SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday that unless the U.S. government and private industry are able to come to a compromise on the issue of default encryption on consumer devices, legislation may be how the debate is ultimately decided.
"I think there should be [room for compromise]," Wray said Wednesday night at a national security conference in Aspen, Colorado. "I don't want to characterize private conversations we're having with people in the industry. We're not there yet for sure. And if we can't get there, there may be other remedies, like legislation, that would have to come to bear."
Wray described the issue of “Going Dark” because of encryption as a "significant" and "growing" problem for federal, state and local law enforcement as well as foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He claims strong encryption on mobile phones keeps law enforcement from gaining access to key evidence as it relates to active criminal investigations.
Source: FBI director: Without compromise on encryption, legislation may be the 'remedy'
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:48PM (23 children)
And take your incompetent team of Keystone Kops with you. What happened to doing old-fashioned police work, huh?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:36PM (5 children)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @11:45AM (3 children)
To be fair, they didn't. They lied to judges, picked up bribes from the local gangs and made up evidence when it suited them. Best example and proof is how when DNA evidences were introduced, civil rights groups reviewed capital punishment convictions only to discover the vast majority of them were wrong and went on to overturn them in the courts. That is, police officers would routinely beat up people to get confessions and testimonies to such a measure that the vast majority of inmates weren't lying when they were saying "I didn't do it".
What's changed is public awareness and technology. People are aware they can't trust people to provide eye witness testimonies on their behalf when the cops are willing to flat out lie and say otherwise so they record everything. And the tech companies are signing and encrypting all those records so cops deleting or modifying them will get caught. So, now when a judge and jury notices "misplaced" evidences, they immediately mistrial. The jury since they stopped trusting the cops. The judge since they don't want to risk their careers by involving themselves with a potential scandal.
However, all this is simply the background. The problem right now is organizational: The career path for a police officer aiming for an administrative position like a Department Chief typically goes through the detective ranks since normal police work is just not enough to get noticed and gain merits. And this is a huge problem since if a detective does his real work then their solve rates are abysmal. Like, 90% unsolved crimes. The real way criminals get caught is when a pawn shop broker calls the cops telling them someone keeps dropping off household items every weekend or when neighbors complain about the noise of the local chop shop stripping parts. The well networked detectives will have their buddies tip them off and their Chief assign them those cases so they'll build up their resumes. But the people that actually do their jobs and investigate stuff properly and legally that isn't cherry picked don't get promoted. Eventually, everyone at the top are either bootlickers politicos or serial evidence fabricators.
So, realizing the problem, we face an daunting realization: Cops shouldn't be promoted on merit but on seniority. Sure, some competence is required. But introducing competitiveness to an occupation that basically relies on procedural "ask questions, collect evidence, fill report and hope for the best" is the recipe for the corrupt police state we're living in.
p.s. And I didn't even get to talk about how officers and departments actively sabotage each other by deliberately submitting lacking reports and misplacing evidences...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:11PM (2 children)
Really?, let's look for some citations.
From the ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/other/dna-testing-and-death-penalty/ [aclu.org], 273 cases have been overturned duo to DNA evidence, 17 of them death row inmates. It would be great if 273 people were the vast majority of inmates in the US or that 17 people were the vast majority of death row inmates. But I'm afraid that kind of ridiculous exaggeration makes me distrust the vast majority of your post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:25PM (1 child)
Just to add (apparently your post hit a button on me this moring, go figure), according to wikipedia there are 2,706 death row inmates in the US. That's 0.6% (do not confuse with 60%, this is .006) of all death row inmates were overturned. While still disturbing, the phrase tiny, tiny minority seems to be a much better fit.
Hmm according to wiki again, in 2013, 2,220,300 were incarcerated, 273/2,220,300 ~ .0001, .01%, one percent of one percent, heh. While also disturbing, I'm not even sure that phrase tiny, tiny minority would be a good fit here.
I think the vast majority of your vision may be clouded by bias.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:20PM
Citation also needed for:
Pretty sure everyone from the judges, prosecutors, to the juries places a lot of faith in what cops have to say, even if they are lying through their teeth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @06:29PM
In all fairness, mobile phones and computers also increase the ability for criminals to communicate and store info. The Police did hove phone taps before. They were able to get warrants for searching/reading paper documents before (opening safes, etc.). They were able to bug person to person conversations before. Encryption does affect the police's ability to phone tap and access documents (although, to a lesser extent, mobile phones do make it easier to bug person to person conversations).
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but encryption is a change for the police.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @09:38PM
He should also take the lobbying firms (and whoever hired them) that keep planting these ideas with him while he's at it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 22 2018, @10:57PM (12 children)
I wouldn't worry too much about this, as it has played out before, in the Crypto Wars of the 1990's, which had the US military trying and failing to ban the export of strong encryption.
The problem for the people trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle, is that encryption is basically maths, and nobody has the monopoly on maths.
Legislation is not only not the answer, it is an admission that they've lost the war (again).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by https on Sunday July 22 2018, @11:27PM
Fuck that. The only reason crypto isn't outlawed outright now in the US is because people did worry about it. The bastards are relentless. Step zero in fighting back against the malice and idiocy is worrying about it.
Weak crypto means they can take your money and claim (with legal, not mathematical, definitions of proof) that you are the one who spent it. Or that you have a lolita comple^W^W^W are a pedophile. Or were planning to bomb city hall at 12:30. Worry is 100% a reasonable reaction.
Sure, this has played out before. But if you don't worry about it... it will play out differently. THEY ONLY HAVE TO WIN ONCE.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 22 2018, @11:57PM (6 children)
I don't understand what "compromise" might be. Will 0 suddenly = 0.00000000001 and 1 = 1.1? What IS a compromise in math? For as long as mankind has understood mathematical concepts, 1 has been 1, 2 has been 2, etc. It seems that maybe some early cultures may not have grasped the zero, but still, zero has been zero ever since it was discovered. So, how does one compromise on any of that?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday July 23 2018, @12:17AM (2 children)
To compromise encryption means simply "~ to render it non-working" which sets a much, much lower bar.
You could limit any encryption to 8 or 16 bits, or if that's too hard, allow only the use of ROT13, or any other mathematical trickery you can think of that will make easily reversible scrambling possible, but encryption impossible.
Since people whose area of knowledge isn't encryption (i.e. almost everyone) might think that "compromise" is a friendly, happy, constructive, and encouraging thing, not knowing its meaning within that sphere, Wray seems to be looking for sympathy in a manipulative way, while plainly demanding an end to encryption.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 23 2018, @03:28AM (1 child)
Exactly. Wray is full of bull pucky. Either strong encryption is possible, or it is not possible. Either everyone can communicate securely, or no one can. There's no compromise in which some people can communicate securely, and the rest can't.
It's this kind of failure to comprehend reality plus the arrogance to think that they do get it, that has the tech world convinced that the legal world is and always will be clueless. Admittedly, Wray is part of the Trump administration, which is noted for their severe affliction with the Dunning-Kruger effect. But there have been many examples from the legal world unconnected with the current administration that show their incompetence. They don't get it about copyright and software patents either. Then there's the excessively harsh punishments for hacking, which I take to be cowardice. They're so skeered of haxxors they crap themselves, then go on witch hunts.
Then you have downright stupid court cases such as the one about the innocent American citizen on America's kill list for drones. And the petty abuses of the legal system to pervert and corrupt it into a money grab, with, for example the red light camera tickets and the parking meter tickets. Justice is most definitely not blind to money, and it should be. The super rich behind the 2008 market collapse walk away with a fine that would be impossible for anyone in the 99% to pay, but for them it is a light wrist slap, while petty criminals with dark skins get ten years for shoplifting $2 worth of goods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @07:42PM
Aside from all the other nonsense in your post, let's be clear about one thing: Wray's affiliation with Trump has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the FBI wanting to break/outlaw/backdoor encryption.
That's been a consistent wishlist item for them for decades.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday July 23 2018, @01:18AM
The 'concept' of zero has been the same, but the reality of it keeps changing as our technology and ability to measure gets better. Eventually we may come to discover that zero really is only a concept and never a physical reality, but who know, Shirly says not I.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Monday July 23 2018, @02:16AM (1 child)
"What IS a compromise in math?"
2+2=5
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday July 23 2018, @08:31AM
Or the Inidiana Pi Bill [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday July 23 2018, @12:09AM
Well, maybe.
"It shall be henceforth required that Wray and his FBI buddies keep their fat fingers off encrypted devices existing within or owned by persons within the United States of America, and instead be required to protect the rights of each individual resident of or visitor to the United States. Wray or any of his FBI or other LEO/TLA buddies found guilty of not working diligently to protect the civil rights of each individual shall be guilty of one count each of violation of the said individual's civil rights, with the penalty not to exceed life imprisonment upon a single count."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday July 23 2018, @04:00PM
Sort of. Except that trying to conceal knowledge is generally not possible, and impossible after it has been publicly shared.
But it is not possible to regulate and criminalize the use of knowledge.
The strategy will be that anyone wanting to use encryption electronically will either use a pre-approved (read:backdoored) product, or that the use of non-approved encryption products becomes a criminal offense in and of itself. It will be worded in a way that makes in constitutionally defensible - you have a constitutional right to free speech and to not self-incriminate but you have no right to freely encrypt that speech nor to avoid divulging keys in the face of a warrant. The law will enshrine that.
This is the FBI saying that if "industry" doesn't roll along with developing a product that can be backdoored the legislation will be still harder on the corporations and there will be a regulator which develops the standards used instead of letting industry set their own (with the approval of TPTB).
You individual users don't count or have a say.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:31AM (1 child)
I dearly wish I could have a monopoly on English however, if only to sentence you to a slapping. "Maths" is not a word. "Mathematics" is not plural. There is no such thing as a "mathematic". "Mathematics" is a non countable abstract concept, of which the abbreviated form is "math", just like "physics" is a non countable abstract concept, for which there is no singular form "physic".
Yes, language is dynamic. If enough people use "maths", then it will enter the official lexicon. But dammit, I'm going to fight it all the way there.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:57AM
Sorry mate.
The English I speak has always had it as maths, not math.
You will just have to accept it as one of the limitations of being a colonial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @01:18AM
Think old fashioned "police work" was better? [youtube.com]
Full 1hr interview. [youtube.com] This is one of the issues where everyone should find common ground (humanity). Youtube is the forum where the long-form, bi-partisan intellectual debate is happening. Everyone is against abuses of power -- synthesis through dialectic. It's painful that some of the brightest commenters here have to be walked through current talking points that existed on the old left before the modern right. The corrective gestalt will eject the radicals.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Monday July 23 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)
I'm a traditionalist. With putters, with many things -- I absolutely hate those long putters. And it sounds like you are too. Because you say, "oh, do it the old fashioned way!" But the world is changing all around us. With the websites, with the cyber, with the cellphones, with the digital.
Many crooks use guns in their horrible crimes, as everybody knows. Look what happened in Los Angeles last night. Can you imagine, somebody gets shot. And you're saying, "oh, don't look at the bullet!" Our Law Enforcement has guys that are very gun-adept. Forensic scientologists. They can just look at a bullet and they know what kind of gun it came from. They take one look, they say, "oh, this is .22 caliber!" Or .45 caliber. And much more. They know. And that can help A LOT in the investigation. Or in court.
Cellphone, same thing. Many crooks use cellphone in their crimes. And our Law Enforcement has guys that can look at the cellphone. And get a lot of info from that. They use modern cyber. Because the crooks are using modern cyber. Including, unfortunately, encryption. We have the cyber to get past encryption. But it's not easy. It needs to be easy. And that's all Chris is asking for. Make it very easy. It's called Responsible Encryption. They had it in France, it worked very well. They stopped it, they had Charlie Hebdo. They had Bataclan. They had Nice, the truck attack in Nice. Big mistake! Responsible Encryption means less work for our Law Enforcement. And that means BIG SAVINGS for our taxpayers!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @06:13AM
Kinda funny this call for weak encryption. Its either ENCRYPTED, or its OBFUSCATED.
If genuinely encrypted, only the parties in the communication are privy to it.
If its just obfuscated, anyone with a de-obfuscator can tap in. Its just a bathroom lock. Nothing more. Nothing less. Its just a courtesy thing so someone does not walk in on someone else doing his private business. If anyone wants to be an ass about it, they can always use a paper-clip to get in. Damn near everyone knows how.
With governments crying about having weak encryption, could anyone tell me why the government was so pissed over Snowden? I mean, privacy isn't all that important is it?