encryption - and MORE IMPORTANTLY - the infrastructure on the phone that allows for the encryption not to be bypassed - it allows someone with resources and training access to your phone. The NSA is not able to defeat good encryption – they ARE able to get around the encryption by using bugs in software/hardware, keystroke capturing, setting up fake - or stealing others certificates, and all sorts of things. They actually have the ability to target computers going in and out of the country (say a dell going to Dubai) - that package is routed by UPS to secure facilities where spyware is installed or the computer is otherwise rendered useless from a security perspective. They don’t defeat the (strong) encryption - they get around the encryption. The only way to make cell phones safe from say the Russians - is to also make them safe from Americans - any type of back door access that is enabled for law enforcement - is another layer of potential issues where software/hardware issues could allow another third party to enter. It weakens the phone in and of itself. An analogy could be a master key on a physical lock. When picking a normal lock - you have one sheer line on each pin that you must find to then apply pressure to one by one until the lock is open. When you have a master key – there are two sheer lines on each pin. This makes it easier in some cases to find - in the individual parts of that pin column are now smaller and easier to physically manipulate. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/284 "2014-11-07T19:19:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In Lousiana, the law provides that it’s a more serious crime to kill someone 12 and under (or 65 and over). They certainly would have convicted him of some variety of homicide, yes, but being able to prove he knew the child was 12 was legally significant. Given the law as stated, being able to prove that the child _ **is** _ 12 is legally significant. I doubt that this proof was difficult to obtain, text messages or no text messages. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/285 "2014-11-07T19:22:47Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Given the law as stated, being able to prove that the child _ **is** _ 12 is legally significant. I doubt that this proof was difficult to obtain, text messages or no text messages. Are you suggesting that this is a strict liability issue? The age is relevant, but whether the murderer knew it or not isn’t? You could be right. Generally, though, I’d expect to see some kind of a scienter element read into that law by the courts, but maybe not. I haven’t done the research one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/286 "2015-01-13T20:56:17Z")
Stupid ideas never die; they just get handed down to [stupider politicians](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/david-cameron-encrypted-messaging-apps-ban): > [@](#): > > David Cameron is “living in cloud cuckoo land” when he suggests a new Tory government would ban messaging apps that use encryption, security experts have told the Guardian… > > Independent computer security expert Graham Cluley said: “It’s crazy. Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that this is a sensible idea, and no it wouldn’t be possible to implement properly.” > > Other security experts echo Cluley, describing the approach as “idiocy” and saying Cameron’s plans are “ill-thought out and scary”. The UK’s data watchdog has also spoken out against “knee-jerk reactions”, saying moves could undermine consumer security… > > Preston Byrne, the chief operating officer of Eris Industries, warns that his company will be forced to leave the UK if Cameron’s comments on the technology become policy, and move to “more liberal climes such as Germany, the U.S., the People’s Republic of China, Zimbabwe, or Iraq.”… Well, at least he did strike a blow for the conservative notion that Government Destroys Jobs. ---
**Author:** ![busmol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@busmol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busmol)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/287 "2015-01-15T19:55:06Z")
So to anyone who said only criminals have something to hide, what would have happened if there were smartphones and no warrant searches during Pre-Revolutionary War America? But I guess in the eyes of the Monarchy, the revolutionaries were criminals… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/288 "2015-02-23T23:47:44Z")
Bumping the thread as the government’s position degenerates into [outright magical thinking](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-nsa-director-pretends-he-doesnt-understand-how-encryption-works): > [@](#): > > “I’m perplexed. Most of the debate I’ve seen is, [encryption] is all or nothing,” [NSA Director Mike] Rogers said… > > There are two ways to read Rogers’s comments: The director of the world’s most powerful intelligence agency either fundamentally doesn’t understand how encryption works, or he merely pretended, for an hour, to not understand why opening up encryption to third parties would fundamentally destroy it… > > …\*f you create a vulnerability that can be exploited by the NSA or FBI, then other third parties or governments will eventually be able to crack that vulnerability, destroying encryption entirely… > > _Rogers refused to accept this explanation and said he thinks that it would be possible to make it possible only for the NSA and FBI to decrypt data_, under certain circumstances decided by some sort of independent court… (_“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”_ emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/289 "2015-05-01T17:03:12Z")
[The latest development in the story](http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/privacy-encryption/) – an FBI apparatchik tries to command the tide to reverse course at a Congressional committee hearing, but the committee members agree that she’s all wet: > [@](#): > > A top FBI official, Amy S. Hess, said at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday that encryption of phone data is limiting the FBI’s ability to spy on communication. She said law enforcement needs a way to access smartphone content in order to stop criminals and terrorists, suggesting that the FBI have access to keys that can unlock customers’ data. > > But in a rare show of unity, Congressmen almost universally fought back against that idea. > > U.S. Representative Rod Blum, a Republican from Iowa, likened that to homebuilders putting a camera in every new house – and telling people to blindly believe they won’t be turned on later… > > “Why do you think Apple and Google are doing this? It’s because the public is demanding it … a public that doesn’t want an out-of-control surveillance state,” [Rep Ted] Lieu [D-CA] said. “This is a private sector response to government overreach.”… ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/290 "2015-05-01T18:10:04Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Bumping the thread as the government’s position degenerates into [outright magical thinking](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-nsa-director-pretends-he-doesnt-understand-how-encryption-works): I have a problem with that article - it makes it sounds like the government is asking for weakened encryption, something that can be hacked by them. But my understanding is that’s not the case. The government wants to have strong encryption that their master key can open. This is certainly technologically possible, just like it’s possible to encrypt a message that either one of two people can open with their private keys. Whether that’s a good idea is another question entirely. I myself don’t want my government to be able to read my private communications, but at least let’s state it clearly. They’re not asking for hackable encryption, they’re asking for keys. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/291 "2015-05-01T18:27:56Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I have a problem with that article - it makes it sounds like the government is asking for weakened encryption, something that can be hacked by them. But my understanding is that’s not the case. The government wants to have strong encryption that their master key can open. That’s a distinction without a difference. Building a backdoor key into the system _is_ weakened encryption, because it inherently opens a new vulnerability (cracking or stealing the the backdoor key). Even the government’s own spokespeople [admit this to be a basic problem with the concept](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150429/18033330836/law-enforcements-cluelessness-display-congressional-hearing-undermining-encryption.shtml): > [@](#): > > During the hearing, [DA] Conley continued to show just how far out of his depth he was. Rep. Blake Farenthold (right after quizzing the FBI on why it removed its recommendation on mobile encryption from its website – using the screenshot and highlighting I made), asked the entire panel: > > _Is there anybody on the panel believes we can build a technically secure backdoor with a golden key – raise your hand?_ > > No one did – neither DA Conley nor the FBI’s Amy Hess… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/292 "2015-05-20T23:00:20Z")
The story continues as the [people who know what they hell they’re talking about try to set the Administration straight](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urge-obama-to-reject-policies-that-weaken-encryption-technology.html): > [@](#): > > A collection of tech industry giants like Facebook, Google, Apple and Microsoft, as well as civil liberties organizations and Internet security experts, sent a letter to President Obama on Tuesday warning of the unintended consequences of any policy meant to weaken the encryption technologies that protect Internet communications. > > The White House has been weighing whether to mandate that companies use only forms of encryption that provide law enforcement with the means for unscrambled access – a so-called back door. > > Critics in the technology industry are concerned that a back door for law enforcement in the United States would be a back door for everyone, including other governments and hackers. One Yahoo executive likened the proposal to “drilling a hole in the windshield.”… This unwelcome intrusion of reality [gave FBI Director Comey a sad](http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/242666-fbi-head-found-silicon-valley-encryption-letter-depressing): > [@](#): > > FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday twice used the word “depressing” in describing his reaction to tech companies’ recent plea to President Obama for the White House to support universal strong encryption… > > Security experts unanimously agree that any guaranteed access to encryption will create a vulnerability likely to be exploited by nefarious actors. > > Comey brushed aside the concern. > > “Technical people say it’s too hard,” he said. “My reaction to that is: Really? Really too hard? Too hard for the people we have in his country to figure something out? I’m not that pessimistic.” OK, so he finds it “depressing” that Silicon Valley can’t find a way to create a magical golden key that only the good guys can use. No word yet on whether he finds it similarly depressing that Wall Street can’t find a way to make everybody rich without anybody having to work, or that Detroit can’t find a way to make cars get 500 mpg while emitting only clean sweet breezes that smell faintly of lavender, or that Washington can’t find a way to balance the budget while giving out money to everybody instead of collecting taxes from them. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/293 "2015-08-02T20:08:14Z")
Update: Even veteran national security managers [come down on the side of genuine security](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/former-national-security-officials-see-the-peril-of-weakening-encryption/399848/) over the FBI’s security theater: > [@](#): > > “My position is probably going to be a little surprising to people here,” Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of homeland security, told an audience last week at the Aspen Security Forum. “I think that it’s a mistake to require companies that are making hardware and software to build a duplicate key or a back door even if you hedge it with the notion that there’s going to be a court order.”… > > Michael Hayden has served as director of national intelligence as well as head of the NSA and CIA. He is now a principal at the Chertoff Group. And according to The Daily Beast’s Noah Shachtman, who moderated a panel at the Aspen Security Forum, Hayden declared in an interview, “I think I come down on the side of industry. The downsides of a front or back door outweigh the very real public safety concerns.” > > Michael Leiter has doubts about mandatory “backdoors” too. A former director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, he presently works for Leidos, a defense and homeland security contractor. Appearing on the same panel as Chertoff, he declared that “we are clearly going to a world where end-to-end encryption with temporary keys that disappear immediately after any communication occurs, that is the future. There is no way around that; we are not going to stop that. And because of that, for the technology issues, I don’t think there is a long term way to preserve the US government’s ability to intercept or get access to those.”… ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754/294 "2019-10-04T01:28:56Z")
Still [decrying](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/ag-barr-will-reportedly-ask-facebook-to-postpone-encrypted-messaging-plans.html) after all these years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fbi-right-in-decrying-the-stronger-encryption-about-to-come-to-smartphones/699754.md?page=14)