Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
DOJ made secret arguments to break crypto, now ACLU wants to make them public
Earlier this year, a federal judge in Fresno, California, denied prosecutors' efforts to compel Facebook to help it wiretap Messenger voice calls. But the precise legal arguments that the government made, and that the judge ultimately rejected, are still sealed.
On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union formally asked the judge to unseal court dockets and related rulings associated with this ongoing case involving alleged MS-13 gang members. ACLU lawyers argue that such a little-charted area of the law must be made public so that tech companies and the public can fully know what's going on. This element of the case began in August 2018, when an FBI special agent told the court in an affidavit that "there is no practical method available by which law enforcement can monitor these calls" between suspected MS-13 gangsters. Authorities already had traditional wiretaps and were able to intercept written messages between the defendants, who are now in custody.
While traditional telecom companies must give access to police under a 1990s-era law known as CALEA, Internet-based calls are exempt, despite the government's previous efforts to change the law. Prosecutors seemingly argued that Facebook nevertheless had to comply with the government's request. The judge reportedly denied the government's efforts during an August 14, 2018 hearing. In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public."
Related Stories
A federal appeals court in New York will hear oral argument on Tuesday in the ACLU's lawsuit fighting for the public's right to know the legal justifications for government spying.
The Freedom of Information Act suit seeks the release of secret memos written by government lawyers that provided the foundation for the warrantless surveillance of Americans' international communications. In essence, these memos serve as the law that governs the executive branch. By withholding them, the government is flouting a core principle of democratic society: The law must be public.
The memos cover the government's legal interpretations of Executive Order 12333 [(EO 12333)], which was issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It's the primary authority under which the NSA [(National Security Agency)] conducts surveillance, and it encompasses an array of warrantless, high-tech spying programs. While much of this spying occurs outside the United States and is ostensibly directed at foreigners, it nonetheless vacuums up vast quantities of Americans' communications. That's because in today's interconnected world, communications are frequently sent, routed, or stored abroad — where they may be collected, often in bulk, in the course of the NSA's spying activities.
For example, the NSA has relied on EO 12333 to collect nearly 5 billion records per day on the locations of cell phones, as well as hundreds of millions of contact lists and address books from email and messaging accounts. It also intercepted private data from Google and Yahoo user accounts as that information traveled between those companies' data centers located abroad.
Related: DOJ Made Secret Arguments to Break Crypto, Now ACLU Wants to Make Them Public
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:48AM (3 children)
I have a suggestion that will make getting warrants for "wiretapping" these Facebook calls as easy as traditional phone calls: classify internet communication the same as phone telecommunications. What? The government doesn't want to do that because it would mean internet providers would be covered under Title II and Net Neutrality could be inforced? Silly me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday November 30 2018, @12:56AM (1 child)
At the end of the day, it will still become a battle over end-to-end encryption. Internet giants could be pressured to not offer encrypted services that can't be effectively wiretapped, but others can offer end-to-end encrypted communication software. If it can be packaged up nicely for the average user, like Signal or Popcorn Time, they will use it. The "bad guys" will use it. It could be difficult to suppress it even if it is banned by law. So the USG will revert back to using the NSA to find exploitable vulnerabilities in hardware and software, i.e. business as usual.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @02:04AM
Yep. Traditional PSTN, including all mobile cellular carriers, will be CALEA compliant for the foreseeable future. Also for the foreseeable future, they will be not be encrypted, and in plain text. Very difficult to overcome and implement end-to-end encryption because of the devices involved. You might succeed in sending tones and using modem tech, which is very similar to FoIP, but still require an out-of-band channel for key exchange.
However, anything that uses the Internet is fundamentally different. Endpoints *can* reach other, and therefore end-to-end encryption is only going to increase as it gets easier to implement. I'm working on such things, and so is everybody else apparently. Signal, Telegram, Whisper, ZRTP, etc. Attempting to force key escrow systems will not work, and responsible encryption shares space with unicorns as far as reality is concerned.
Even if the FCC reclassifies TCP/IP, ICMP, and the Internet in general as telephone communications, it won't make any difference as far as encrypted communications are concerned. They would need to outlaw encryption in general, and attempt to enforce responsible encryption with key escrow systems again. We saw how that failed in the 90's, and I don't see how it could succeed today.
Like you said, nothing is going to stop the criminals from using FOSS and simply rolling their own covert comm channels. Which, as an aside, makes the CIA look like real dumb assholes when they couldn't do it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 30 2018, @06:40PM
What? The government doesn't want to do that because it would mean internet providers would be covered under Title II and Net Neutrality could be inforced? Silly me.
Nope, only Republicans. Democrats already did that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Friday November 30 2018, @12:51AM
"Your Honor, those two people are whispering to each other in a very noisy place. We are unable to hear their conversation and so request that they be required to stand fifteen feet apart and shout to one another."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:22AM (1 child)
Very likely this is part of the real reason for the women coders and incels memes. The incels meme also has a double purpose of being used to create the stereotypes necessary to allow the reinstatement of the draft just like France. The capitalist system and the transformation of national governments into neoliberal fascisms is leading us straight for World War 3.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:49AM
^^^ Idiotic offtopic post.
Next time you feel the urge, try to resist it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:56AM (3 children)
ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public."
It sounds like the process worked and what exactly are we supposed to find out here?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 30 2018, @02:29AM
And.. how are we suppose to know it? What if the judge actually allowed something even if rejected the rest?
The story in its entirety. Isn't it obvious?
As to "why?":
1. a secret ruling does not a precedent make. Without it, there's no warranty the next time the motion will be rejected.
2. "Informed decision" is necessary** for democracy, it works poorly with an uninformed population.
** granted, is it not sufficient, but in the presence of secrecy in regards public matters, democracy stands no chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 30 2018, @03:34AM
Without a legal precedent to guide future court decisions, the decision is near to worthless.
I've often cited my favorite talk show hosts. One of their common themes is "compliance". Each and every time they talk about "black male with a gun" being shot to death, they suggest that when people are approached by the police, they "comply" with the police requests. That attitude chafes my hide, because they seem to favor a police state.
Having secret rulings, secret hearings, secrets and more secrets, only helps to broaden and strengthen a police state. There really is little that a police force should have to keep secret. Maybe ongoing investigations, yeah - but even those should be limited.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @06:04PM
worked? for who? your masters? give me a break. do you just blindly trust that these treacherous pigs and some self righteous authoritarian gatekeeper decided in the people's favor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @11:18AM
Whenever you hear that you know you're about to get fucked.