New York Prosecutor Seeks Law To Weaken Smartphone Encryption

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I know I sound like a broken record but how in the world did law enforcement catch crooks before smartphones had encryption?

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. on Wednesday called for federal legislation requiring tech companies such as Google and Apple to design smartphone operating systems so law enforcement can unlock data stored on them. He urged Congress to pass a law mandating that information stored on phones built or sold in the United States incorporate weaker encryption standards than currently used so data are accessible to investigators.
 
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.

It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.

By weakening encryption - instead - all we accomplish is making regular peoples bank accounts / health data / identity / etc. vulnerable to being compromised.

These are idiotic ideas proposed by idiotic people.

If anything, we should instead have laws requiring that ALL communications be end-to-end encrypted with high strength algorithms.
 
Panning for gold is so much easier when you employ the latest mining technology.

Career advancement, civil asset forfeitures, it's so much easier when you let machines do the work for you.
 
They will trot out a CP, or child abduction case, where this might have possibly maybe helped them, so they can scream, "what about the children!". As if they cared about any children not their own.
 
The usual suspect officials have been waiting for an event to push for this. I thought it was very odd that mere hours after the killings their were "experts" coming from all directions demanding "back-doors" and whatnot. All that before anything was known.

WIRED:

"It’s not surprising that in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday, US government officials would renew their assault on encryption and revive their efforts to force companies to install backdoors in secure products and encryption software.

Just last month, the government seemed to concede that forced decryption wasn’t the way to go for now, primarily because the public wasn’t convinced yet that encryption is a problem. But US officials had also noted that something could happen to suddenly sway the public in their favor.

Robert S. Litt, general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, predicted as much in an email sent to colleagues three months ago. In that missive obtained by the Washington Post, Litt argued that although “the legislative environment [for passing a law that forces decryption and backdoors] is very hostile today, it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/paris-...hat-he-gets-wrong-about-encryption-backdoors/


Still NY Times dialed back...


NYT Quietly Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Attacks
http://www.insidesources.com/new-york-times-article-blaming-encryption-paris-attacks/


But they went after web sites too (not wanting to waste a crisis)

In Wake of Paris, FCC Seeks Power to Monitor, Shutter Websites

http://www.insidesources.com/in-wake-of-paris-fcc-seeks-power-to-monitor-shutter-websites/
 
Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.
Click to expand...

I completely agree , and let me add that they dont give one shit about stopping terrorism, this is all about spying on "low hanging fruit"

Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.
Click to expand...

This does not appear to be the case in the latest attack.

European media outlets are reporting that the location of a raid conducted on a suspected safe house Wednesday morning was extracted from a cellphone, apparently belonging to one of the attackers, found in the trash outside the Bataclan concert hall massacre
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18...ypted-communications-between-terror-suspects/
 
Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.

It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.

By weakening encryption - instead - all we accomplish is making regular peoples bank accounts / health data / identity / etc. vulnerable to being compromised.

These are idiotic ideas proposed by idiotic people.

If anything, we should instead have laws requiring that ALL communications be end-to-end encrypted with high strength algorithms.
Click to expand...

Right fucking on
 
Assuming the U.S. government does somehow force backdoors into all known forms of encryption. Who will accept liability when sensitive information is inevitably hacked by any number of malicious individuals and groups? The private companies implementing this sure as fuck won't, they'll demand total immunity at the outset. Logically it would be the federal government, but what if they decide that since this is for "national security" that they don't have to take any responsibility for the damage such a boneheaded move would cause? Who picks up the tab when my bank account(s) are drained dry out of the blue?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.

It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.

By weakening encryption - instead - all we accomplish is making regular peoples bank accounts / health data / identity / etc. vulnerable to being compromised.

These are idiotic ideas proposed by idiotic people.

If anything, we should instead have laws requiring that ALL communications be end-to-end encrypted with high strength algorithms.
Click to expand...
First off, I'm against the kind of law proposed, mainly because I don't trust police.

That said, you're wrong, mainly in a fundamental assumption: It isn't just about catching terrorists. It's about gathering evidence against people suspected of anything from dealing crack to premeditated murder. Believe me, these people are generally not using third-party encryption.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.

It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.

By weakening encryption - instead - all we accomplish is making regular peoples bank accounts / health data / identity / etc. vulnerable to being compromised.

These are idiotic ideas proposed by idiotic people.

If anything, we should instead have laws requiring that ALL communications be end-to-end encrypted with high strength algorithms.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ^Googleplex this. Dude, seriously, post this everywhere and anywhere. God damn it, you encapsulated an entire rationale for telling these stupid people to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up and come up with a reason other than apparent laziness for 'fighting' crime. Bravo and if I could post it, Citizen Kane Clap!!!
 
Babbster said:
First off, I'm against the kind of law proposed, mainly because I don't trust police.

That said, you're wrong, mainly in a fundamental assumption: It isn't just about catching terrorists. It's about gathering evidence against people suspected of anything from dealing crack to premeditated murder. Believe me, these people are generally not using third-party encryption.
Click to expand...

My liberty and security precedes the states need to to try and presume me guilty. I am innocent and so is everyone else, as a citizen, before anything else. Let the authorities do the hard labor of gathering evidence and not on the back of my liberty. So you are wrong and dangerously so.
 
Methadras said:
My liberty and security precedes the states need to to try and presume me guilty. I am innocent and so is everyone else, as a citizen, before anything else. Let the authorities do the hard labor of gathering evidence and not on the back of my liberty. So you are wrong and dangerously so.
Click to expand...

Exactly...


The thing is, they are portraying this as if they =- with encryption - are losing something they always had.

They aren't.

They didn't always have little devices that tracked our every move and stored our every conversation, our pictures and our files.

Maybe if instead of sitting back and demanding that peoples devices be unencrypted, they do some good old fashioned gumshoe detective work?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041980231 said:
Exactly...


The thing is, they are portraying this as if they =- with encryption - are losing something they always had.

They aren't.

They didn't always have little devices that tracked our every move and stored our every conversation, our pictures and our files.

Maybe if instead of sitting back and demanding that peoples devices be unencrypted, they do some good old fashioned gumshoe detective work?
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Zarathustra[H];1041980231 said:
Exactly...


The thing is, they are portraying this as if they =- with encryption - are losing something they always had.

They aren't.

They didn't always have little devices that tracked our every move and stored our every conversation, our pictures and our files.

Maybe if instead of sitting back and demanding that peoples devices be unencrypted, they do some good old fashioned gumshoe detective work?
Click to expand...

I was just going to say the same thing. Today isn't the "dark ages of secrecy" like they try to paint, it's in fact the golden age of privacy invasion. Fifteen years ago people weren't carrying around personal units with GPS that tracked their whereabouts 24/7. How the fuck did they solve crimes then? I'm guessing those methods still work, use them. They can fuck off with their track everybody all the time attitude.
 
srcstc.gif
 
Wait, that was supposed to be a good clap, just reread the gif and it says a sarcastic clap. Whatever, you get my intentions..lol.
 
Methadras said:
My liberty and security precedes the states need to to try and presume me guilty. I am innocent and so is everyone else, as a citizen, before anything else. Let the authorities do the hard labor of gathering evidence and not on the back of my liberty. So you are wrong and dangerously so.
Click to expand...
Next time, read my post - you know, where I said I was against this kind of law.
 
First I believe the privacy and protection of innocent citizens comes first, above catching "criminals". Presume innocent until PROVEN guilty.

That said I don't really buy into some of the theories mentioned in this thread.

1. Terrorists are some super spectre level villains, using systems with custom encryption and private networks like in a Die Hard movie. While I am sure some groups use some sort of system, most of these people are uneducated brain washed fodder whos knowledge and interest in technology is limited to maybe texting and creating youtube beheading videos. Think of most of the "normal" people you know and ask yourself could they figure this stuff out? I would guess in most cases you would way no, heck explaining the major cloud services to most is painful and that is a SIMPLE concept let alone the pitfalls. Terrorists are just as stupid if not more so, who just throw bodies and bomb vests at most things.

2. Just because something is easy to circumvent doesn't mean you should give up entirely. As with DRM and most things, you just need enough to discourage a majority. If nothing else forcing work around or special configurations increases the % that a criminal or terrorist will screw up and give an opportunity. Lets face it law enforcement has been catching criminals on their mistakes since the dawn of time. I AM NOT condoning back doors etc, just saying the "why bother" argument in general is a poor one.

3. Dunno about cops leaning on tech theory. On one had I agree completely, though on the other hand tech is available and used (in lesser sophistication) by criminals too increasing their reach and effectiveness at crime. Again I don't think cops should get golden keys to tech I am just saying tech also benefits criminals to some degree (not even talking about #1 sophistication, just being able to order/advertise product online vs finding local contacts/customers is huge).

Last comment I will make, it is scary the anti-Muslim rhetoric I am hearing.

If Guns don't kill people, people kill people; than one could then assume...

Muslims don't kill people, terrorists kill people...

We have to be VERY careful about generalization like this, we have done this in the past and it ALWAYS is a dark spot in history. Most Americans don't realize there are almost as many Muslims in the world as Christians, they just assume most are terrorists which is a very short sighted view (not to mention the fact many don't even try to find out about it).

We gotta address the issue directly (troops) but do so directly not some passive aggressive, not in my backyard crap.
 
This is all massively dumb. These people talk in person. Anyone smart enough to know that they should use encryption, wouldn't say anything interesting in the clear. If anything they would say "I'm going to Dave's tonight" which would have been previously discussed in person to mean, start blowing shit up. How hard is it to speak to your friends in your own made up slang?

The only time the government uses technology to stop something, is if it's someone doing something incredibly stupid and obvious. So, posting stuff to Twitter or Facebook.
 
Draconian and arrogant idea.
Outside of 911 the only terrorism in American at this time is homegrown.
Any lone wolf can walk into the local arms store or event and buy their own redemption.
There is nothing anyone can do about it except imagine a preemptive response.
Its the arrest or your life in America.
Protect your individual freedoms at all costs.
When shit goes down for real don't expect Anyone to do the right thing.
 
The Cobra said:
Can't the NSA just do what they want? I mean, they already do anyway...
Click to expand...
Yes they do. Anything the public sees is planned.

dandirk said:
First I believe the privacy and protection of innocent citizens comes first, above catching "criminals". Presume innocent until PROVEN guilty.

That said I don't really buy into some of the theories mentioned in this thread.

1. Terrorists are some super spectre level villains, using systems with custom encryption and private networks like in a Die Hard movie. While I am sure some groups use some sort of system, most of these people are uneducated brain washed fodder whos knowledge and interest in technology is limited to maybe texting and creating youtube beheading videos. Think of most of the "normal" people you know and ask yourself could they figure this stuff out? I would guess in most cases you would way no, heck explaining the major cloud services to most is painful and that is a SIMPLE concept let alone the pitfalls. Terrorists are just as stupid if not more so, who just throw bodies and bomb vests at most things.

2. Just because something is easy to circumvent doesn't mean you should give up entirely. As with DRM and most things, you just need enough to discourage a majority. If nothing else forcing work around or special configurations increases the % that a criminal or terrorist will screw up and give an opportunity. Lets face it law enforcement has been catching criminals on their mistakes since the dawn of time. I AM NOT condoning back doors etc, just saying the "why bother" argument in general is a poor one.

3. Dunno about cops leaning on tech theory. On one had I agree completely, though on the other hand tech is available and used (in lesser sophistication) by criminals too increasing their reach and effectiveness at crime. Again I don't think cops should get golden keys to tech I am just saying tech also benefits criminals to some degree (not even talking about #1 sophistication, just being able to order/advertise product online vs finding local contacts/customers is huge).

Last comment I will make, it is scary the anti-Muslim rhetoric I am hearing.

If Guns don't kill people, people kill people; than one could then assume...

Muslims don't kill people, terrorists kill people...

We have to be VERY careful about generalization like this, we have done this in the past and it ALWAYS is a dark spot in history. Most Americans don't realize there are almost as many Muslims in the world as Christians, they just assume most are terrorists which is a very short sighted view (not to mention the fact many don't even try to find out about it).

We gotta address the issue directly (troops) but do so directly not some passive aggressive, not in my backyard crap.
Click to expand...
Yes this exactly. Deserves a bump.
 
Steve said:
I know I sound like a broken record but how in the world did law enforcement catch crooks before smartphones had encryption?

Actually Steve, this is a bad question.

Cops have always caught criminals by by following the evidence related to the criminal's activities. If their activities now include cell phone data then the cops must follow it wherever it may go.

Besides, catching a criminal and convicting a criminal are two very distinctly separate actions. If catching them was all that was need then we wouldn't need trials.
Click to expand...
 
Zarathustra[H];1041979920 said:
Any back doors or weakened encryption laws hurt only legitimate users.

It is trivial for any second year computer science major to write their own program for end to end encrypted transmissions and sideload them on a phone.

People who intend to plan terrorist plots are already using programs like these. They are not using Google's and apples services.

By weakening encryption - instead - all we accomplish is making regular peoples bank accounts / health data / identity / etc. vulnerable to being compromised.

These are idiotic ideas proposed by idiotic people.

If anything, we should instead have laws requiring that ALL communications be end-to-end encrypted with high strength algorithms.
Click to expand...

I can't agree, not as simple as you make it sound.

Now I don't want back-doors or weakened encryption that allows the government to extract the data themselves. I do want the providers to have the ability to pull the data and send it to the government when the government presents a valid warrant.

I simply don't believe that these developers can't engineer a system that both protects the user while still allowing the providers access to the data in response to lawful requests.
 
I'm sick of America being overdosed on the terrorism mantra, and if it's not terrorism it's militarism.

Our video games are about terrorists, our TV dramas are about terrorists, our movies are about terrorists, and we are pounded with a steady diet of indoctrinating films like Blackhawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, American Sniper.

A kid being raised today is surrounded by the shit, brainwashed by the shit.

You know those patriotic pregame displays you see at sporting events? Spontaneous shows of respect? NOT.

For example,

14 NFL teams took tax dollars for patriotic pregame displays

Posted by Darin Gantt on May 11, 2015, 8:12 AM EST

EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ - SEPTEMBER 7: A giant American flag is unveiled on the field before the game between the Oakland Raiders and the New York Jets at MetLife Stadium on September 7, 2014 in East Rutherford, New Jersey. (Photo by Ed Mulholland/Getty Images)
Getty Images

The Jets are just as patriotic as anybody else, I’m sure.

But it’s easier to wave the red, white and blue when it comes with a healthy dose of green.

According to Christopher Baxter and Jonathan Salant of NJ.com, the New Jersey Army National Guard and the Department of Defense paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, citing federal contracts.

While the heartfelt salutes to military members seems like a win-win (good for the league’s image, high-visibility advertising for the military), the reality that it’s as much of an ad as the ones for beer and trucks does make it a bit distasteful, not to mention expensive.

According to their documents, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million over the past four seasons for the patriotic displays.

“Those of us go to sporting events and see them honoring the heroes,” U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said. “You get a good feeling in your heart. Then to find out they’re doing it because they’re compensated for it, it leaves you underwhelmed. It seems a little unseemly. . . .

“They realize the public believes they’re doing it as a public service or a sense of patriotism,” Flake said. “It leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

The deals include segments saluting “Hometown Heroes,” and other advertising and marketing.

The Jets weren’t the only team accepting tax dollars in exchange for access to football, as the Falcons, Ravens, Bills, Bengals, Browns, Cowboys, Packers, Colts, Chiefs, Dolphins, Vikings, Steelers and Rams have also accepted the money.

Your money, that is.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...k-tax-dollars-for-patriotic-pregame-displays/
Click to expand...

It's not just the NFL, it's the NBA, NASCAR, MLB, IndyCar, even martial arts and fishing.

Military Pays A LOT For Propaganda,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTL3s0RBKw
 
lcpiper said:
I can't agree, not as simple as you make it sound.

Now I don't want back-doors or weakened encryption that allows the government to extract the data themselves. I do want the providers to have the ability to pull the data and send it to the government when the government presents a valid warrant.

I simply don't believe that these developers can't engineer a system that both protects the user while still allowing the providers access to the data in response to lawful requests.
Click to expand...

As long as there is a human involved, there can be no such guarantee.
 
dandirk said:
First I believe the privacy and protection of innocent citizens comes first, above catching "criminals". Presume innocent until PROVEN guilty.

That said I don't really buy into some of the theories mentioned in this thread.

1. Terrorists are some super spectre level villains, using systems with custom encryption and private networks like in a Die Hard movie. While I am sure some groups use some sort of system, most of these people are uneducated brain washed fodder whos knowledge and interest in technology is limited to maybe texting and creating youtube beheading videos. Think of most of the "normal" people you know and ask yourself could they figure this stuff out? I would guess in most cases you would way no, heck explaining the major cloud services to most is painful and that is a SIMPLE concept let alone the pitfalls. Terrorists are just as stupid if not more so, who just throw bodies and bomb vests at most things.

2. Just because something is easy to circumvent doesn't mean you should give up entirely. As with DRM and most things, you just need enough to discourage a majority. If nothing else forcing work around or special configurations increases the % that a criminal or terrorist will screw up and give an opportunity. Lets face it law enforcement has been catching criminals on their mistakes since the dawn of time. I AM NOT condoning back doors etc, just saying the "why bother" argument in general is a poor one.

3. Dunno about cops leaning on tech theory. On one had I agree completely, though on the other hand tech is available and used (in lesser sophistication) by criminals too increasing their reach and effectiveness at crime. Again I don't think cops should get golden keys to tech I am just saying tech also benefits criminals to some degree (not even talking about #1 sophistication, just being able to order/advertise product online vs finding local contacts/customers is huge).

Last comment I will make, it is scary the anti-Muslim rhetoric I am hearing.

If Guns don't kill people, people kill people; than one could then assume...

Muslims don't kill people, terrorists kill people...

We have to be VERY careful about generalization like this, we have done this in the past and it ALWAYS is a dark spot in history. Most Americans don't realize there are almost as many Muslims in the world as Christians, they just assume most are terrorists which is a very short sighted view (not to mention the fact many don't even try to find out about it).

We gotta address the issue directly (troops) but do so directly not some passive aggressive, not in my backyard crap.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's particularly scary when you see the type of rhetoric being espoused by the individuals running for president under the Republican ticket. The thought of someone who literally believes that Jesus will soon come back in the middle east sitting in the oval office with their hands on the nuclear football is terrifying.

You have Trump talking about closing mosques, interring Syrian refugees in camps in the middle of a desert, stealing Iraq's oil,
 
/Crap, hit submit post instead of preview.

You have Ted Cruz demonizing Syrian refugees and saying he'll refuse to admit them, that we should bomb more civilians in the middle east.

You have rednecks attacking mosques, attacking Sikh's that they think are Muslim, attacking Christian taxi drivers they think are muslim, etc.

There are ignorant people in our country with a penchant for violence that do not need any encouragement. Yet, we have presidential candidates that say any fucking thing that comes into their minds without acknowledging that there are individuals who will act on those prejudices they reinforce.
 
lcpiper said:
Now I don't want back-doors or weakened encryption that allows the government to extract the data themselves. I do want the providers to have the ability to pull the data and send it to the government when the government presents a valid warrant.
Click to expand...
We get it, you want back-doors and weakened encryption for everyone. To save the children.

I simply don't believe that these developers can't engineer a system
Click to expand...
I simply don't believe that these developers should ever be coerced to do so.
 
The Cobra said:
Can't the NSA just do what they want? I mean, they already do anyway...
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with the NSA. This is almost completely a US law Enforcement issue. That's because for the most part, the NSA doesn't do anything within the US, almost all their activity is focused overseas so US law has no bearing on what they do or don't want to do.

Law Enforcement is a different matter, but that isn't what the NSA does.
 
Lith1um said:
I'm sick of America being overdosed on the terrorism mantra, and if it's not terrorism it's militarism.

Our video games are about terrorists, our TV dramas are about terrorists, our movies are about terrorists, and we are pounded with a steady diet of indoctrinating films like Blackhawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, American Sniper.

A kid being raised today is surrounded by the shit, brainwashed by the shit.

You know those patriotic pregame displays you see at sporting events? Spontaneous shows of respect? NOT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTL3s0RBKw
Click to expand...
This is what living through 10+ years of real war does to a culture.
Get used to it.
Most of our politicians have never served.
They have no idea what it means.
They tell themselves that they do and imagine what it means but they have really no idea.
Its all imaginary... heaven can wait... .but most it seems cant wait to get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top