Locking Out Law Enforcement Is an 'Unintended Side Effect' of New Android Security

[obs]

This is a fallacy.

Access is access, it's either authorized or unauthorized, and it can be secure or insecure.

There is no reason a secure method of gaining access to data, on a mobile device, can not be engineered and available, when properly authorized by law. No reason at all.

We all access our devices as authorized in a secure manner every day. You can't tell me that there is no way to pull it off.

I disagree, even the "secure" manner in which we access phones can be hacked. Which is why companies are continually making it more secure.

And I also disagree that corporations should be giving back doors to governments. This goes for the US just as much as it does for China or Iran. If China issues a subpoena for someone's data should Google also give that over?

 

[kirbyrj]

Doesn't matter. Privacy is paramount to justice.

Until you're the victim...

 

[Mega6]

Until you're the victim...

Until.. You're a victim of "invasion of privacy"?

 

[mope54]

Doesn't matter now, Feds just got handed the keys to the FamilyTreed database. ROFL

 

[lcpiper]

I disagree, even the "secure" manner in which we access phones can be hacked. Which is why companies are continually making it more secure.

And I also disagree that corporations should be giving back doors to governments. This goes for the US just as much as it does for China or Iran. If China issues a subpoena for someone's data should Google also give that over?

A back door, by definition, is unauthorized access which is not what I am saying. I am saying authorized access.

Look, I do not understand why you guys remain so obstinate on this. It's not going to go well. Do you honestly think that we can fight off the government if the government decides to do it their way?

If industry doesn't find a way to provide a solution that is acceptable and meets a legal requirement to allow access to data when deem appropriate by the courts, then the government will come up with their own solution and ram it right down our throats.

I for one do not see the government developing a smart solution on their own, so I would much rather have industry develop a better one and work with government on how it's going to be implemented.

As I said, first fix the laws, then the procedures, and last the industry can adjust and hardware and software can follow. If we stick our heads in the sand, put our fingers in our ears, and scream "na na na na...." and ignore this problem, or if we stick to our guns and refuse to accept the very legitimate need for government access when deemed appropriate by the courts, it's not going to come out good for us. The government will not allow it to stand and they will get their way in the end.

Of course, you can disagree with this as well. You can load your guns and swear death before dishonor if you like. But I'm not that way because I recognize that sometimes, I want the government to be able to access someone's data because sometimes people are real assholes or they work for governments that are not what I would call friendly so out of simple self survival I accept these things as needed.

Look, I'm almost 60, if one of the companies I've invested my life's fortune in decides to do a Madoff, or an Enron, I want my money back. If I can't get my money back, I at least want the asshole in jail for it. If the Russians are messing with our elections, I want my government to figure it out before it can have a great impact. And if you can't catch them early enough, then I want the proof found so we can make them suffer for it.

That's the game, that's how it's played. And the government never promised you perfect protection from government search;

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Until you're the victim...

You are much more likely to be the victim of abuse of power than you are to ever be the victim of crime. Crime rates are very very low.

 

[kirbyrj]

You are much more likely to be the victim of abuse of power than you are to ever be the victim of crime. Crime rates are very very low.

As is being the victim of abuse of power. I would argue the chance of being a victim of a crime is greater. These aren't hired guns looking for a reason to get you in trouble no matter what you think. These are people trying to solve actual crimes. The worst case scenario is you being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other than that law enforcement simply doesn't care what you do as long as it is legal.

 

[lcpiper]

As is being the victim of abuse of power. I would argue the chance of being a victim of a crime is greater. These aren't hired guns looking for a reason to get you in trouble no matter what you think. These are people trying to solve actual crimes. The worst case scenario is you being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other than that law enforcement simply doesn't care what you do as long as it is legal.

But regardless of how accurate Zarathustra's statement is, I fully understand the potential implication of his concern. It's one thing when a local cop goes too far, "put your thumb on your damned phone or I'm hauling you in !". Yes, this is realistically pretty low no matter that it's totally sucks for the person who is treated wrongly this way. But I think what Zarathustra is talking about is more like when the IRS does something population wide, that effects hundreds of millions, the majority of our 325 million population. That is something that becomes far reaching, systemic, invasive, and first we have to discover the bullshit and then we have to find a way to make them stop. Neither come easy, and this is the big brother threat that most people fear. The really hard part of it to wrap your head around is that the IRS doesn't even need to have a nefarious purpose behind it. The just had a problem or were given a directive, it sounded reasonable, but their solution was wrong. It doesn't help that after we find out, and hopefully get it stopped, the IRS still has this perceived "need" and will probably just look for another way to resolve it, which may or may not repeat the same kind of unintentional intentional abuse and over-reach.

That is the nature of government. The more you ask it to do for you, the bigger it gets, the harder it becomes to put the big elephant back into the small cage. In the mean time, it keeps breaking shit.

I must drive some people nuts when they want to "label" me. I don't easily fit in their boxes.

 

[Ididar]

A back door, by definition, is unauthorized access which is not what I am saying. I am saying authorized access.

Look, I do not understand why you guys remain so obstinate on this. It's not going to go well. Do you honestly think that we can fight off the government if the government decides to do it their way?

The problem is that once that access is there then all other governments will want access to it as well, including the governments you might not like. Companies aren't going to be able to do business in those nations if they refuse to give them the same access that they give the US government. So, your phone will be "legally accessible" to any government that wants access, including Russia, China, and others. You won't have a choice to just allow the US government in unless those companies are willing to pull out of those countries completely.

 

[lcpiper]

The problem is that once that access is there then all other governments will want access to it as well, including the governments you might not like. Companies aren't going to be able to do business in those nations if they refuse to give them the same access that they give the US government. So, your phone will be "legally accessible" to any government that wants access, including Russia, China, and others. You won't have a choice to just allow the US government in unless those companies are willing to pull out of those countries completely.

So what?

You tell them to fuck off.

You tell them access to their citizen's shit is up to them to figure out, not our problem.

This argument is bullshit. If we do it for ourselves we have to do it for everyone else is dumb. What, we have to let the entire world into our secret intelligence data because we access it? Come off it.

But, even if you accept this, it still doesn't mean that the solution can't be developed to account for it, and that if China wants the same capability for their citizen's data that it won't mean giving them access to ours.

It's just engineering.

And my other point still stands. If Industry pushes the government to that point, they will force this issue and we probably will not like the results.