The New York Times features a joint (and very one sided) opinion piece by prosecutors from Manhattan, Paris, London and Spain, in which they decry the default use by Apple and Google of full disk encryption in their latest smartphone OSes. They talk about the murder scene of a father of six, where an iPhone 6 and a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge were found.
An Illinois state judge issued a warrant ordering Apple and Google to unlock the phones and share with authorities any data therein that could potentially solve the murder. Apple and Google replied, in essence, that they could not — because they did not know the user's passcode. The homicide remains unsolved. The killer remains at large.
Except, there is no proof that having such a backdoor would conclusively allow them to solve the case and wouldn't require actual police work.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:47AM
If you say something, . . . no, that's not it. If you smell something, yeah, that's it, say something. But since we want law enforcement to have tips given to them because they are no longer capable of basic investigative operations, it should be, "If you say something, see something." So I guess they really need to know if you say something.