SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the gettin-the-camel's-nose-under-the-tent dept.
AG Barr seeks 'legislative solution' to make companies unlock phones:
ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Brett Max Kaufman responded to [US Attorney General] Barr's comments, saying "Every time there's a traumatic event requiring investigation into digital devices, the Justice Department loudly claims that it needs backdoors to encryption, and then quietly announces it actually found a way to access information without threatening the security and privacy of the entire world. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on the agency that cried encryption." While Barr's push for backdoors and cooperation from phone manufacturers raises concerns, Kaufman's response doesn't address that the DoJ isn't seeking the ability to unlock phones, but to do so as quickly as possible.
Apple's refusal to work with law enforcement has been an issue for years. The company wants to ensure its users feel confident in trusting Apple with their data, yet police and the FBI say that the refusals to cooperate hinder investigations and put lives at risk. It sounds like Barr wants to put a system into law that would oblige Apple to comply in future cases. How realistic this plan is -- or how much buy-in from politicians it will get -- remains to be seen, though it would force Apple to rethink how it approaches user privacy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Tuesday May 19 2020, @07:50PM (6 children)
When a safe has stuff in it the government wants, they have to break into it themselves. Why should a phone be any different?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2020, @08:14PM (5 children)
The problem with that analogy is that the government can force you to open a safe. As long as there is no testamentary proof entailed in your opening, they can get a warrant to force you to do so and hold you in contempt when you don't. In fact, that is why you often see the police agencies try to push the safe analogy. They already know they can easily win that argument.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 19 2020, @08:28PM (3 children)
Same holds for the phone right now. Here, I understand the problem was that the owner was dead and couldn't be forced to unlock the phone.
Sorry, still doesn't work. It's like forcing the safe company to come up with technology that will compromise the security of all their safes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @02:59AM
Right. Because they have never passed laws like that and never will. Completely impossible [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:18AM (1 child)
You mean like the ill-conceived Clipper Chip [wikipedia.org] from the 90's?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @03:42PM
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday May 19 2020, @08:41PM
Sorry, I put the detail in the title and not the body of the comment. I was specifically referring to the safe manufacturer, not the suspect.