SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.
While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts.
And while this will likely weaken secure data storage and communications – by introducing backdoors that hackers and spies, as well as the cops and FBI, can potentially leverage to snoop on folks – it will be a price worth paying. And, after all, what do you really need that encryption for? Your email and selfies?
"We are not talking about protecting the nation's nuclear launch codes," Barr told the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University. "Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications. There have been enough dogmatic pronouncements that lawful access simply cannot be done. It can be, and it must be."
Related: DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
FBI Director Calls Encryption a "Major Public Safety Issue"
FBI Director: Without Compromise on Encryption, Legislation May be the 'Remedy'
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Problem "Infects" Law Enforcement and Intelligence Community
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fnord666 on Thursday July 25 2019, @02:52PM (18 children)
What part of the 4th Amendment does this idiot not understand? Either that or he does understand it and is deliberately trying to subvert it.
If it is the latter case, then he is in violation of 5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office, an oath he took when he took office.
He should be removed from office immediately.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:11PM (7 children)
I assume the argument all these jerks make is that "papers and effects" somehow doesn't cover communications and personal data in the 21st Century.
"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, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:38PM
Let's all get together and send Barr a case or two of this.....as the first of many, many targets.
https://constitutiontp.com/ [constitutiontp.com]
Too bad their kickstarter failed.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:55PM (5 children)
Yeah. Somehow electronic communications devices aren't covered by the 4th, yet somehow an M134 minigun capable of firing 2000-6000 rounds per minute, is covered by the second.
But what do you expect? The US govt has blatantly ignored the Constitution since Eisenhower ignored the 1st with his directive to add space-fairy references to the pledge of allegiance and their currency.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:55PM (2 children)
You obviously aren't actually familiar with federal firearms laws, as any new automatic weapon is flat-out illegal to own. Now, theoretically the M134 was made early enough that a few years production is technically viable, but I can't think of anyone who'd actually be able to get through the certification process to buy one of the things.
Well, maybe Feinstein.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:16PM
The M134 originated in 1963. I wouldn't call 23 years worth of production "a few". And while the background process is indeed a bitch, one can and does see M134's listed occasionally with six figure prices. And there were plenty of full automatic weapons made prior to 1986. Not that I agree with the arbitrary line in the sand.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday July 26 2019, @12:32AM
A class III license is very difficult, but not impossible to obtain. Jesse James, the motorcycle builder turned gunsmith even builds them legally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl-MrDw8ahg [youtube.com]
1:52 for machine gun.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:37PM (1 child)
It's more like trying to argue that speech on the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment. It's just absurd on its face.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 26 2019, @02:57PM
Well if "on a computer" is enough to make a patent unique, than "on the Internet" must mean it's not speech /s
"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 DutchUncle on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:24PM
I vote for "deliberately subvert", by the usual technique of claiming that "with a computer" makes everything TOTALLY different. Your online calendar is not a paper calendar, so it's not "papers" in which you have a right to be "secure". The entire current administration should be removed for the same reason, plus "conduct unbecoming an officer" in about half of the cases.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:30PM (3 children)
There's no need to wave around the constitution for this one. Congress and big business won't let government have this much power since it will be used against them.
More importantly, Barr knows this so I'm guessing making this statement must be him establishing plausible deniability for some on-going or future financial fraud / tax evasion investigation into why he didn't follow up on some accusations against whomever friend of his.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:43PM (2 children)
I disagree, they will just add a subsection or a 'legal opinion' that it can't be used against sitting or former members of congress, their children, associates etc.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday July 25 2019, @08:05PM (1 child)
Look here now, just about the only borderline lesser-evil remaining in the corrupt fascist pay-for-justice United States of America is the fact it's still being run by merchants and industrialists and their interests tend to occasionally align with the people's interests. So, you can bet your ass each and every one of those rich scams will be threatening their -as in, on their payroll- congressman that they'll pull back funding if they even humor such laws.
In fact, if he was serious and will actually push for this, Barr's statement was probably enough to sign his political death warrant.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:33PM
Oh, I absolutely HOPE you're correct.
Just in 60 years, hope has evaporated from my psyche almost completely.
Thanks for blowing ever so slightly on the embers of hope that they may persist for at least a bit longer. (:
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @04:20PM (4 children)
So the most obvious retort to this is that what if a warrant is issued and it is perfectly fine and legal that the hard drive or iPhone is seized. What then?
Maybe what he's asking for is that there be a method when the due process is adequately satisfied that a device is accessible.
This is still a stupid and dumb idea because it opens up the possibility of having that system compromised like the TSA travel lock scheme, or also used unlawfully or unconstitutionally. I'm not advocating for the idea and saying it is possible. Just that protesting it on 4th Amendment grounds isn't equal to saying that security of persons etc. is unlimited and never can be broached by due process. It's the wrong argument.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:40PM (3 children)
That's not in the Constitution, though. Nowhere does it mandate that the government's job must be simple and easy, and that people have a duty to make sure that that is so. The fourth amendment only gives the government the power to try to seize what they need when the proper warrants have been issued; it does not impose a duty on citizens that they must make it easy for the government to actually succeed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:57PM
In a free society, the job of the police is to make the lives of the citizens easier.
In an authoritarian society, the job of the citizens is to make the lives of the police easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:30PM (1 child)
No, but even an outright ban on using encryption (like that could work) does not subvert the 4th Amendment. The fourth says the government cannot search or seize your possessions without a warrant specifying a probable cause for it. (For which there are recognized exceptions, like the vast majority of the constitutional amendments since rights are never absolute). But it says not one damn thing about the government guaranteeing you that you have a right that your possessions can be made to not be searchable nor that they can't be seized. To the contrary, the law could well be constructed that your possessions must be searchable and the 4th would not have a damn thing to say about it, other than whether or not a warrant was used when a government search was executed. (Or any of the numerous exceptions the Supreme Court has defined for that). That's what Barr is threatening and I believe that is a serious threat that would withstand constitutional scrutiny in a court - the only standard that matters. Thus, as I said, the 4th is a thin reed to rely upon in this case.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday July 26 2019, @06:03AM
Nice strawman. The government doesn't have to guarantee you that right. Your electronic documents can be encrypted beyond their ability to decrypt with or without a government guarantee.
Now that's an interesting interpretation and a more relevant point. I could see it being argued that way given the courts ability to demand the production of documents. It certainly wouldn't be more of a stretch than some of the things they have done under the commerce clause.
Many countries already have laws saying you must decrypt on demand. I don't know of any cases yet in AU of people jailed for refusing, but I'm fairly sure the UK has had some under their RIPA.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.