FBI Could Not Access Nearly 7K Devices Because of Encryption

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,554
In a speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Philadelphia, FBI Director Wray said the FBI hasn't been able to retrieve data from more than half of the mobile devices it tried to access in less than a year. He considers it a huge problem and wants to seek a balance between privacy and law enforcement needs. I'm not sure if a balance can ever be reached that is satisfactory for all sides and I expect this to continue to be heard in the courts for years to come.

Wray also decried a potential "blind spot" for intelligence gathering if Congress doesn’t reauthorize an intelligence surveillance law set to expire at the end of the year. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to collect information about militants, people suspected of cybercrimes or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other foreign targets outside the United States. Intelligence and law enforcement officials say the act is vital to national security.
 
Good. There is no balance between privacy and law enforcement as far as I see it. If the court wants to get into your phone, then they can convince a judge of probable cause, issue a warrant to sieze the device, and compel your cooperation to provide the device and access to the device. You can make the determination to cooperate or disregard the court order as you wish, and face the consequences of your choice either way.

In the case of devices for persons unavailable or deceased - oh well. It's not like we can go back and get their memories or thoughts either in that case.
 
hqdefault.jpg


I'll take freedom and liberty first, tyvm.
 
Awwww.... poor FBI can't access devices that probably don't contain anytihng..... Guess they have to go back to doing old fashioned police work. Sucks when you can't take shortcuts to do your job. I wish half my customers weren't as dumb as they are so my job would be easier. Then again make it too easy and I wouldn't have a job.
 
Easiest Desk Job in the world everyone and everything is a conspiracy....

Unless you are old enough to know better and it's not really......
 
Phone contents is very different from the physical evidence of yore.

It is more intimate, much more akin to our thoughts and the content of our brains.

There can be no "balance" here.

Any workaround for breaking encryption needs to be illegal regardless of who tried to do it, even if that is police or the three letter federal agency of your choice.

There can be no exceptions.
 
"The question is, why are our private details that are transmitted online, why are private details that are stored on our personal devices, any different than the details and private records of our lives that are stored in our private journals?" --Snowden


 
God help the FBI if criminals don't use a smart phone.

Are they going to start lobbying for compulsive smart phone use... mandatory self-logging just in case you break a law?
 
Technically, the 4th amendment gives them the authority to search a device with a warrant. This is the balance between privacy and protection. Unfortunately, sort of the suspect unlocking the data themselves and in the process incriminating themselves, authorities have no way to access locked data even with a legal warrant. This is in effect someone locking their door, and the police being unable to enter with a warrant to find the dead bodies stashed inside (or not), simply because they don't have the owners house keys. Authorities need a way to unlock devices when legal to do so. Checks and balances will keep them... well... in check, or else someone is going to eventually sue and get a lot of money, while people lose their jobs.
 
Chunder said:
Technically, the 4th amendment gives them the authority to search a device with a warrant. This is the balance between privacy and protection. Unfortunately, sort of the suspect unlocking the data themselves and in the process incriminating themselves, authorities have no way to access locked data even with a legal warrant. This is in effect someone locking their door, and the police being unable to enter with a warrant to find the dead bodies stashed inside (or not), simply because they don't have the owners house keys. Authorities need a way to unlock devices when legal to do so. Checks and balances will keep them... well... in check, or else someone is going to eventually sue and get a lot of money, while people lose their jobs.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Authorities don't need any way to unlock devices under any circumstances.

If I have documents locked in a safe, and I am compelled to turn over the documents - I can't just turn over the locked safe and say "here you go". I have to unlock the safe and produce the documents, or face obstruction charges. Same thing with a phone. I can't just hand them a locked phone, or an encrypted file with no key, if the warrant specifies exactly what information they are looking for. But if they just request the phone - that's like just requesting the safe - it's pretty pointless without the means to open it, except as a means to ensure that there is no destruction or tampering of potential evidence -- not as a means to allow for brute force or hacked entry attempts.

Law enforcement needs to target very specific data that they want, convince a judge, and then if warranted, you have to turn it over - but only that specific data. If the judge issues a warrant to search a house - you have to let them in when you are served with the warrant, or realize that you will probably get arrested if you don't (they won't brute force your door, and I would expect the same to go for your phone, unless they suspect life of being in immediate danger). If the authorities just want to go looking and don't have any idea what they want - that's their problem, and they need to get smarter about it.
 
Brian_B said:
If I have documents locked in a safe, and I am compelled to turn over the documents - I can't just turn over the locked safe and say "here you go"
Click to expand...

Um... That is EXACTLY how it DOES work. It gets sticky at the point of combination or key lock. You can be compelled to provide the physical key to a lock, but they can not compel you to provide the combination to a lock. This has been tried in courts many many times, and gets thrown out EVERY time on the grounds of self-incrimination. I don't really see how they figure the password on a phone is any different than the password on a safe.
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
Um... That is EXACTLY how it DOES work. It gets sticky at the point of combination or key lock. You can be compelled to provide the physical key to a lock, but they can not compel you to provide the combination to a lock. This has been tried in courts many many times, and gets thrown out EVERY time on the grounds of self-incrimination. I don't really see how they figure the password on a phone is any different than the password on a safe.
Click to expand...

You have part of it right.

If you have a key, you have to provide it. True.

If you have a passkey/PIN/password - you have to provide it, just as you provide a key. You can be compelled to provide that.

The loophole isn't because of the 5th or self-incrimination. That deals with testifying against yourself. Your not allowed to destroy or alter evidence on the basis that it may incriminate you. The loophole is "I can't remember the passkey/PIN/password". They can't prove or disprove what you may or may not remember or not. They can look for clues, look to see if you had wrote it down somewhere, or whatever - you aren't off the hook just because you "can't remember".

5th Amendment means you don't have to be a witness against yourself, which the Supreme Court has clearly defined as "Communicative Evidence" (US v Wade 1967). It doesn't mean anything about your property or digital/physical evidence.
 
Brian_B said:
You have part of it right.

If you have a key, you have to provide it. True.

If you have a passkey/PIN/password - you have to provide it, just as you provide a key. You can be compelled to provide that.

The loophole isn't because of the 5th or self-incrimination. That deals with testifying against yourself. Your not allowed to destroy or alter evidence on the basis that it may incriminate you. The loophole is "I can't remember the passkey/PIN/password". They can't prove or disprove what you may or may not remember or not. They can look for clues, look to see if you had wrote it down somewhere, or whatever - you aren't off the hook just because you "can't remember".

5th Amendment means you don't have to be a witness against yourself, which the Supreme Court has clearly defined as "Communicative Evidence" (US v Wade 1967). It doesn't mean anything about your property or digital/physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there an article recently about how a man was arrested and held indefinitely in prison because he "couldn't remember" the password to his computer/phone?
 
fadedlogic said:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...crypt-hard-drives-still-in-jail-indefinitely/ They have other evidence that points to his involvement in child porn. It's an interesting case with some of the moves that the prosecutors have made. I hope they have enough to throw him down a deeeeeeeeeeep well.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That was the case I was thinking of.

Krazy925 said:
If they have other evidence why don’t they bring him to trial rather than hold him on CoC charges?

Edit: this guy is a scum bag but we need to try him.
Click to expand...

This isn't the best case to win sentiment, but it is disturbing that anyone could be imprisoned indefinitely for "forgetting" a password. And I go back to my original point in this thread - if the FBI can't convict someone for actual crimes without breaking the encryption on the phone, they are doing their police investigation wrong.
 
Krazy925 said:
If they have other evidence why don’t they bring him to trial rather than hold him on CoC charges?

Edit: this guy is a scum bag but we need to try him.
Click to expand...

They believe that they will be able to round up a great deal more pedos and possibly be able to rescue some victims.
 
jardows said:
Thanks. That was the case I was thinking of.



This isn't the best case to win sentiment, but it is disturbing that anyone could be imprisoned indefinitely for "forgetting" a password. And I go back to my original point in this thread - if the FBI can't convict someone for actual crimes without breaking the encryption on the phone, they are doing their police investigation wrong.
Click to expand...

That's the difficult thing on this case, reprehensible animal who is still entitled to protections under the law. Slippery slope....Indefinite detention is concerning.
 
A
fadedlogic said:
They believe that they will be able to round up a great deal more pedos and possibly be able to rescue some victims.
Click to expand...
After holding him for a few years it’s about the victims?

Think of the children, won’t someone please think of the children! You don’t get to hold a guy for a few years and still claim you want to help exploited children.

His accomplices have had years to cover their tracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top