'Just follow the damn Constitution!' FBI, DoJ skewered over demands for crypto backdoors

Back to square one?

Our "rights" are safe then. Our privacy is as sacred as it always was. Those nasty TLAs which have been busying themselves shouting so uncharacteristically publicly "we NEED back doors in everything (cos we ain't got nothing now. Honest)" ever since Edward Snowden confirmed their ubiquitous unbridled surveillance have been equally loudly and publicly told "no". What a shocker! A fine display of pantomime. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Well, enough ranting about the bloody obvious. The clocks are striking thirteen so it must be time for lunch.

Not Often

does Washington listen, but once in a while....

Now if those same two had a say in the so-called USA Freedom Act... which isn't "freedom". There's some others in Congress who have some knowledge or at least have friends they can call for advice on things like this and they often do. Sadly, the lobbyists and LEO's usually win since logic an reason don't matter when there's power to be grabbed.

I hope this won't come up again, but I suspect there's a willing Congress Critter who will attach a rider that mandates what the FBI, etc. want. Impossible it maybe, they'll still mandate it.

Reaping what you sow..

That is all.

But god it is funny watching em run now....

"with elections not too far off"

Despite what you may have been led to believe by the nearly unending presidential election cycle, there won't be any major US elections for another year and a half.

"Conley said the technology was aiding child pornographers, terrorists and, rather bizarrely, people who take upskirt photos of women on public transport."

Given the number of public figures who are subsequently found doing the thing they are supposed to prevent, are we taking any bets on this? That does seem oddly specific.

"with a warrant, of course"

ROFL!

How long would that last? Perhaps a few months, before they 1> start doing it anyway and 2> Start agitating for it to be legal "or you're aiding terrorists and paedophiles!!!"

And none of them consider that there are places outside the USA. How the hell are US tech companies supposed to sell stuff abroad which is specifically known to be backdoored by the US government?

At last!

The message is starting to begin to commence to get through.

This is why, as an American

I buy non-American encryption.

"Apple and Google don't have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does, and to me it's very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution. And because the NSA didn't do that and other law enforcement agencies didn't do that, you're seeing a vast public reaction to this."

A politician said this? I like this guy.

TSA locks, anyone?

Since when to travel to USA you are forced to ensure your luggage carries a standard backdoor - of course just to be used by TSA personnel for security reasons - your luggage can be easily opened by anyone, and if you really store anything valuable in it, you're really very naïve or an idiot. I would like to know how many terrorists have been arrested or deterred by TSA locks, and how many goods were even more easily stolen because of them. And often, by TSA personnel itself.

Is FBI going to ask a backdoor in every safe and door, because inside it or behind it there could be an evidence, or a crime is being committed?

Sure, just like technology can help investigations - think DNA - it could also make them more difficult, especially if law enforcement agencies chase the 'easy way' and don't get prepared for the difficult one.

Or they believe they could also enforce US backdoors in foreign devices? Or once the backdoor exists, refuse to give the key to some countries were it takes very little to be declared an enemy of the state and searched? What if some mobe, even of foreign citizens, is inspected in countries where, for example, homosexuality, or even carrying some books is a crime?

I may understand FBI fears of being unable to gather evidence. But tha is a risk that always existed in a democracy. Better they stop asking for a dangerous, unlawful easy way, and invest in training to better investigation techniques.

TSA Locks as an Alibi

There have been many reports of individuals, after they arrived at their destination, discovering they had inadvertently left knives, guns, and even cans of shaving cream or mid-sized bottles of (insert liquid of choice) in their checked and in some cases carry-on luggage. Items which the TSA somehow failed to detect.

Remember this the next time you are accused. Just point out that the mandatory TSA Locks are like the marijuana found in a trash can ploy. Anyone could have put it there, since the TSA Lock is an open door for how many TSA security checked but not law enforcement and uninvestigated-yet employees, luggage handlers, ramp personnel, and so on.

It doesn't even matter what country you are in at the moment. The TSA-approved locks are so ubiquitous, in so many airport stores and such, that there isn't a government, or criminal organization, in this world who doesn't already have the master key.

For that matter, your personal vehicle . . . there are only so many mechanical keys and keycodes available. you'd be surprised how many different locks your car key will open.

re TSA Locks as an Alibi

I forgot to point out that, as with TSA locks, so with government-mandated encryption. All you have to do to establish reasonable doubt is point out the huge number of organizations and people, government, criminal (yes, I know that's redundant, but . . .), corporate and otherwise who have the "keys".

This is all very good.....

But it will be better when Washington no longer lets the military, security agencies and LEAs continue framing the "privacy vs security" debate. So far it has only produced bad legislation, extensive, highly intrusive police powers with no real oversight, trillion dollar war expenditures, and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Currently, the pols seem more focused on perpetuating bad legislation (like the Patriot Act) or creating more bad legislation (like SOPA and PIPA), instead of encouraging better law enforcement practice and enforcing legislation that was passed in quieter times.

I prefer a few Iphone-brandishing terrs to heavily armed police forces hell-bent on removing what is left of our 4th Amendment rights in the name of "public safety". The first can be countered in a number of ways and will eventually quiet down. I wish I could say the same for the latter.

At least the debate is coming out and has started to look sane. Actions must now follow words. Let's start by eradicating post 9/11 hysteria from the discussion. It has only fuelled one of the arguably worst and darkest periods in American (and world) history.

Strong encryption and fast-paced, ubiquitous technology are not the enemy. OBL and his heritors are killing people with weapons that are centuries old. Most tech users just want to live in peace, improve their lives or gain a livelihood. They don't all need to be wearing a global ankle bracelet.

Legislative over-reach and surveillance has to be reined in now, before it gets worse. Nations will not grow their economies or thrive freely in an environment where citizens must constantly look over their shoulders, live in fear or expend energy trying to defend themselves against clumsy, misguided, or downright corrupt, state-mandated prying (and newly-enabled cyber-criminals).

The founding fathers understood this problem very well. That is why the 4th amendment was written into the US Constitution. That is why we have courts, rules of evidence and limits on police and state power. That is why you should encrypt your phone, your correspondence, your data and anything else about your life that you would like to keep private. If the cops want to look at your private life, they need to go before a judge and get a warrant or else arrest you.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ..."

In my book, "things" pretty much covers it all... but then I am not a constitutional scholar just someone who is sick of the whole filthy debate and the stain it has left on democracy.