SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the nothing-to-hide-vs-none-of-your-business dept.
The New York Times published an interesting story about the fears of the current FBI director:
The director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, said Thursday that federal laws should be changed to require telecommunications companies to give law enforcement agencies access to the encrypted communications of individuals suspected of crimes.
... Mr. Comey warned that crimes could go unsolved if law enforcement officers cannot gain access to information that technology companies like Apple and Google are protecting using increasingly sophisticated encryption technology.
“Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,” he said.
Mr. Comey said that he was hoping to spur Congress to update the 20-year-old Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which does not require companies to give law enforcement direct access to individuals’ communications.
The F.B.I. has long had concerns about devices “going dark” — when technology becomes so sophisticated that the authorities cannot gain access to them. But now, Mr. Comey is warning that the new encryption technology has evolved to the point that it could adversely affect crime solving.
The kicker is this line:
“Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism, even with lawful authority."
Of course, it should be no surprise to the FBI why so many people are going "dark" and using things like Tails. For decades, the government has proven time and again that it can't be trusted to act lawfully and constitutionally. The FBI is responsible for more than its share of that. So naturally those who can are going to take steps to protect their privacy and Apple and Google, among others, are simply responding to that demand.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday October 17 2014, @12:25PM
For the latinophobe: "Who watches the watchmen?"
When was this alleged magic time where police was able to solve every crime? What time did they have full access to all our communication? Currently they already benefit greatly from new technology (e.g. from people photographing / filming crimes inadvertently.) There seem to be a lot of crimes documented, e.g. policemen filmed while using excessive force against civilians
Yes, civil rights restrict law-enforcement. But what do we law-enforcement for, if not to protect our rights?!?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 17 2014, @01:42PM
And when was this alleged magic time when every police officer was honest? It is possible that Mr. Comey has never beaten a suspect, never planted false evidence, never suppressed exculpatory evidence, never accepted a bribe or abused his powers to blackmail anyone or stalk an ex-spouse. I'm more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, just like our legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. But surely he must be aware that other police officers do these things, and that the public is entitled by the Bill of Rights to protection against predators who wear badges.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @10:55PM
"What time did they have full access to all our communication?"
Before computers made powerful encryption easy and electronic communication made transmission of said message easy too. So when everybody sent unencrypted letters on paper and stored letters in their home. The authorities had slightly easier time. At least proof wise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @11:20AM
No. That time, they were severely limited by human resources available, because automated collection of information was practically impossible. Also, some kind of encryption was used even in paper-communication. Proving who sent which information was practically impossible.