Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/27 17:22:44
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones FBI Director James B. Comey sharply criticized Apple and Google on Thursday for developing forms of smartphone encryption so secure that law enforcement officials cannot easily gain access to information stored on the devices — even when they have valid search warrants. His comments were the most forceful yet from a top government official but echo a chorus of denunciation from law enforcement officials nationwide. Police have said that the ability to search photos, messages and Web histories on smartphones is essential to solving a range of serious crimes, including murder, child pornography and attempted terrorist attacks. “There will come a day when it will matter a great deal to the lives of people . . . that we will be able to gain access” to such devices, Comey told reporters in a briefing. “I want to have that conversation [with companies responsible] before that day comes.” Comey added that FBI officials already have made initial contact with the two companies, which announced their new smartphone encryption initiatives last week. He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” Comey’s remarks followed news last week that Apple’s latest mobile operating system, iOS 8, is so thoroughly encrypted that the company is unable to unlock iPhones or iPads for police. Google, meanwhile, is moving to an automatic form of encryption for its newest version of Android operating system that the company also will not be able to unlock, though it will take longer for that new feature to reach most consumers. Both companies declined to comment on Comey’s remarks. Apple has said that its new encryption is not intended to specifically hinder law enforcement but to improve device security against any potential intruder. For detectives working a tough case, few types of evidence are more revealing than a smartphone. Call logs, instant messages and location records can link a suspect to a crime precisely when and where it occurred. And a surprising number of criminals, police say, like to take selfies posing with accomplices — and often the loot they stole together. But the era of easy law enforcement access to smartphones may be drawing to a close as courts and tech companies erect new barriers to police searches of popular electronic devices. The result, say law enforcement officials, legal experts and forensic analysts, is that more and more seized smartphones will end up as little more than shiny paperweights, with potentially incriminating secrets locked inside forever. The irony, some say, is that while the legal and technical changes are fueled by anger over reports of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, the consequences are being felt most heavily by police detectives, often armed with warrants certifying that a judge has found probable cause that a search of a smartphone will reveal evidence of a crime. “The outrage is directed at warrantless mass surveillance, and this is a very different context. It’s searching a device with a warrant,” said Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department computer crimes lawyer who is now a professor at George Washington University. Not all of the high-tech tools favored by police are in peril. They can still seek records of calls or texts from cellular carriers, eavesdrop on conversations and, based on the cell towers used, determine the general locations of suspects. Police can seek data backed up on remote cloud services, which increasingly keep copies of the data collected by smartphones. And the most sophisticated law enforcement agencies can deliver malicious software to phones capable of making them spy on users. Yet the devices themselves are gradually moving beyond the reach of police in a range of circumstances, prompting ire from investigators. Frustration is running particularly high at Apple, which made the first announcement about new encryption and is moving much more swiftly than Google to get it into the hands of consumers. “Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile,” said John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for Chicago’s police department. “The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone.” The rising use of encryption is already taking a toll on the ability of law enforcement officials to collect evidence from smartphones. Apple in particular has been introducing tough new security measures for more than two years that have made it difficult for police armed with cracking software to break in. The new encryption is significantly tougher, experts say. “There are some things you can do. There are some things the NSA can do. For the average mortal, I’d say they’re probably out of luck,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, a forensics researcher based in New Hampshire. Los Angeles police Detective Brian Collins, who does forensics analysis for anti-gang and narcotics investigations, says he works on about 30 smartphones a month. And while he still can successfully crack into most of them, the percentage has been gradually shrinking — a trend he fears will only accelerate. “I’ve been an investigator for almost 27 years,” Collins said, “It’s concerning that we’re beginning to go backwards with this technology.” The new encryption initiatives by Apple and Google come after June’s Supreme Court ruling requiring police, in most circumstances, to get a search warrant before gathering data from a cellphone. The magistrate courts that typically issue search warrants, meanwhile, are more carefully scrutinizing requests amid the heightened privacy concerns that followed the NSA disclosures that began last year. Civil liberties activists call this shift a necessary correction to the deterioration of personal privacy in the digital era — and especially since Apple’s introduction of the iPhone in 2007 inaugurated an era in which smartphones became remarkably intimate companions of people everywhere. “Law enforcement has an enormous range of technical and old-fashioned methods to go after the perpetrators of real crime, and no amount of security effort at Silicon Valley tech companies is going to change that fact,” said Peter Eckersley, director of technology projects at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group based in San Francisco. “The reality is that if the FBI really wants to investigate someone, they have a spectacular arsenal of weapons.” Sometimes, police say, that’s not enough. Escalante, the Chicago chief of detectives, pointed to a case in which several men forced their way into the home of a retired officer in March and shot him in the face as his wife lay helplessly nearby. When the victim, Elmer Brown, 73, died two weeks later, city detectives working the case already were running low on useful leads. But police got a break during a routine traffic stop in June, confiscating a Colt revolver that once belonged to Brown, police say. That led investigators to a Facebook post, made two days after the homicide, in which another man posed in a cellphone selfie with the same gun. When police found the smartphone used for that picture, the case broke open, investigators say. Though the Android device was locked with a swipe code, a police forensics lab was able to defeat it to collect evidence; the underlying data was not encrypted. Three males, one of whom was a juvenile, eventually were arrested. “You present them with a picture of themselves, taken with the gun, and it’s hard to deny it,” said Sgt. Richard Wiser, head of the Chicago violent crimes unit that investigated the case. “It played a huge role in this whole thing. As it was, it took six months to get them. Who knows how long it would have taken without this.” My response? The issue seems to me that either: A) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain, including information stored on media devices like your phone. or... B) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination ONLY protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain, and any information stored on media devices must have override access to comply with valid, legal warrants. What's funny to me is that so much of our most sensitive is in fact also stored on external servers. E-mails (looking at you Lerner!), texts, tweets, Facebook updates, on and on... it’s all stored on private companies' / telecoms’ hard drives, where the FBI and NSA can currently access. Seems to me that the Feds are crying over having their easy button taken away:
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 17:27:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/27 19:35:23
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”
Perhaps the reason they would do so is because a Director at the FBI doesn't understand why people would want to "place themselves beyond the law".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/27 19:36:45
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Poor police, having to confront the painful realization that we don't yet live in their dream of a police state, and not everyone has "make life easier for the police" as their top priority. What these idiots don't seem to understand is that any phone that can easily be hacked by the police can also be hacked by any random person who steals it.
The issue seems to me that either:
A) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain, including information stored on media devices like your phone.
or...
B) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination ONLY protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain, and any information stored on media devices must have override access to comply with valid, legal warrants.
Actually it's a third option:
C) The fifth amendment only protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain (including encryption passwords, etc). Information stored on media devices can be seized by the police, but you are not required to assist them in using or interpreting it, or provide override access for it.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 04:34:46
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
I actually like option C. Much better!
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 18:39:32
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
Peregrine wrote:... but you are not required to assist them in using or interpreting it, or provide override access for it.
Actually, with a warrant you are. But that's the whole point, isn't it? Warrants vs. warrantless searches.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 19:39:15
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
No you aren't. If the police show up at your door with a warrant you are required to give them access to your house and stay out of their way while they search, but you aren't required to help them find what they're looking for (or even do anything besides claim your 5th amendment right and stand there silently). So if the warrant includes computers/phones/etc they will confiscate those devices and you can't stop them from attempting to get your data, but you aren't required to assist them in understanding it if they aren't able to find what they want to see.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? Warrants vs. warrantless searches.
No, a warrant just makes the search legal. With a warrantless search (like the NSA loves) the police can't use anything they get in court, which makes it only useful for catching "terrorists" and sending them off to secret prisons outside the normal judicial process.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 19:58:51
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:
No you aren't. If the police show up at your door with a warrant you are required to give them access to your house and stay out of their way while they search, but you aren't required to help them find what they're looking for (or even do anything besides claim your 5th amendment right and stand there silently). So if the warrant includes computers/phones/etc they will confiscate those devices and you can't stop them from attempting to get your data, but you aren't required to assist them in understanding it if they aren't able to find what they want to see.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? Warrants vs. warrantless searches.
No, a warrant just makes the search legal. With a warrantless search (like the NSA loves) the police can't use anything they get in court, which makes it only useful for catching "terrorists" and sending them off to secret prisons outside the normal judicial process.
Im definitely not the most intelligent person here regarding legal matters like the 5th Amendment, etc. But I'm with Peregrine on this one.... It is my understanding that things generally work the way he describes.
And really, I think this issue all comes down to point of view, or in the way things are presented.... By this, I mean that Google/Apple could've announced this new tech as being the toughest encryption yet, making your mobile device a little more safe against criminal intrusion (and they may have put it that way). What we have, of course, is someone who is in law enforcement decrying this as "anti-police" or some such, and "unneccessarily making our job more difficult" which, honestly, I couldn't give a rats pet-donkey about. And honestly, Im not overly worried about someone obtaining a warrant against me, so in my eyes, this tech really is about "protecting" me from criminals. If it has the added bonus of "protecting" me from the Government, then I guess that's cool too.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 20:21:38
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Peregrine wrote:So if the warrant includes computers/phones/etc they will confiscate those devices and you can't stop them from attempting to get your data, but you aren't required to assist them in understanding it if they aren't able to find what they want to see.
That is not necessarily true.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/28 20:58:30
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
dogma wrote: Peregrine wrote:So if the warrant includes computers/phones/etc they will confiscate those devices and you can't stop them from attempting to get your data, but you aren't required to assist them in understanding it if they aren't able to find what they want to see.
That is not necessarily true.
The key fact here is that the case where the court ruled that password had to be provided was one where the police had searched the computer while it was unlocked and seen all of the evidence, so requiring the defendant to decrypt it for them would just confirm what they already knew. In similar cases where the police didn't already know the contents of the computer the courts ruled that the defendant did have a right to remain silent and refuse to give any passwords (or even admit that they knew the password).
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 04:57:31
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Peregrine wrote:
The key fact here is that the case where the court ruled that password had to be provided was one where the police had searched the computer while it was unlocked and seen all of the evidence, so requiring the defendant to decrypt it for them would just confirm what they already knew. In similar cases where the police didn't already know the contents of the computer the courts ruled that the defendant did have a right to remain silent and refuse to give any passwords (or even admit that they knew the password).
Well, no that's not true. The ruling indicated that some of the contents of the drive were freely disclosed, and as such the disclosure of all the contents did not constitute self-incrimination. This raises some interesting questions regarding instances in which some files on a given drive are encrypted, and therefore openly disclosed, while others are not.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 05:27:39
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
dogma wrote:Well, no that's not true. The ruling indicated that some of the contents of the drive were freely disclosed, and as such the disclosure of all the contents did not constitute self-incrimination. This raises some interesting questions regarding instances in which some files on a given drive are encrypted, and therefore openly disclosed, while others are not.
Right, but the important fact was that the contents that were freely disclosed were incriminating contents. The argument wasn't that once you've cooperated with the police you're obligated to continue cooperating (something that, by clear precedent, is NOT true), it was that the police had already seen enough evidence that this was essentially a case of the defendant confessing and then saying "wait, I take it back, you can't use that". And that seems to have been the deciding factor in past encryption cases in the US: if the police are just speculating about what might be there you have a 5th amendment right to stay silent and refuse to decrypt the files, if they've already seen the files or (as happened in another case) you've admitted that they contain the incriminating evidence the police are looking for then you've given away your 5th amendment rights.
In the case of finding encrypted files on an unencrypted drive IMO the 5th amendment protection would still apply. The police have no idea what is in those files (or even that they are encrypted files and not just random empty space left over from the last time you formatted the drive), and can't prove that you own them. Compelling you to decrypt the files would mean compelling a confession that you own the files, have the ability to access them, and are (presumably) aware of the contents. I don't see how there would be any difference between encrypted files on a partially disclosed drive and an encrypted drive in a house that you've granted the police access to.
(And, on a technical note, having encrypted files on an unencrypted drive is pretty bad for security since your operating system is prone to "leaking" the information in those files into other, unencrypted, files every time you open or use them. If you're going to bother with encryption at all then just encrypt the whole disk.)
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:11:49
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
The first thing this article makes me suspect is that the FBI has come up with new way of hacking Google and Apple smartphones. Because the best way to make people who you want to hack use a specific device is to make them think that you cannot.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:19:22
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Peregrine wrote:
Right, but the important fact was that the contents that were freely disclosed were incriminating contents.
Indicating that it might be possible for the state to deny 5th Amendment rights if one document on a given drive is potentially incriminating.
Peregrine wrote:
The argument wasn't that once you've cooperated with the police you're obligated to continue cooperating (something that, by clear precedent, is NOT true)...
No, that is exactly what it is. A citizen who cooperated with the authorities by granting access to his drive was ordered to continue doing so by providing information.
Peregrine wrote:
...it was that the police had already seen enough evidence that this was essentially a case of the defendant confessing and then saying "wait, I take it back, you can't use that".
Which is not distinct from the argument that I made.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:22:05
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Ketara wrote:The first thing this article makes me suspect is that the FBI has come up with new way of hacking Google and Apple smartphones. Because the best way to make people who you want to hack use a specific device is to make them think that you cannot.
I doubt it. There are plenty of quotes from people who aren't from the FBI, and if the FBI did have a way to break into smartphones they wouldn't tell some random police department about it and risk letting their secret get out. And it doesn't make much sense to try to push people in the direction of the companies with the largest market share, the ones people are already buying from. I think this is just exactly what it seems to be: the police whining and crying because of all those horrible people who have priorities other than giving the police whatever they want. It's the same kind of entitled attitude that results in SWAT teams making no-knock raids to prevent a suspect from flushing their personal supply of pot down the toilet, or shooting random black people and getting away with murder because all those civilians just don't understand how hard it is to be a cop.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:26:47
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
I think you severely underestimate the capabilities of your intelligence service, Peregrine.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:34:52
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
The FBI isn't an intelligence service. As for the NSA, they probably already have a way in knowing them but they like to think of warrants as more of a guideline than an actual rule so this probably doesn't effect them at all
There's really no reason for the FBI to want to push people to use Apple and Android, as most smart phone users already use them. iPhone and Droids make up far more than the lion's share of the market. And really, I doubt anything the FBI says will get people to stop buying them.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 07:36:28
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
dogma wrote:Indicating that it might be possible for the state to deny 5th Amendment rights if one document on a given drive is potentially incriminating.
That would probably depend on exactly how incriminating it is. But we won't know that limit until there's a better test case for it, in the one previously mentioned the police saw a giant pile of incriminating evidence and had no problem at all establishing that the defendant had possession of it.
However, what we do know with reasonable confidence is that if there aren't any incriminating documents on the unencrypted section (and you aren't stupid enough to tell your cellmate that your encrypted disk has all of the evidence you're hiding) the police would not be able to force you to decrypt it. So far that's the precedent in cases where the police had enough probable cause to get a search warrant for the computer, but no specific knowledge that could confirm its contents.
No, that is exactly what it is. A citizen who cooperated with the authorities by granting access to his drive was ordered to continue doing so by providing information.
No, that's not at all what it is. There is clear precedent that you can initially cooperate with the police, and still retain the right to stop cooperating and claim your 5th amendment rights at any time. The reason the defendant was ordered to decrypt the drive wasn't that they'd initially cooperated, it was that the police had already found the evidence and all the decryption would do is confirm what everyone already knew.
Which is not distinct from the argument that I made.
It is, because you're talking about something different from the actual argument in the case. The issue wasn't the prior cooperation, it was that the police already had the evidence and therefore there was no more danger of self-incrimination. The 5th amendment protection only applies if you have something to lose by providing information, if you take away that risk then the protection disappears. For example, if the court offers you immunity from prosecution in exchange for decrypting your files (perhaps they want to use them to prosecute someone else) then you would no longer be allowed to claim your 5th amendment protection and would risk going to jail until you cooperate.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 08:53:45
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Peregrine wrote:
That would probably depend on exactly how incriminating it is. But we won't know that limit until there's a better test case for it, in the one previously mentioned the police saw a giant pile of incriminating evidence and had no problem at all establishing that the defendant had possession of it.
Of course, but that still supports my point regarding necessity.
Peregrine wrote:
No, that's not at all what it is. There is clear precedent that you can initially cooperate with the police, and still retain the right to stop cooperating and claim your 5th amendment rights at any time.
Not according to that ruling there isn't; it exposed the whole of the drive's data to state scrutiny.
Again supporting my initial point regarding necessity.
Peregrine wrote:
The reason the defendant was ordered to decrypt the drive wasn't that they'd initially cooperated...
It is literally written in the decision:
Boucher accessed the Z drive of his laptop at the ICE agent's request.
Peregrine wrote:
It is, because you're talking about something different from the actual argument in the case.
I thought we were discussing 5th Amendment Rights, with Boucher being a subset thereof.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/29 09:02:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 09:22:47
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
whembly wrote:FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones
Police have said that the ability to search photos, messages and Web histories on smartphones is essential to solving a range of serious crimes, including murder, child pornography and attempted terrorist attacks.
“There will come a day when it will matter a great deal to the lives of people . . . that we will be able to gain access” to such devices, Comey told reporters in a briefing. “I want to have that conversation [with companies responsible] before that day comes.”
Comey added that FBI officials already have made initial contact with the two companies, which announced their new smartphone encryption initiatives last week. He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”
I take it he cares nothing for the serious fraud and other crime stopped by better encryption then? What an idiotic thing to say.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/29 09:23:07
insaniak wrote:Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/29 14:47:34
Subject: Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:The FBI isn't an intelligence service. As for the NSA, they probably already have a way in knowing them but they like to think of warrants as more of a guideline than an actual rule so this probably doesn't effect them at all
Well, we've ALL seen the gakstorm from Assange revealing what the NSA gets up to... and why would an intelligence agency ask for a warrant? They're not law enforcement... they're Intel. Does James Bond ask for a warrant before breaking into the numerous super top secret facilities that he's gotten into over the years?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/20 21:23:21
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Feds To Apple: If We Can't Read iMessages, A Child Will Die
The Department of Justice told Apple executives that a child would die as a result of the company's new iMessage encryption, reports the Wall Street Journal.
iMessages come encrypted on your iPhone in iOS 8. That means that without the passcode to your phone, law enforcement can't access your text messages, even with a court-ordered warrant.
Apple's move to encrypt iMessages comes after a summer of privacy complaints that peaked with the iCloud hacking scandal which exposed nude celebrity photos.
In September Apple CEO Tim Cook published a letter outlining Apple's new privacy policy.
"We don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you," said Cook.
Apple was reportedly offended by the DOJ's nightmare scenario. The meeting was unproductive for both parties.
Cook also spoke specifically to Apple's policy on government data requests in his letter.
"Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services," said Cook. "We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/20 22:25:03
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/20 22:25:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/21 02:07:51
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
The whole "think of the children" plea is standard Politics 101. Once you make the appeal that children are in danger, no politician can sit idly by and be silent.
Case in point: The heroin preparation known as "cheese" that popped up in Dallas schools a few years back. Nobody cares when hundreds of junkies die each year, but just one kid in school ODs on heroin? That's suddenly national news and gets every politician and law enforcement official falling all over themselves to "do something,"
|
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/21 02:44:39
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Different box, same idea...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/21 06:21:56
Subject: Re:Feds not happy with Apple and Google
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Ooh, here's an idea:
The government's abuse of power and disregard for the constitution's limits on police power leads to people taking things into their own hands and using encryption systems that the police can't get into, which then leads to dead children. POLICE ABUSE KILLS CHILDREN. CONGRESS MUST ABOLISH THE POLICE.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
|