from the it-was-an-error,-not-exageration,-honest! dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
For the past several months, the FBI has been claiming that encryption has prevented the agency from accessing around 7,000 mobile devices connected to various crimes.
On Tuesday, the FBI told PCMag that a programming error resulted in a "significant overcounting" of the encrypted devices. "The FBI is currently conducting an in-depth review of how this over-counting previously occurred," the agency said in a statement.
The news was first reported by The Washington Post, which said the correct number is probably between 1,000 and 2,000 devices. One internal estimate from the FBI puts the figure at 1,200, but the agency plans to launch an audit to get the full number, The Post said, citing unnamed sources.
The mistake seriously undercuts one of the FBI's central arguments in the ongoing encryption debate. For years now, the agency has been pushing for what critics call a "backdoor" into smartphone products that'll let federal agents easily unlock mobile devices tied to crimes. Without such access, some investigations may grind to halt, the agency claims.
[...] How did the FBI make the mistake? According to the agency, starting in April 2016, it began using a new "collection methodology" with how it counted the encrypted devices. But only recently did the FBI become aware of flaws in the methodology, it said, without elaborating.
Source: https://www.pcmag.com/news/361357/oops-fbi-inflated-the-number-of-encrypted-devices-it-cant
Also at CNET and TechCrunch
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:09AM (13 children)
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/01/09/230204 [soylentnews.org]
GG to frojack and anybody else who called BS on those numbers.
Never forget: https://theintercept.com/2014/10/17/draft-two-cases-cited-fbi-dude-dumb-dumb/ [theintercept.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:29AM (5 children)
Between the FBI perjuring itself repeatedly before Congress and LEOs all over testilying in court, I can't imagine why I as a potential juror should ever believe a word they say on the stand.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:02AM (4 children)
The average juror doesn't know about it, will put a lot of trust in law enforcement, and probably hasn't heard of jury nullification either.
Meanwhile there is a process for weeding out sjames, the non-average juror. You get to go home early!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 24 2018, @04:57AM (2 children)
I've already seen that process in action, and I did get to go home early.
But the more they do this, the harder it will be to weed out everyone who knows better than to trust LEO on the stand and have 12 people left over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:25AM (1 child)
I brought Jury Nullification up once in court... never been called to Jury Service since.
It is my belief this is why the Court summons several people for each juror needed.... so they can make sure that only the ones they "like" are put into this position.
It would be akin to letting me pick from some people, say on here, to sit in on a trial where someone got their paycheck pinched by legal tricks, and they don't want jurors who know about the law upsetting the whole apple cart the businessmen spent years and thousands of dollars asskissing Congressmen for.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 24 2018, @04:13PM
Last year when I got called there were I think 45-50 of us initially. They got all the way down to #32 for the last of the 12.
Unrelatedly, god damn were those the most uncomfortable benches ever to sit in for an entire day. Wooden seat and the back was really weird so you couldn't put your lower back against it properly without being bent forward at a 45-degree angle.
"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 darkfeline on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:48PM
Of course the average juror hasn't heard of jury nullification; knowing about it disqualifies you from being a juror (and lying about it is perjury, catch 22).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:34AM (2 children)
FTFA,
So, the story can be summed up as, "FBI lies to us, because there is no evidence that encryption has ever prevented the solving of a crime."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)
They could up with a list of great examples of encryption preventing law enforcement from solving crimes or charging someone. And I would just say, "Great! It works!"
That they have trouble doing that just shows how pathetic their little anti-encryption campaign really is.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:23AM
yeah, I'm with you. I could not care less if it solved ALL previously unsolved crimes; what it does to us is 100% unacceptable from a freedom POV.
its too high a price to pay for so little in return.
besides, its not REALLY about solving crimes. its about those in power - ie, sociopaths - who want to get their rocks off by being able to spy on anyone and hold that over them.
that is the elephant in the room. its a power-trip thing and a control-freak thing. that's ALL it is.
but no one will admit it. to admit it is to shine light on things they don't want us to talk and think about.
think about it. you know this to be true.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 24 2018, @04:42AM (3 children)
Reports are Crooked Hillary used 13 phones. Obama's crooked FBI got ZERO. That's not even a number.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:30AM
Isn't Zero the digit for "Countless"? No count. None. Zip. Nada....
So when the TV ad-man implores us to "Join the countless people who have lost weight with our pills!", you know what he just said.... no one lost any weight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:01PM
Should have used 7 proxies [knowyourmeme.com] instead.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:02PM
You're just jealous that Crooked Hillary is smart enough to use 13 phones when you can even manage one and she's a better golfer.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:11AM (1 child)
Mucking up a spreadsheet is not "programming" any more than "1,000 - 2,000" is "7,000". When amateurs work with amateur tools we should not be surprised by amateur results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:12PM
Give them a break. They're still using early Pentiums.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:13AM (4 children)
Law enforcement faces no penalty for lying to you, and your best interests rarely intersect with their goals, if ever. If a law enforcement representative is speaking to you, it is best to assume that he is lying, or at least that he has no special relationship with the truth, and is instead furthering some goal through verbal manipulation.
If the FBI was pulling numbers out of thin air, or making them up as it goes along, pursuant to demanding more power to invade individual liberty and to violate the fourth amendment, no one familiar with the issue should evince any surprise. That's just how our law enforcement system works.
Even if they wanted to look at 7 million encrypted devices, and claimed that they had court orders to do so*, would not be any reason to weaken encryption, and would in fact be a warning call to strengthen it.
-----
* It would later be found that they were lying. That's how they roll.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:26AM (3 children)
law enforcement is completely and legally allowed to lie to you.
you and I, otoh, have no such rights and we can be locked up and our freedom taken away if we exercise some of the rights the elites and LEOs have.
for those that have not seen it, google the youtube video 'dont talk to cops'. there's part1 and part2. very informative and the talks are given by a lawyer and a cop. people who know this subject quite well. everyone who sets foot in the US should watch those videos.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:32AM
Here's the original, which is good:
Don't Talk to the Police [youtube.com]
HOWEVER, here's the updated version:
"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane) [youtube.com]
(Paraphrasing heavily) Some of the updated advice is that traffic stops are different (14:55), although you don't need to say more than necessary, and when questioned by the police you need to insist that "I want a lawyer", clearly and unequivocally (36:50), because it has become harder for you to exercise your Fifth Amendment rights (17:38, 24:32, 36:02). He explains that his famous viral video didn't discuss the details of how you want to assert/exercise your Fifth Amendment rights (23:28). He mentions shifting judicial attitudes towards the Fifth Amendment, including Salinas v. Texas (37:30). None of the 8-9 Supreme Court Justices (video was filmed in 2016 after Scalia's death) have done significant work as a defense attorney. Halfway into the video, Randy Barnett starts talking about the book and condenses the new advice: The ultimate message here is that rather than asserting your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, you want to adamantly assert your Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which will in many cases cause cops to immediately lose interest in talking to you any further (47:53).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor) [wikipedia.org]
You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
ISBN: 978-1503933392
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:34AM
If "they" don't honor the last three words of our "Pledge of Allegiance", isn't that an abrogation of that agreement, releasing the rest of us from the first three words?
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:12AM
But we're not talking about that. They're not allowed to lie under oath (to Congress). That would be a violation of the most basic principles our government is based on. Law enforcement exists to enforce the people's laws; they are merely the enforcer for the people's representatives. They are not an independent political entity that is free to pursue its own goals and even negotiate with the people and the people's representatives.
Oh wait.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:14AM (3 children)
One phone! That is one...one device! Ah, ah, ah.
One phone, but it has a keyboard, so it is like a typewriter! That is two!, two devices!, ah ah ah.
One phone, but it has a keyboard and a little touch screen, so it is like a nipple you want to touch! That is three!, three devices!, ah ah ah.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Touché) by black6host on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:41AM (2 children)
Man, if you think a touch screen is like a nipple you want to touch you are going batty. And I want one of your phones. :)
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday May 24 2018, @01:58AM
You are in luck!
One soylentil is giving away BlackBerry Q10s.
What are the chances they are also one of the phones they can't decrypt? I'd say pretty good.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:31AM
Ah ah ah.
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:15AM (1 child)
If any one of us lies to congress, the FBI, or even the local cop on the beat, we will be charged with a crime.
FBI lies to congress, and it's a minor mistake.
Hypocritical bastards.
Worse, congress, the FBI, and the local cop all lie to us routinely, and it's not even a mistake. It's just part of the investigation, and any mistaken conclusions drawn from our responses to those lies is admissible in court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:07AM
Federal Bureau of Intimidation
(Score: 1) by Captival on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:50AM (2 children)
2017
President Trump: "The Obama administration is spying on me."
FBI: "No we weren't. You're crazy."
Media: "No they weren't! He's crazy!"
2018
President Trump: "The Obama administration is spying on me and there's proof."
FBI: "It was for a good reason! We spy on everybody!"
Media: "It was for a good reason! They spy on everybody!"
Media: "Also: trying to investigate the FBI just because they committed crimes is JUST LIKE HITLER!"
Comey: "
Heil!I mean....Yeah!"(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:32PM
FTFY:
2017
President Trump: "The Obama administration is
spying onwiretapping me."FBI: "No we weren't.
You're crazy."Media: "
No they weren't! He's crazy!A wiretap is something very specific and absolutely requires a warrant. What's your proof besides the wild allegations? *crickets*"2018
President Trump: "The Obama administration is spying on me and there's proof."
FBI: "
It was for a good reason! We spy on everybody!We were conducting investigations on your entourage due to pretty convincing evidence that some of your people were engaging with foreign nationals in a way that is not legal. Some have already cut plea deals."Media: "
It was for a good reason! They spy on everybody!You put corrupt people in high places in your campaign staff and you're now pretty afraid what the public will think of you. But you don't want that narrative getting out."People: "Maybe they should have wiretapped you after all. By the way, you never gave us any proof before so what's changed that we should believe you now? That your staff is being proven to be more corrupt than the swamp we elected you to drain?"
Media: "Also: trying to investigate the FBI just because they committed crimes is JUST LIKE HITLER!"
Comey: "Heil! I mean....Yeah!"
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:41PM
The information you share is very useful.It is closely related to my work and has helped me grow.
Thank you for such a wonderful article and sharing.God bless you. Well Done.!
ArcGIS Crack [realcracksoft.com]