FBI Calls End-to-End Encryption 'Deeply Concerning' as Privacy Groups Hail Apple's Advanced Data Protection as a Victory for Users

[Fat_Guy]

This opinion is an example why we are doomed.

It’s worse than that. I know a man that became a suspect in a murder all because he had his car parked at the place a day before where the murder happened. They staked his house out and came out of the shadows when he came home.



Unlike the movies and TV shows these detectives literally jumped out of their shoes every time he turned around - how come you never see that on TV? He had an airtight alibi - in another town and like 40 different people he met that day. They still refused to take him off the suspect list. The murderer turns himself in and they still would not take him off the suspect list. How come you don’t see that on TV?


One good thing happen to this guy - women now found him more attractive and exciting. What does that say about our society….. 🤣🤔😑

 

[Shirasaki]

Am I correctly summarizing your position?

You agree this technology does negatively impact public safety but it is worth it for the overall public good.

Technology on its own doesn’t positivity or negatively impact the society. The user is.

 

[compwiz1202]

But what about the children!?™ 🙀

Not even just the children. What about other criminals using it to be totaklly protected?

 

[HylianKnight]

Peoples attitudes will change when they become personally involved or affected by the use of security encryption related to criminal action. A person on holiday abroad being kidnapped for ransom, people trafficking, bomb threats/incidents and other terrorist incidents.

How would Tim Cook feel if a close relative of his was blown up in a terrorist incident and the FBI go 'sorry, we knew the bombers were communicating with others via iphones but there is nothing we could do because of Apple's security encription'.

Yes i know it's an argument that has been used time and time again but I do not think for one min that anyone supporting encryption without security authourities having some form of access would agree to such practices if they were on the resulting end of some tradgedy that could be prevented. A loved one on holiday get's kidnapped and killed because no ransom was paid or a loved one get's blown up at some event, there is no way in hell they are going to say 'oh well, such is life, the security services could not access Apple's encryption thus their death could not have been prevented'.

Law enforcement can access your house with a warrant. So it’s not comparable.

Except it is comparable. A warrant allows them the right to enter, but law enforcement still has to get past the door on their own, wether that means asking and pointing out the person is compelled to comply, or breaking it down.
Similarly, law enforcement agencies can get a warrant for your digital information, but the person with the key to your information should be you.

The arguments against this are like saying all locks should have a master key that only LEOs can use and that this theoretical master key is somehow impervious from being duplicated, lost, or stolen and used by nefarious actors.

 

[compwiz1202]

I’m hopeful the Apple Car will come with end-to-end road encryption.

Cloaking and anti-radar capabilites for an extra $75k...a year

 

[compwiz1202]

ahhh yes the typical 'buy an android phone' tripe. How very unoriginal...BORING!!!!!

Exactly, and that won't change anything. Criminals can use iPhone to be protected regardless of what OS others use

 

[compwiz1202]

Technology on its own doesn’t positivity or negatively impact the society. The user is.

And the authorities. It's not the fact there's a backdoor or not. It's the people using it for invalid reasons

 

[SnappleRumors]

Technology on its own doesn’t positivity or negatively impact the society.

Resorting to being obtuse is tedious. But have it your way.

This technology deploy by Apple negatively impacts LE‘s ability to collect evidence on a suspect who is in the act of committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. But that negative impact is worth it for the general public’s good.

Is that a fair representation of your position?

 

[SnappleRumors]

It’s worse than that. I know a man that became a suspect in a murder all because he had his car parked at the place a day before where the murder happened. They staked his house out and came out of the shadows when he came home.

Do you wonder why they just didn’t just get a warrant from a judge to search his house and arrest him? Or did they do that too?

 

[bookofxero]

The issue is, criminals can always add their own encryption on top of existing communication channels, and that’s what they’ll do if ”lawful access” becomes a thing. You can even make it look like normal texts and pictures, but have secret messages invisibly encrypted in them (steganography). As they say, if encryption becomes outlawed, only outlaws will use encryption. Meaning, the only result would be reduced privacy for lawful citizens.

Heck, BBC’s Sherlock referenced a book code where both parties just needed the same copy of a book. There is also always the challenge/passphrase/code phrase method where something like:
“Did you forget it is Suzy’s birthday?”
“What?! How old is she now?”
“Nine. We are having a surprise party on Saturday if you can make it.”

 

[bookofxero]

"the FBI and law enforcement partners need 'lawful access by design.'"

They already have such access. It's called asking the phone owner for their password. In the UK, at least, you can go to jail for failing to provide your password.

In the US it is a bit less clear. Biometrics have routinely been rules as not legally protected, but passwords are often found to fall under self-incrimination protections.
That does not even get into “fancy” encryption with a dummy, “safe” partition or a poison pill password that wipes the encryption key.

 

[bookofxero]

Why would we want to amend the constitution to remove such a right? That means removing the right to warrants, etc.

“We compel you to give your password!”
“Crap, I forgot it! What are the odds?!”

 

[Fat_Guy]

Do you wonder why they just didn’t just get a warrant from a judge to search his house and arrest him? Or did they do that too?

In that case we don’t know as he let them in and the warrant was not needed. If he refused you don’t have to go before a judge in person over here, but have it faxed to you. It’s such a sure thing that cops don’t even see the need for a warrant, but it matters in the trial. But at the time they can just go in without a warrant and say public safety was at risk. If they come to your door and you crack it open one millimeter, that is enough to claim they saw something and enter without a warrant. So if you see the cops at your door come around from the back and this will delay them a few minutes as they get the warrant.



That’s as far as my advice goes…

 

[jlc1978]

I don’t understand this.

An amendment to force revealing passcodes or face contempt would sanction self incrimination, which the 5th protects against; as courts have ruled passcode entry is protected by the 5th.

 

[SnappleRumors]

An amendment to force revealing passcodes or face contempt would sanction self incrimination, which the 5th protects against; as courts have ruled passcode entry is protected by the 5th.

I didn’t see anything posted about compelling a person to reveal their pw. Since you are saying the context was just that then I defer to you because I missed it..

 

[SnappleRumors]

That’s as far as my advice goes…

Thanks so much for it!

 

[Fat_Guy]

An amendment to force revealing passcodes or face contempt would sanction self incrimination, which the 5th protects against; as courts have ruled passcode entry is protected by the 5th.

This is what drive me crazy.



For the courts to rule, you rights were violated anyway. Your rights should stop the infringement before it happens! It does not, so you really have no rights, just compensation for bad behavior by police and government after the fact at the trial.


Think about that…

 

[Fat_Guy]

Thanks so much for it!

See, by buying you time as they contact their captain for instructions on the warrant, you can collect your thoughts or even call a lawyer. Or time enough to flush the drugs down the toilet…


So I left it there…. 🤣

 

[_Spinn_]

I can’t wait to turn this on!

 

[dk001]

Technology on its own doesn’t positivity or negatively impact the society. The user is.

Does that apply to AI's?

 

[dk001]

Resorting to being obtuse is tedious. But have it your way.

This technology deploy by Apple negatively impacts LE‘s ability to collect evidence on a suspect who is in the act of committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. But that negative impact is worth it for the general public’s good.

Is that a fair representation of your position?

The only way LE should be involved at that level is IF they have enough evidence to determine that warranted search of your device and/or backup is valid.

Reminder - it is the BU that is E2EE, not your iCloud account.

 

[dk001]

In the US it is a bit less clear. Biometrics have routinely been rules as not legally protected, but passwords are often found to fall under self-incrimination protections.
That does not even get into “fancy” encryption with a dummy, “safe” partition or a poison pill password that wipes the encryption key.

The US, from a legislative standpoint, really needs to pull itself into the 21st century.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Not even just the children. What about other criminals using it to be totaklly protected?

Other criminals and their crimes don‘t cause people to instantly suspend their privacy-cautious and critical thinking even nearly as much as children (crime against children, that is) do. Followed by terrorists.

It’s like a magical bullet to justify surveillance measures and legislation.

 

[bookofxero]

The US, from a legislative standpoint, really needs to pull itself into the 21st century.

It makes sense under a very twisted logic and is why iPhones have the “panic” button option to require a passcode.

 

[usagora]

Missing the point. The FBI doesn't deserve anyone's data. Our data is not freely available and shouldn't be. Even if your home cameras only watch your yard or you have nothing on your phone that you don't care about. It's NOT THE POINT. Privacy is a right. Signing it away because "you have nothing to hide" is exactly how and why were in this spot to begin with.

I think you're actually missing his point. I don't think he was arguing against advanced encryption, but rather just making an aside about how many people seem to have a paranoia that the feds are out to get them, specifically.

Would you happily give someone your phone for them to look at if they asked? HELL NO! If you say yes, you're lying.

Actually, I can see a LOT of people happily handing their phone to law enforcement without a court order, especially if they are innocent. I'm not saying you should; I'm just saying many people would definitely do that.