from the nothing-to-hide-vs-none-of-your-business dept.
The New York Times published an interesting story about the fears of the current FBI director:
The director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, said Thursday that federal laws should be changed to require telecommunications companies to give law enforcement agencies access to the encrypted communications of individuals suspected of crimes.
... Mr. Comey warned that crimes could go unsolved if law enforcement officers cannot gain access to information that technology companies like Apple and Google are protecting using increasingly sophisticated encryption technology.
“Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,” he said.
Mr. Comey said that he was hoping to spur Congress to update the 20-year-old Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which does not require companies to give law enforcement direct access to individuals’ communications.
The F.B.I. has long had concerns about devices “going dark” — when technology becomes so sophisticated that the authorities cannot gain access to them. But now, Mr. Comey is warning that the new encryption technology has evolved to the point that it could adversely affect crime solving.
The kicker is this line:
“Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism, even with lawful authority."
Of course, it should be no surprise to the FBI why so many people are going "dark" and using things like Tails. For decades, the government has proven time and again that it can't be trusted to act lawfully and constitutionally. The FBI is responsible for more than its share of that. So naturally those who can are going to take steps to protect their privacy and Apple and Google, among others, are simply responding to that demand.
Related Stories
Encryption-by-Default in Android 5.0 "Lollipop" Actually Optional
The Register and Ars Technica report that Google has backtracked on its promise that all Android Lollipop devices would feature full-disk encryption by default, due to differences in hardware:
For example, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 805 system-on-chip in the Motorola Nexus 6 will do AES encryption and decryption of data in hardware – which should be fast and power efficient. However, the driver for that feature is not available to the Android project, so Android 5 must do the file encryption and decryption in software, which is terribly slow – forcing people to switch it off. Some manufacturers may not bother turning encryption on in the first place if there's no acceleration available for whatever reason, and Google's allowing them to do just that. Meanwhile, the Google Nexus 9 fondleslab uses an Nvidia Tegra K1 processor with a 64-bit ARMv8-compatible processor. This architecture has standardized AES encryption/decryption instructions that can be used by Android 5 without a specialized driver. That means Lollipop happily encrypts-by-default on the Nexus 9. This whole mess will make Apple fans very smug. Apple has had a separate coprocessor for accelerating encryption for years, and as a result iOS encryption is a much easier process.
Google expects that "recommended" full-disk encryption will become a requirement in future versions of Android.
Previously, the FBI and Director James B. Comey have spoken out against encrypted devices.
XPosed Framework for Android Lollipop released
XPosed is a framework for modules that can be used to customise the behaviour of Android devices without needing to flash a custom ROM. There is a large selection of modules available for XPosed that do all kinds of nifty things like unlock using NFC tags, change the battery icon to something more informative, or even add advanced privacy and app controls.
This has been a godsend for those who like to retain a level of control over their devices. However, the change from the original Dalvik runtime system to ART starting with Android 5.0 (Lollipop) broke the XPosed framework, and it had taken some time for the developer to make the necessary changes to get XPosed to work with the new runtime system. That time has finally come. It's still considered alpha software however and there are some reports of incompatibilities and instability but it seems to be already usable.
James Comey has been asked by President Trump to stay on as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Comey is three years into a ten-year term.
News at NYT (which broke the story), USA Today, Washington Post, CNN, and The Hill.
Here's the bulk of our extensive past coverage of FBI Director Comey's career (oldest first):
2014:
FBI Director Concerned about Encryption on Smartphones
F.B.I. Director Calls "Dark" Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving
To FBI Director Comey: You Reap What You Sow!
2015:
F.B.I. Has No Doubt that North Korea Attacked Sony, says Director
FBI Chief Links Video Scrutiny of Police to Rise in Violent Crime
2016:
Apple Ordered by Judge to Help Decrypt San Bernadino Shooter's phone
FBI Unable to Decrypt California Terrorists' Cell Phone
FBI vs. Apple Encryption Fight Continues
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
FBI Error Locked San Bernardino Attacker's iPhone
FBI's iPhone Hack Only Works on 5C and Older
Washington Post: The FBI Paid "Gray Hat(s)", Not Cellebrite, for iPhone Unlock
FBI Director Blames 'Viral Video Effect' for Spike in Violent Crime
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Friday October 17 2014, @11:56AM
From Director Comey:
"We are not seeking to expand our authority to intercept communications." "We are struggling to keep up with changing technology and to maintain our ability to actually collect the communications we are authorized to collect."
"Have we become so mistrustful of government and law enforcement in particular that we’re willing to let bad guys walk away?"
Wow ... I guess he doesn't understand that their interpretation of their current authority is what worries Americans, and that some of the biggest "bad guys" are in the government itself. Let's not forget that the FBI and Justice Department have truckloads of information about the banking industry and all the crimes they committed but the individuals responsible will never be charged, arrested or prosecuted.
You've already got more than enough criminals to go after with your current "authority". Why aren't you going after them?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jackb_guppy on Friday October 17 2014, @12:14PM
Further U.S. legal system is about letting the Innocent to go free, even if it means someone who is guilty goes free too.
U.S. legal system is not binary - Guilty / Innocent, but tri-state. Guiltiy / Innocent / None of your damn business (example: cannot be a witness against yourself).
Mr Comey seams to believe in "If you are Innocent, you have nothing to hide".
We all have something to hide. Cutting class to watch "Star Wars" on opening day. Driving too fast late at night, on a long bridge, with NO traffic. Those are minor infractions, but still we all have something to hide.
So think of the children! Protect their future and just say "NO", to Mr Comey.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday October 17 2014, @12:31PM
You don't even have to go to any gray topics. I hide myself every evening from my neighbors view by closing the curtains, I don't want to be seen on the toilet/in the shower/in the bedroom. Even in online world, if I were curious about socially not fully acceptable, yet entirely legal topics, I might want to hide myself. Getting informed about HIV? Getting informed about divorce-laws? I wouldn't want even my wife to know about such online activities, even if it is only for a friend or colleague I'm looking for info.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Insightful) by http on Friday October 17 2014, @03:16PM
Or for yourself, to maintain your ability to participate in an informed discussion. God forbid people have informed discussions.
Wait, does that mean Comey thinks he's GOD?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @04:58PM
That is interesting because around here there are a few very prolific contributors who look down their noses on any Anonymous posts, feeling that their comments are worthless and not even worth their time to read. One guy's sig talks about how wonderful it is to keep the browse threshold at "1". Another sig talks about how they won't even read, much less respond to an AC post. And I've seen comments from others who say they never up-mod an AC post, no matter how worthy it is. Sort of the "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" of the on-line world. Personally, I feel they not only not add value to this site, they in fact (especially the last example mentioned) remove value from this site.
Yet, these same people will rattle on about the police state and the oligarchy and all that other stuff if they are told that they should have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide on their cell phones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:12PM
They say stuff because the want to be heard, not necessarily because they believe a pov has merit.
(Score: 1) by http on Saturday October 18 2014, @04:46AM
There's a really one simple trick that decent moderaters use: when you have mod points, read at -1. This is a long-standing slashcode tradition that lets AC comments worth reading get modded up.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:41AM
Oh fuck you AC scum! It takes less than 3 minutes and you can input anything you like when you make an account, so don't feed us this horseshit about how limiting your ability to troll infringes on your "freedum" because IT IS BULLSHIT.
Put yourself down as the first black member of the Swedish bikini team if that gets you off, the point is NOT to ID you, which frankly NO system short of demanding photo IDs will ever have, the point is allowing others to see a history of your comments so that those of us that aren't admins can see when you are a shill or a troll! But of course this just shows what hypocrites trolls are, as they don't want ME to have the freedom to avoid their feces flinging, and dare to compare MY FREEDOM to avoid their rotting garbage to "show us your papers".
Go fuck yourself AC troll, anybody who wants to see what unfettered ACs gives you is welcome to go to slash on any article about operating systems or Apple products and see what a worthless shit flinging flamefest they are.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday October 18 2014, @10:05PM
I know that one of the reasons I don't respond to AC's is because when I post AC I never have any knowledge of a response to it. Likewise, I don't know if the responder is the original person or not.You can get an account here and still be an AC in all the ways you want. This is the only site that has working TOR capabilities too, as far as my browsing is concerned.
As for the other character assassinations, well they do sound pretty stupid, and as you said, they were quite few in nature. All in all, there is quite a bit more signal than noise on this site.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @02:31PM
Further U.S. legal system is about letting the Innocent to go free, even if it means someone who is guilty goes free too.
Don't they make government officials still take an oath of office or something? It seems like every faction in government these days has at least one fundamental aspect of the Constitution that they want to jettison.
(or is the Bill of Rights not technically considered part of the Constitution...you know what I mean)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Friday October 17 2014, @02:56PM
It's long been my contention that choosing between voting Democrat or Republican boils down to choosing which rights you're more willing to part with.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 17 2014, @07:04PM
Too bad there aren't any other options.... [wikipedia.org]
I cannot vote for somebody who is going to spy on me. I just can't do it. Not even if the other guy is going to spy on me more.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday October 19 2014, @05:36PM
Would you rather be hanged with a red rope or a blue rope?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:02PM
yes, and that oath has the force of law under it. Title 5 USC Section 7311, with punishment listed under Title 18 USC Section 1918. i have these memorized because its important to point out that these assholes aren't just authoritarian assholes, they're criminals under federal law. people must be informed that they are federal criminals, especially the "tough on crime" pricks who, who would have guess it, ignore these particular crimes and actively support the thugs committing them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:13PM
i know that there are authoritarians on the left, but its often the Second that its often thought that the Democrats are fundamentally against. i assure you, this is not the case; as its worded now, the Second Amendment states that firearms are for the purpose of the militia.
the Second Amendment must be amended to remove these words! it must be amended to simply state "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." anyone who's fine with somebody else "interpreting" the amendments to suit their agenda, especially if that 'interpretation' is counter to what it actually says, is fine with having their constitutional rights stripped away, because thats whats happened pretty thoroughly with a lot of the Bill of Rights at this point, what with "free speech zones" and other similar bullshit.
its time we take back our power over government. we start with amending the second to say, specifically, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and then continue from there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @06:44PM
To get all English Nazi up in this amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
does not in fact say that only the militia can bear arms. Either the former is an independent clause, in which case both must be able to stand alone; or it's a dependent clause, in which case the latter still must be able to stand alone.
[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first merely illustrates the reasoning behind the second. I'd be interested to see the argument where one interprets the sentence as "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms." Such a change doesn't seem justifiable to me from what was clearly written.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:48PM
the fact that there's disagreement over what it states proves that it needs to be amended. the only reason i can think of for not wanting to push to amend it is fear of the people voting counter to your interpretation.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @07:29PM
Okay, I suppose I'd agree with that. Although of course "the people" don't really vote on such things.* They elect representatives who then largely ignore the will of the people in certain areas, of which I suspect this is one :P
*National conventions [wikipedia.org] are an interesting idea but have never worked* yet. I'm also a bit suspicious of the wording "at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states." Are said representatives actually bound to not simply ignore a request from their constituents?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @11:12PM
yeah, i think this might be one of those not-really-important issues intentionally used to divide the country. somehow we need to push the message that we're sick of politicians "interpreting" our rights for us, because ever since the SCOTUS decided that to be part of their purpose, we've done nothing but lose rights, some even to the point where the interpretations contradict the amendments themselves. its going to keep happening too until we put a stop to it.
there's a lot to gain by amending the second, as it would preemptively kill all attempts at gun control laws and allow more and more easy weapon sales. it baffles me that the NRA hasn't tried to push it; fear of it being decided in a way that doesn't favor them is the only reason i can think of as to why (aside from its use to divide people and keep them focused on stupid, petty issues).
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:03AM
The Federal constitution through the First Amendment grants the citizens the right to petition their government. Because this right is in the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to honor it. (It should be noted that just because the Federal constitution contains a provision for some right or privilege does not mean that a state has to honor it, although most state constitutions do mirror the federal one in the important ways, sometimes granting greater rights than the federal constitution.) But the right to petition does not mean that a legislator can't wear ear plugs when the mob peacefully marches on the state capitol building. It just means that the people must have a way to communicate with the various organs of the government and their representatives. Of course, legislators who ignore their voters can quickly find themselves out of office if they piss off enough of them.
And those who piss off too many of them can end up dead. After all, Jefferson did say, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The last couple heads of the NSA and this idiot head of FBI would be a good place to start.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday October 17 2014, @11:45PM
They do, but the Constitution only applies to rich people or to people who are so savagely abused by the system that the ACLU or the EFF takes up their case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday October 17 2014, @12:15PM
"Why aren't you going after them?"
A rhetorical question, I assume, that the protectors of the oligarchy will never publicly answer.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @01:26PM
The money for building new "correctional facilities" are running thin. Especially if the comfort of those facilities would need to cater for the lifestyle of the banksters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:35PM
Why cater to their lifestyle? Force-march them to the top of Mt. Erebus and drop them in.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Friday October 17 2014, @01:56PM
A story on the green site right now: "As Prison Population Sinks, Jails Are a Steal". Prison populations are falling, not rising. One example: Illinois built the Thompson Correctional Center, and it's still empty. Illinois sold it to the feds, we just don't have enough criminals.
Crime rates have been falling for years.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @02:47PM
The gradual decriminalization of marijuana will also increase the number of empty cells.
Marijuana a Thorn in Side of Private Prison Industry [projectcannabis.org]
The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal [republicreport.org]
Money, Not Morals, Drives Marijuana Prohibition Movement [opensecrets.org]
4 Industries Getting Rich Off the Drug War [reason.com]
Marijuana Legalization: Pharmaceuticals, Alcohol Industry Among Biggest Opponents Of Legal Weed [ibtimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday October 17 2014, @03:21PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:03PM
In Colorado where they legalized it completely, it wasn't just that they weren't jailing pot smokers, but other crimes, especially violent crime, dropped. Outlawing marijuana was insanely stupid.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @03:50PM
After all, you only have one governor at a time, and it takes a while to go from inauguration to conviction!
But more seriously, my concern about the drop in crime is that some of the so-called "law-and-order" types will react by trying to create more criminals by making things illegal that didn't used to be. Particularly if it's a law that can be enforced only against black and Hispanic men, like most drug laws currently are. There will also be an uptick in the already existing trend of treating innocent people as if they were criminals, up to and including summary execution by police (e.g. another unarmed black guy was shot in St Louis just last week, and it barely made the news).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:10PM
Marrying female children is allready illegal.
So why complain about the rest.
The worst has allready been done.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:09AM
California jails and prisons are bursting to overflowing. Most people here know of the overcrowding in California prisons. They're still overcrowded, still filling gyms with bunks. I write to people in prisons and one of them lives in a gym, with bunks three beds high. The "realignment" law of a couple years ago shifted some people who would normally end up in prisons to county jails. It allowed some jails that were closed due to lack of funding to reopen but they too are bursting at the seams now.
Our society needs to get over this fetish with throwing the book at people and warehousing them in prisons. Many people would be better served by alternatives. There are some people who need to be locked away forever and the prisons are there for them.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:33PM
Amen x 10^500
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 17 2014, @01:47PM
Were it not for the revelations that your own government is spying on you the privacy apps would never have happened. And they're either stupid (or most likely disingenuous) to boot; they would have never gotten Al Capone convicted had the book keeper not handed over the encryption codes to the books. Note that there were no computers in the 1920s, so how is that any different?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @02:40PM
It's a damage control blitz by Comey. If encryption goes mainstream, the FBI's job gets harder. People are starting to see through his argument, but he is going to continue to whine about it in hopes of preventing adoption or other companies from following suit.
Criminals, drug lords, pedos, terrorists, murderers. If they don't get caught because of encryption or other security and anonymity technologies, that's just a sign that the technologies are working. Cry me the Potomac, Comey.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:08PM
Old Testament allows men to marry female children.
Read deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:26PM
yes, but back then puberty was your midlife crisis. the idea that something more than just puberty is required to be considered an adult is an extremely recent one, emerging along with life spans beyond ~30 years.
the "sex crime" laws are ridiculous though, with people getting convicted as a sex offender for sending naked pictures of themselves, and for turning 18 during a committed multi-year relationship, and for picking up a at a bar only to find out she was using a fake ID (why doesn't the bartender get charged for serving alcohol to a minor in these cases?). we need to get a handle on that shit before its too late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:18AM
Many in government are coming to a realization that the law has gone too far in the area of sex crimes. There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times recently that called for a new approach to dealing with pedophiles, treating them as people with a mental disorder, not necessarily as a sex crime.
Having said that, people ought to be held accountable for their actions, but child pornography laws are clearly overblown these days. The feds ought to be working hard at putting the people who produce that shit and those who run the distribution networks in prison, not necessarily its consumers. Treat the consumer as someone who needs psychological therapy.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday October 17 2014, @06:06PM
The problem is he had to add "even with lawful authority".
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:33AM
Very true and I would only add that Americans have ZERO reason to trust you when your agency has already performed assassinations of Americans on American soil [wikipedia.org] with no consequences for those that planned and ordered the hit. Your agency has a history of criminal activity and ignoring the rule of law and you expect us to trust you with MORE power? Really? Not no but HELL no!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Friday October 17 2014, @12:00PM
Does anyone here actually encrypt their phones.?
What about a passcode/pattern lock.?
I have a complicated pattern lock, but no encryption. I do think about enabling it though
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday October 17 2014, @01:52PM
iOS devices are encrypted by default, and soon Android devices will be as well. Both iOS and Android push lock codes on the user these days. A person would have to go out of their way to not use one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 17 2014, @02:34PM
iOS devices are encrypted by default
And I'm sure Apple would happily hand over the keys if the NSA so much as waggled an eyebrow in their direction. It's Apple...there's no way they can't just extract your keys if they wanted to.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Saturday October 18 2014, @02:13PM
That was the whole point of the iOS 8.0 changes, they removed the keys from their own control.
Keep in mind too, Apple was one of the LAST companies to be pulled into PRISM. Google was one of the first. So no reason to try to single out Apple there.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 20 2014, @02:33PM
I guess I'm still surprised that the NSA hasn't gotten pissy about that yet. Because everybody knows encryption is just for Us, not for anybody else!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:15PM
Well when you intercept practically all network traffic, why care about how it's stored on the endpoint? Not to mention they still have their malware that can hijack the device.
(Score: 2, Funny) by srobert on Friday October 17 2014, @03:04PM
"Does anyone here actually encrypt their phones.?"
Of course I don't. Only terrorists and pedophiles encrypt their phones.
We are getting near to a point in the U.S. where advocating privacy will be considered a crime in and of itself.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @04:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:16PM
Do you use a computer? Intel?
VT/VPro is built in to all newer i3 i5 and i7 chips.
So there is your nice little remotely accessible VNC server happy to let the government rulers look at the framebuffer on your integrated videocard.
They can also directly access your ram.
Makes sure you don't fancy pretty young females over spinster feminists.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @05:35PM
No one is happy about blobs burned into chips, but trolling won't get you anywhere, AC. Care to describe how they can connect to the VNC server? Oh, that's right, they just need to connect out-of-band with a thick black cable. Compare it to your phone, which happily reports your location and everything you type more or less in real-time, and won't even let you remove pre-installed ads.
Do us all a favor, crawl back under the bridge.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jcross on Friday October 17 2014, @08:25PM
Holy smokes, mod parent insightful! I had never considered that they might be making a big stink to lure us into a false sense of security. It's the perfect way to convince everyone that they are safe, as long as the TLAs can keep it secret that they have a backdoor. Kind of similar to how the Allies played the Enigma crack in WWII.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @05:27AM
It makes the phone makers look like the good guys. And they sell more phones. Faster.
While those platforms are easily looked thru.
Everyone wins.
Well. The people kind of get fucked. But that was going to happen anyway.
This way more money gets made. Faster.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday October 19 2014, @04:45PM
Theoretically there is trouble even when the OS is fully free software, in smartphones the modem/radio is a coprocessor with access to the host's RAM. Of course those modems have a proprietary OS.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @12:01PM
- Having to get a warrant before searching through somebody's person, houses, papers, and effects means that the police can't legally just bust down your door without bothering to give evidence to a judge first. That slows down investigations because now the police have to gather evidence that there is incriminating evidence in your house without going inside.
- Allowing suspects to remain silent during interrogation means it's so much harder to extract confessions.
- Allowing suspects access to an attorney means that it's harder to convince them to waive their other legal rights or simply ignore those legal rights and, say, beat the confession out of them.
- Requiring a speedy and public trial and an arrest warrant makes it so much harder - you have to get evidence first, then lock somebody up, instead of the other way around.
- Having a jury makes it much harder to cultivate a sympathetic judge who will happily railroad unpopular people into prison.
And so on. My response to complaints like this is: Shut up and do your job. If you don't like the rules, go be police somewhere where they don't have these kind of rights - might I suggest Iran, Cuba, or Thailand?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 17 2014, @12:32PM
Absolutely. If we want to look for what's gone wrong here, I would say it's the incentives Mr. Comey and his colleagues in law enforcement work under. Cops get awards and bonuses for getting results: arrests and convictions. They do not get recognition, promotion, and bonuses for correct procedure, respecting civil rights, and leaving innocent people alone.
The only way I can see to get from where we are, to where we ought to be, is to call out officials who are "tough on crime" for what they are: enemies of justice and freedom.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @01:53PM
Look to the top. The people who hire these guys. Rot comes from the top in this case.
In pretty much every dysfunctional organization you can look to the top and see why it is that way. They set the pace and set the goals.
Also Mr. Comey I am sorry you have a tough job. But it is not our job to make yours easier. You have rules you need to follow well boo hoo. So do I in my job.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @05:49PM
Well, according to the one true source of insight about these things, The Wire, they do sometimes. But to agree with you, they are genuinely surprised whenever that actually happens.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday October 17 2014, @12:01PM
The government has very much kept up with technology. A hundred years ago if you paid a company to manually encrypt your letters and post them for you, I'd guess that they could probably subpoena the company to provide any information they had on what they encrypted. If they could not, then the government currently has more power than they did.
A hundred years ago, if you manually encrypted your communications with another party, there was no way they could get access to the information except from one of the other parties. Nothing has changed but better tools (for both sides). This is just a power grab ... again.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Horse With Stripes on Friday October 17 2014, @12:07PM
The government has very much kept up with technology.
You mean all the warrantless wiretaps, et al, that the TLAs have been doing for years (and that were confirmed by Snowden and others)? That doesn't count because they did that in secret and we aren't supposed to know they have that cutting edge technology.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:26AM
If you were to read James Bamford's "The NSA and Me" [firstlook.org] (which happens to be a submission that has been languishing in the queue for a while), you would have seen that the government was slow to address the growth of the Internet. It was only after 9/11 that it started taking it seriously. Read the article; it's very good.
(The editors ought to post the submission as well once they've removed the commercial.)
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday October 17 2014, @12:25PM
For the latinophobe: "Who watches the watchmen?"
When was this alleged magic time where police was able to solve every crime? What time did they have full access to all our communication? Currently they already benefit greatly from new technology (e.g. from people photographing / filming crimes inadvertently.) There seem to be a lot of crimes documented, e.g. policemen filmed while using excessive force against civilians
Yes, civil rights restrict law-enforcement. But what do we law-enforcement for, if not to protect our rights?!?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 17 2014, @01:42PM
And when was this alleged magic time when every police officer was honest? It is possible that Mr. Comey has never beaten a suspect, never planted false evidence, never suppressed exculpatory evidence, never accepted a bribe or abused his powers to blackmail anyone or stalk an ex-spouse. I'm more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, just like our legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. But surely he must be aware that other police officers do these things, and that the public is entitled by the Bill of Rights to protection against predators who wear badges.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @10:55PM
"What time did they have full access to all our communication?"
Before computers made powerful encryption easy and electronic communication made transmission of said message easy too. So when everybody sent unencrypted letters on paper and stored letters in their home. The authorities had slightly easier time. At least proof wise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @11:20AM
No. That time, they were severely limited by human resources available, because automated collection of information was practically impossible. Also, some kind of encryption was used even in paper-communication. Proving who sent which information was practically impossible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @12:27PM
In other news, speaking to other people in person, with so surveillance device close by, is also a hindrance to crime solving. Criminals can just talk to each other, without the police being able to listen.
Oh, and of course the ability to go whereever you want without being tracked is also a hindrance to crime solving. It allows criminals to hide where the police doesn't expect them.
Actually, I'm sure you can go through the Bill of Rights item by item, and explain for each single one how it is a hindrance to crime solving. So if you don't support completely abolishing the Bill of Rights, you must be a crime supporter!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @12:44PM
I'm sure there'd fewer unsolved crimes if we could look into those dark devices called FBI, NSA, CIA, ...
(Score: 3, Informative) by MrGuy on Friday October 17 2014, @12:46PM
is that law enforcement doesn't like the fact that effective encryption exists.
And I can see why. Without encryption, everything's open to them with the appropriate warrant and technique. If there's a piece of paper, they can bust down the appropriate door and find it. If there's a conversation, they can put a bug in the right room or intercept a call. If there's a file on a computer, they can read it. Regardless of how much you approve on the way they apply those powers within the law, before effective encryption, if it was recorded it could be found and used.
Encryption changes the game fundementally. Things can be recorded that cannot be recovered no matter WHAT warrant you have or how effective your technical team is. Of course this makes law enforcement's job harder - there are things that they could use in theory use in court that are unattainable. Sometimes that unattainable thing is the piece that could have cracked the case. It's no wonder why law enforcement is deeply uncomfortable about uncrackable encryption.
The thing law enforcement needs to get is that this genie doesn't go back in the bottle. The ability to communicate privately and securely over an untrusted network is pretty much fundemental to having trust in the digital economy, which is mindbogglingly useful. Encryption has to exist or a large part of the global economy comes down with it. Publicly backdoored encryption (e.g. government key escrow) is fundamentally flawed - if they key is known to exist, someone will eventually get the key. Privately backdoored encryption (secret government backdoors or deliberate weakness) is a secret that you can't keep forever, and is a major breech of trust and almost certainly a blow to your economy (just you wait - you ain't seen nothin' yet as the fallout from the Snowden revelations hit US hardware and software manufacturers, and causes companies to actively bypass sending data through or storing it in the US...)
This is trying to hold back the tide. Good luck.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Friday October 17 2014, @01:33PM
There's another thing as well.
Encryption also helps to *prevent crime.* It's not *just* useful to criminals - it's useful to everyone, to LEOs perhaps more than most, and to criminals only in the sense that they, too, are a subset of everyone.
Holding back the General Welfare in order to accrue a special advantage to one sector of society is arguably in violation of the Constitution itself, and certainly NOT good governance.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Friday October 17 2014, @02:42PM
Right. But if you don't understand how this works, you might THINK it's a "cake and eat it too" situation. Holder's public statements seem consistent with that.
What they want is magic cryptography that's easily breakable by law enforcement, but NOT breakable by anyone else. Apparently, they do not realize the theoretical impossibility of this desire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:27PM
They are not in the business of preventing crime. They are in the business of letting crime happen, then catching the criminal quickly. If they started preventing crime, then suddenly crime would decrease, their budgets would be cut, and some of them would be laid-off. The last thing that law enforcement wants is a reduction in crime.
Sure, it would make a better world for nearly everyone, just not for them.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @06:46PM
preventing crime would also mean their job is to arrest people for crimes they did not commit. i don't want to live in a world where innocent people are regularly arrested and locked away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:27PM
In that world innocence simply isnt binary, merely setting the threshold below much further below 1.00 than currently.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 17 2014, @11:18PM
prisons are already full of people who say that didn't do it. arresting people before they commit crimes would make every one of them honest. if we were to make attempting or planning to commit a crime illegal, we're entering the dangerous realm of policing thoughts; either the state would have to prove motivations and intentions beyond a reasonable doubt or it'd just be plain ol' totalitarianism. it'd be almost guaranteed to be the latter, but neither of them are acceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @02:54PM
Here's what I see as the fundamental change. In the old days, if you suspected someone of a crime, you got a warrant and searched for evidence. If he'd burned all his letters, you were out of luck. If your warrant was to search for evidence of drug dealing, and you found child pornography, the child pornography was supposed to be discounted. If you suspected someone was planning a crime, you got a warrant, tapped their phone, and listened to hear if they talked about it. If your man dozed off during the critical conversation, the evidence was gone.
In the modern era, communication is in written form, stored electronically, and often recoverable, even if the user thinks they've been destroyed. The power to defeat encryption therefore gives law enforcement not only the power to investigate events following the grant of warrant, but to retroactively search a nearly indefinite history. This is the same power the NSA wants by archiving all that data. From a citizen's perspective, the police power to dig back through one's whole life is horribly threatening. It makes the date on a warrant completely pointless and allows police to use any warrant as an open fishing expedition into one's whole life.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday October 17 2014, @03:52PM
Most of your post is scarily correct, especially the analysis of the current state of affairs. I need to correct you on a couple of points, though:
If your warrant was to search for evidence of drug dealing, and you found child pornography, the child pornography was supposed to be discounted.
This is not, and has never been correct. Evidence of crimes not covered in the warrant is admissible if it is obvious during the lawful execution of the warrant.
Here's your car analogy: if the cops get a warrant to search your car for drugs and they find both a key of cocaine and a dead body in the trunk then you're going down for murder in addition to the drug charge - the body was within the scope of the warrant search.
In contrast, if the police have a warrant to search your garage for a stolen car, and they find a key of cocaine under your bed in the master bedroom then the drug charge won't stick - the warrant didn't cover a search of the bedroom.
Then there's this:
If you suspected someone was planning a crime, you got a warrant, tapped their phone, and listened to hear if they talked about it. If your man dozed off during the critical conversation, the evidence was gone.
For nearly as long as there have been wiretaps there have also been tape recorders. If they have a warrant to listen to your phone for drug evidence and they hear you confess to a murder, the recorded murder evidence is now also admissible.
This makes the rest of your analysis scarier. With the expanded scope of wiretapping and electronic searches, a warrant for drug evidence "on your computer + cloud accounts" means there is no electronic part of your life off limits to the search. Your child pornography is only off limits if the Judge explicitly wrote the warrant to limit the scope to a single topic, and not all judges will do that.
I had mod points, but a reply with "+1 it's worse than you think" seemed like a better idea.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:14PM
Surely, if that were the case, you would have used the existing unencrypted ones to solve crimes. So can we get a list of which crimes you've solved by access to unencrypted data? Not just some big, unverifiable number - can we get at the very least a breakdown by crime, so we can see how many are murders and rapes, and how many are "practicing journalism in a police officer's presence". I'd preferably like an actual list of case numbers, of course - such things are matter of public record, are they not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @01:33PM
> “Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,”
He is confused. The law dealt with this two decades ago when Congress killed the Clipper Chip. [wikipedia.org] The FBI wanted "key escrow" so that they could unlock all encrypted telecom. Congress decided that they did not want to make key escrow mandatory so the clipper chip died on the vine. He's trying to get congress to mandate "son of key escrow" without even knowing what happened the last time his agency tried that.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday October 17 2014, @01:36PM
Are you sure he is ignorant of that history? I think he just hopes that in current terror-hysteria congress might decide differently.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Friday October 17 2014, @02:32PM
Frankly, it's just like SOPA, PIPA, the TPP, etc. saga. We have to win EVERY TIME to keep those bade effects from happening. They only need to win once.
It's politics. You CAN try again, hoping the right combintion of wording, sponsorship, and circumstance will win this time. If not, regroup and try again later with DIFFERENT words and circumstances.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @11:48PM
There ought to be a way to reverse either by voting law-terminator into office or have it canceled by getting it declared against the constitution or the rights of citizens or similar?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday October 20 2014, @12:26AM
The problem with that paradigm is that it lets them expend the resources to create the system first, operate it, and then infringe upon an American's rights so egregiously that the American can adequately defend themselves in court and elevate the argument high enough to allow the judiciary to check the others.
Either that or you want some kind of dismissed-with-prejudice type ability to block them from bringing up government back doors again?
Most often people just can't defend themselves that well against a shock and awe campaign from the government where they seize everything, including exculpatory evidence, finances, etc. and throw your ass in prison to await trial. Even somebody somewhat famous like Tommy Chong was quite literally destroyed by an overzealous federal agent that spent tens of millions to stop a man from distributing glass water pipes. He got through the ordeal and wrote books, but many don't.
That's a bit too much damage and I would prefer to not even let their foot get in the door. It may be a pipe dream, but perhaps what we need is a whole new Constitutional Amendment to be proposed and for us to all get off our asses and vote it in.
It could be very simple and spell out very clearly the rights of the citizens to be anonymous and conduct their affairs in private. Even to the extent that it outlines certain services that are not allowed to ask for identity as a prerequisite to sale, directly or indirectly.
Something game changing. Something that simultaneously kicks Big Data in the balls and completely kills any kind of warrant-less surveillance (aka mass surveillance).
Whatever it is, I agree that we need some kind of solid defense before we find ourselves right in a Dystopian future. Who wants to have to deal with that kind of stuff building a web services company or a communications provider? That's a huge damn burden to be putting on companies to require Clipper type chip backdoors for government surveillance. More so with the inevitable honor system the government always demands. In fact, they are really just trying to move towards outright telling companies they don't have legal standing to complain at all. Don't resolve the argument, just say having the argument is wrong. So you won't know if your privacy is being violated, and nobody with technical access can warn you, and the government never discloses their activities against you.
We need to do something legal soon before we find ourselves unable to argue and in nightmarish decades of forced compliance with law enforcement demands on designs and resources before it might be repealed. I've been following this stuff and I'm actually somewhat worried with a douchecanoe like this director making moves towards a forced key escrow design. I'm not sure how many people keep up with CALEA and those kinds of requirements on allowing electronic taps. The FBI has spent over a half billion replacing telecom switches with ones that have built in CALEA compliant stacks. There has always been strong movements towards classifying VOIP and instant messaging platforms in order to group them with telecoms. This forces anyone providing it to also be subject to the same laws to provide those taps... even if that means backdoors in the encryption. Whatever is necessary in order to come into compliance with CALEA.
It's been 10 years since the FBI has been pushing the FCC to reevaluate VOIP and instant messaging, and in that time, the FBI's problem has grown with the absolute explosion of communication methods that don't already come CALEA compliant from the providers.
Soon this [wikipedia.org] will be required by this [justice.gov] to work for all VOIP and instant messaging systems. They keep talking about it, but it's not going our way AFAICT. The FBI is even organized and working with industry to implement this. Every day.
Unless it's a zero knowledge service, one would be foolish to trust any claims that run contrary to CALEA compliance. If it's not the NSA being creepy and unlawful, it's the FBI continuing to push the envelope on what is lawful.
The time for defending is over. Most of the legal framework to force all of the back doors exists already. Our default state is screwed. Time for offense before we can't even deliver packets anymore without our packets having papers and being inspected. At least not through anybody that is a US business providing Internet services.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday October 20 2014, @05:44AM
"Something game changing. Something that simultaneously kicks Big Data in the balls and completely kills any kind of warrant-less surveillance (aka mass surveillance)."
A scandal that will upset the core values of most citizens at the same time might do it. It will probably end there because it's just too tempting to not abuse the system. Once large scale abuse is enabled, the accident will occur once some sets of parameters coincides. So the question becomes how much bad things will happen before then and how long will it take.
(Score: 2) by doublerot13 on Friday October 17 2014, @05:51PM
You don't need a clipper chip when you have CALEA.
All comm devices must have backdoors for LEOs.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:11AM
Sorry, but that's not what happened. The government was charging ahead until Matt Blaze pointed out [crypto.com] a fatal flaw in the key management system. Personally I felt that it was unfortunate that Mr. Blaze pointed this out, otherwise we would have had built in encryption that the government thought they could backdoor when they wanted, but in reality it would have taken only a minor tweak to prevent them from recovering the conversations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:44PM
What gets me is that these people think that we're all civilians, ie. little people that they, in their Olympian largesse, choose to refrain from smiting, or not. They think they are the only ones who have and can shoot guns, who can and will use force. We the people accede to their role as law enforcement for the common good, but we do not cede to them ultimate authority. That is and remains with us. Nearly everyone in American government from the local to the federal level has completely forgotten that. It is time for us to teach it to them again. They will not like the lesson.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @03:47PM
Hopefully that lesson will be taught. It will be bad for us but they have allready banned all natural pleasures: from young girls to pharma. They have also banned weapons men like to machine and build.
They need to be killed, tortured to death. They put us in prison or kill us for violating the religion/beliefs they force upon us. Just killing one of them would be joy enough for a lifetime, since they have taken all other pleasure away (they cannot take the hunt).
(Score: 2) by elf on Friday October 17 2014, @02:02PM
Maybe the FBI is making all of this fuss because they are secretly not that worried and trying to give a false sense of security to all the bad people on the planet. They
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @02:57PM
Are criminals more likely to use effective encryption and anonymity technologies (default phone encryption being just one of many) than techies? Terrorists?
The NSA's playbook includes targeting zero-day vulnerabilities and diverting + infecting hardware shipments. FBI has used spyware/JavaScript vulnerabilities to install malware on TOR users' computers.
Your average murderer might use a U.S.-based web proxy to look up body dumping tips, or just google it.
The FBI will still be able to snoop after the encrypted phone surge. It will be harder work, but they will still get it done.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @03:43PM
VT/VPro includes a vnc server that sends off whatever's on the gfx card frame buffer.
i3 i5 and i7 chips all include VT/VPro.
It can be remotely re-enabled if disabled.
Law enforcement enforces their belief system upon the men of the country. Basically a religion.
Men have no control over the laws by democratic means, that was taken away in 1920.
The only possible control is revolution and slaughter.
(Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Friday October 17 2014, @05:00PM
vPro is not on every i7 (for instance, the 4770k lacks it).
According to Intel, it only works with integrated graphics. Which makes sense, given that having it work with different graphics cards would require a driver system.
Could it be backdoored? Sure, but that's not immediately discernible from the public spec. Even then the real security issue lies in the network card, not the cpu. You need to be able to trust your network card not to bypass OS protection of incoming data. Without the cooperation of the network chipset, cpu level backdoors would be much more difficult and much easier to detect.
Maybe it's just time for an open source network card.
[Insert witty message here]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:21PM
All laptops have integrated graphics.
It IS backdoored.
Read the specs. It can always be reenabled remotely.
Stop pooh-poohing concerns.
Fucking shill.
The intel chiefs should be killed for this. They work against us to try to put us in prison.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @05:59PM
If you are running Windoze, sure, I believe it. But if you are running a free OS connected to the network via an open chipset, then how? Please elaborate.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @06:05PM
(Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Friday October 17 2014, @06:08PM
Backdoored hardware is certainly a concern, I doubt any of us disagree. However, there are legitimate concerns and there is trolling. Two different things.
[Insert witty message here]
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday October 17 2014, @06:33PM
(Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Friday October 17 2014, @06:06PM
>> Fucking shill.
Says the AC. Go back to trolling some other site please.
[Insert witty message here]
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Friday October 17 2014, @06:06PM
[citation needed]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without any proof, Intel's statements are far more credible than some random troll on the Internet.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @05:05PM
The FBI Director's Evidence Against Encryption Is Pathetic [firstlook.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by takyon on Friday October 17 2014, @09:14PM
EFF Response to FBI Director Comey's Speech on Encryption [eff.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:19PM
New tails uses systemd as it is based on jessie.
This adds more points of entry for an attacker.
I suggested sticking with sysv startup scripts rather than having a behemoth
always running in the background, network aware.
I pointed this out in the Tails chatroom and was banned immediatly without comment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @06:22PM
BANNED BY NSAFBI
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @11:32PM
They're probably sick of all the anti-systemd trolls throwing temper tantrums. Their constant trolling everywhere has made it difficult to honestly discuss any flaws that systemd may have, because 99% of the time its mentioned its just a troll throwing a shitfit. Good job shooting yourself in the foot, guys. Your incessant trolling has ensured systemd's survival.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @04:08AM
Tails peeps just lazy.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @11:52PM
Tails - *plonk*
:P
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:10AM
The FBI director James Comey's bid to have Congress kibosh default encryption appears to have publicly failed after senators said the proposal would be rejected. [theregister.co.uk]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]