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.
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.
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.
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.
How is such a keylogger supposed to get on a phone if the government cannot unlock it?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.)
Smapti is on no one’s side, because no one is on Smapti’s side.
Are so many of Apple’s customers criminals? I had no idea.
Wait, if the authorities have acted wrongly, where is the “second” wrong? How could it possibly be wrong to thwart their wrongful action?
Right. And if, also…rogue SWAT teams…had been known to “act wrongly” upon private residences on occasion, you might see inconveniencing a hypothetical SWAT team as a kind of bonus–even being law-abiding yourself.
Has not Apple become an extremely successful company under the previous encryption scheme? Did the sales of the iPhone 6 not skyrocket even before this feature was made known?
If backdoors were such an uncompromising, toxic threat to the success of these business – and our “way of life” as you put it – why has Apple been so phenomenally successful in business that they currently have more cash in the bank than the United States Treasury?
Not to mention that Google, Yahoo, and many other companies are known to have complied with completely legal court orders to produce information on numerous investigations. If the mere knowledge of a backdoor was as cataclysmic as you make it out to be… well, where is the economic chaos? I believe you sincerely believe what you wrote, but you simply must be living in a different world if you acknowledge that Silicon Valley has been getting along just fine in cooperating with police for a very long time.
No. Which is why it’s so absurd that it’s thought necessary to automatically encrypt their data. This isn’t just basic level privacy, this is like having Fort Knox as your front door.
The second wrong is making it harder for the police to do their job. There’s no justification for making it harder for police to get information when they have a warrant.
If they didn’t have a warrant, they couldn’t use anything they found to harm me. The difference between this and searching my home is that, in the SWAT team case, they could cause massive damage. In the phone case, at absolute worst I’ve lost some data that (if important) I’ve got backed up elsewhere. There should be far more restrictions on physical searches than electronic.
This argument isn’t about whether it’s acceptable to encrypt information for the sake of privacy, because of course it is. The issue is when that prevents the police doing their job. I really don’t know why so many people here want to prevent them from doing that.
Is that really the question, whether the products act that way by default?
I have encrypted volumes on my PC and external hard drives. This data is protected by strong encryption, that as far as I’m aware, no one can access without my password. This is all commercial hardware and free software that’s widely available.
So there’s nothing new about consumer-level unbreakable encryption. Is the fact that the phones use it by default that is the difference here?
When talking about Santorum, please don’t use “froth” anywhere near the word “mouth.”
As you rightly say, anyone can encrypt stuff if they choose, and the government can’t really do anything about that. It can do something about products being sold that way by default, and as such not give a helping hand to criminals too stupid or ignorant to know what to hide.
“Destruction of our very way of life” is a somewhat histrionic exaggeration, but I was responding to Smapti. Take that as you will.
The key words being “when they have a warrant.” They do not currently have a warrant for every single cell phone in the country, therefore the interest of any police agencies in their contents and the accessibility thereof are strictly not at issue. It is literally none of their business until they have a warrant, and there is no conceivable, legitimate way under the United States Constitution for them to compel any private entity, whether a single citizen or a corporation,
So, frankly, I don’t see what this discussion is even about. Some bureaucrat is whinging about something that is none of his business. Let him whinge, and fire him if he doesn’t start focusing on his damn job.
The first implies the second. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have no other purpose than to make it hard for the police to do their job. It’s at the core of their meaning. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.
It most certainly cannot. Apple, Google, et al. are fully within their rights to sell their phones in the configuration their customers want, and that includes shipping them with functioning security settings.
As well you know, many of these problems weren’t public knowledge until about a year ago. Yes, the iPhone 6 has sold well anyway. But businesses are always looking for new ways to respond to consumers, and I think you’d have to agree that consumers are interested in things like this. After all Apple has dealt with privacy and security scandals twice in the last couple of months.
I do not suspect that many people are happy about being the subject of court orders, as a general matter, so I don’t take the measure of justice to be the degree of joyfulness in fulfilling one’s responsibilities. For example, if I’m ever brought up on charges of my wit being an actual deadly weapon, I’ll simply be grateful that 12 jurors are hearing the case, and not be too concerned with complying with their wishes that they be excused to go do something else.
