FBI Director Warns Google and Apple "If You Don't Decrypt Phones, We'll Do It For You"

Townhall.com ^ | October 19 | Mike Shedlock

[RIghtwardHo]

What I would say to the FBI Director would, without question, get my post pulled.

[bgill]

All hail, Big Brother!

[familyop]

"There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant."

That's an understandable concern, but here are a few more considerations.

* What are those dangers? Can the dangers be publicly defined?

* There might be more danger already in process with many in the general public being afraid to speak of personal matters through phones, e-mails, etc. By law, federal officials can relay private information to local officials upon request with some suspicion contrived by local officials. In some locales, that information will then be available to some of the worst but most influential crooks.

* Strong encryption for communications can also be done without having such encryption in cellphone service packages. It would seem that crooks who are harder to catch may try to use those methods.

* A war on terror must be fought as a war with soldiers with the goal of destroying the enemy's will to fight at all. Even good police work will not serve to catch every sneaky foreign enemy attempting to wage war by assassinations and terror. Sooner or later, the assassins will get through undetected while using older methods of communication and carry out successful attacks.

[PapaBear3625]

But the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure,” which of course means that reasonable S&S is entirely constitutional. There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant.

Let's take a non-electronic example. I have some physical paper documents that the government would like to seize and inspect. I have them stored where the government cannot get to them (whether buried someplace only I know, or in some foreign country). I choose to remain silent about the location of those documents.

Would you consider the government has the right to waterboard me to find out where they are?

[rarestia]

It’s not as if they can’t crack any commercially available encryption, they just want easy access.

To an extent. The sort of encryption used by commercial entities such as Apple and Google, sure. Fact is that configuring a phone to run 4096 encryption all the time would drain the batter faster than running it with geolocation, wifi, and Bluetooth all at the same time. However, with 4096+ encryption and AES256 hashes, it becomes a matter of effort for the Feds to decrypt.

If you're an international spy with espionage ties, crack away. Low-level drug dealer on the street, not worth the time, effort, and expense for the Feds to do what it would take to decrypt their phone.

Remember, the CIA and NSA have come out and said that a bulk of their data collection comes from unencrypted connections like this one to FR and anything not using SSL. If you're shopping for doilies for your grandmother on Amazon, the Feds aren't going to take the time to sniff your traffic. Besides, they can just subpoena your purchase records and get it right away.

Same sort of thing goes for TOR. A bulk of TOR is porn or zero-day warez crap. The Feds have more important nuts to crack. Until quantum computing is viable, the Feds are going to have to be discrete with what they crack.

[I want the USA back]

The country marches deeper into fascism under obola.

[PapaBear3625]

You have the technological point correct, the files are (claimed to be) inaccessible even with a warrant. Current practice is to seize the phone, and send it to Apple with a copy of the signed warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, Apple gives unencrypted phone contents to the police. What Apple is claiming is that it will lock itself out of that capability.

Or perhaps claim it has, while secretly giving the government the ability.

[Scrambler Bob]

There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant. —

I still have some ‘stuff’ between my ears that they cannot seize and inspect. I know they are trying.

[Scrambler Bob]

waterboard me to find out —

Well, if you give up the info too quickly, they cannot believe it. You have to be tortured.

And remember, we are in climate change, and drought. Water is precious !!!

[Clump]

I think I get what you’re saying.
But the problem is that they are still seizing our data without a warrant.
If this were 1950 the analogy would be- the government can come make copies of your papers and store them in a vault. Later, if needed, they could get a warrant to read the letters. I completely disagree with that type of Fourth Amendment analysis.
It’s just the digital nature of our constitutionally protected information that makes it easy for them to copy and store.
Basically I’m saying the medium (digital) shouldn’t change the constitutional analysis.
There is a lot of remove for debate on this issue, but I have big problems with mass surveillance and storage. They don’t follow the laws (let alone the constitution)
anyway, so reigning them in will take dramatic steps and measures.

[Bobalu]

persuade a judge and obtain a warrant requiring the owner of the device (not the manufacturer) to unlock the device

The defendant can refuse to divulge the passphrase citing his 5th amendment right. The only constitutional way to force him to divulge the passphrase is a grant of blanket immunity from prosecution because of anything found on the device. --- If you cannot incriminate yourself by answering a question then you can't take the 5th.

Of course, you can use a trickier method of encryption that leaves them wondering if there is still some data on the device that is hidden in the seemingly random bytes even after you have handed over the keys.

[dearolddad]

Perhaps this buffoon Comey should take a refresher course in law 101 and review probable cause.

[Cboldt]

-- Or perhaps claim it has, while secretly giving the government the ability. --

The secret wouldn't last long, as the point of the search is usually criminal prosecution, and warrants, indictments, trials are public.

I think the fuss (by Comey) is overblown. There is usually independent evidence, like the stuff that makes up probable cause, and only a fraction of individuals subject to search would withhold access very long. They sit in jail until they give the cops the key.

[PapaBear3625]

They sit in jail until they give the cops the key.

What about the Fifth Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If I say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me", do you think they have the right to imprison me until I reveal the key?

[mrsmel]

Correct. We have two parties-one supports big government, and the other one supports even bigger government.

[dfwgator]

FBI = The New Gestapo

[mrsmel]

But Obola says just leave the mosques alone.

[mrsmel]

And if this administration was really concerned with terrorism, they wouldn’t have declared spying on mosques to be off-limits, and they would profile in airports instead of groping grandmas in wheelchairs, and they would seal the damn border. Instead they want to spy on law-abiding Americans who cling to their guns and Bibles.

[Cboldt]

-- What about the Fifth Amendment? --

Depends on the court. Some conflate/join the 4th and 5th, most separate them.

The argument for separation is that ordering you to submit to a search is not the same as compelling you to be a witness against yourself.

-- If I say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me", do you think they have the right to imprison me until I reveal the key? --

The court has the power to do it, even if the court is wrong.

The prosecutor's argument will be that you have to open the door to your house pursuant to a warrant, even if the contents of your house may incriminate you.

[theBuckwheat]

Government always gives itself a pass.

One of the roots of such wasteful, foolish, thuggish, and tyrannous government is the ease with which it can create almost unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government, and a bureaucracy that is generously funded can entertain an open-ended dream about how to expand its realm.

Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.

The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to create and spend near-infinite amounts of money.