NY Police Commissioner Bill Bratton Latest To Complain About Phone Encryption
from the law-enforcement-still-trending-at-100%-opposed dept
The latest law enforcement official to enter into the "debate" over phone encryption is none other than NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, most famous around Techdirt for being "not Ray Kelly." Bratton sees eye-to-eye with pretty much every other critic of Google's and Apple's move to provide encryption by default: this is bad for us (meaning "law enforcement"), therefore new laws.
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton ratcheted up the rhetoric against Google and Apple Friday, vowing to push for legislation now that the tech giants have announced operating systems with encryptions that block law enforcement access.That's some mighty fine spin by Bratton. Something that will make a vast majority of the public's data less susceptible to hackers' attacks is a "disservice to the public" because in a very small number of cases, this encryption could hamper an investigation. Because some criminals might use this encryption, no one should be allowed to have it.
“It does a terrible disservice to the public, ultimately, and to law enforcement, initially,” he said. “It really does impede our investigation of crimes.
Bratton also fired the following (cheap) shot across the bow of the cell phone giants, insinuating that the companies are profiting from law enforcement pain, deliberately.
“For them to consciously, for profit and gain, to thwart those legal constitutional efforts, shame on them.”Businesses turn profits. Otherwise, they're not businesses (or not in business for long). Offering encryption by default does not -- in itself -- make Apple and Google more money. Nor does "thwarting legal constitutional efforts." It could actually be argued that this will cost both companies more money in the long run, considering they will both be facing additional legal challenges and very-specifically-targeted legislation.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, who notes that he's in "lockstep" with Bratton's views, sounds like he's in lockstep with the former keepers of NYC's security state -- Ray Kelly and Michael Bloomberg -- when he opines that the balance between privacy and security should always be tilted towards law enforcement.
"I think that the balance, however ... can’t be one where saving people’s lives, solving serious crimes from child abuse to terrorism, is the price we have to pay for blanket privacy.”I keep hearing "child abuse" and "terrorism," but keep envisioning law enforcement's desired encryption backdoor being used for the same thing Stingray devices and cast-off military gear are used for: plain vanilla drug warring and other assorted "normal" criminal investigations. Tears are shed over the pedophile who got away, but in practice, it's rarely anything more than Officer Smith flipping through the digital rolodex of some low-level meth dealer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill bratton, encryption, nypd, phone encryption, phones
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When you tally it up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In nearly every case of complaint about encryption I notice one thing missing. It's all rhetoric with no actual cases supporting the data needed to be available this instance. All the previous examples have been exposed to be lies.
When the police continually move to block accountability within ranks, block that info from public exposure, and continue to lie, it catches up. This is why the public does not trust the cops anymore. They will have to earn that trust and respect and so far they are failing miserably.
The abuse of the system has led to this. These corporations are doing this to protect their bottom lines. In nearly all cases no one from authority has owned up to the fact these actions have repercussions in the real world. Either user data is protected or the customers will go where it is. It's no longer a choice. The spying from authorities has gotten a reaction and it's one they don't like.
Too bad, you brought it on yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news, Bill Bratton's phone data hacked because he couldn't encrypt it.
Hey there Bill Bratton here, well, not really, but I could be, because you see, I was able to get data from Bill Bratton's unencrypted phone. I was able to read every e-mail ever sent / received, every text message, every one of his, god help me, nude selfies (I'm currently using a bottle brush to try and wipe away the images from my mind, with little success I might add). I'm in the process of opening up several lines of credit in his name, and have sold his CC info to Russian Mobsters.
I've also sold all secret information about undercover officers that was on my tablet, also unencryptable, so we have many police officers in mortal danger because of the legislation that I pushed for.
Somebody please shoot me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
F*ck.
You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thwart what?
Isn't being safe from from hackers (primarily) and unwarranted search and seizures (secondary) exactly the constitutional effort is being exercised here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, really, what else is there to say? Oh, wait, I found one thing,
"to thwart those legal constitutional efforts, shame on them."
How utterly ironic that this is the one time these scumbags pretend to care at all about the constitution or laws. It seems he thinks the constitution doesn't give the public the right to privacy, it gives him the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to browse around your phone's contents because "mutter mutter children or something"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet, they even get it wrong here. It makes me wonder if they've ever actually read the thing. They certainly don't appear to understand it.
Note the story earlier today, where once they've got it, they feel free to do whatever they want to with it, sharing it amongst all their LEO compadres, never bothering to delete any of it in case it might be useful in some future fishing expedition. The NSA's "grab it all" mentality is as infectious as ebola, it seems.
Thank you Edward Snowden! He's not the one who should be up on charges of treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To date, there's been no arrests for the multi-trillion dollar frauds that caused the financial crisis.
These guys are the Golden Keystone Kops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedophiles and terrorism
All I can picture is an obnoxious little chicken running in circles whining "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a crime encryption could have prevented
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legalize torture
those legal constitutional efforts, shame on them."
I think the best argument for encryption even when it poses an absolute obstacle to legitimate law enforcement is by analogy to torture and coerced confessions which is absolute and unconditionally forbidden.
You can't legally use torture or other coersive techniques to obtain information even where the information is crucial to saving a life of a child unless you are willing to let the suspect walk free.
If there is a device which effectively enables everyone to refuse to divulge any incriminating thoughts to law enforcement, such a device should not be condemned but applauded.
What's the difference between a child kidnapper storing the evidence of his crime in his mind and another storing the evidence on his encrypted cell phone?
For purposes of the Constitution there is little practical difference, since the government can't legally use torture in the two scenarios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legalize torture
Sure you can. It happens every day.
"Give us the names of your contacts or we'll let it slip that you're now a police informant."
"Tell us where your brother is and maybe we won't charge you with murder."
"Testify against this other person, and we won't pile on enough charges to get you locked up for the next 50 years at your trial."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ticking timebomb
The police finds a suspect who refuses to divulge his password, and the coconspirators get away and let off the bomb or kill the hostage.
But even there, encryption is no different than storing the same information in the brain.
If the suspect pleads the fifth and refuses to talk, the police may avoid reading him his Miranda rights and any voluntary unwarned confessions may be used against the suspect at a later criminal trial, but even public safety does not permit the government to use involuntary confessions or derivative physical evidence at trial.
Torturing or threatening a suspect is absolutely no no, and the legal possibility to compel him to divulge his password is fact intensive and is difficult to satisfy and takes time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who complain about the public's right to their own security are obviously not working for the public's best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There, fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The White House Press Corps are starting to share stories amongst themselves, having become jaded by the lies they're being fed by officialdom. Hopefully, that's the start of a trend, and The Fourth Estate will become once again a force for good.
How Rep. King gets away with his obvious paranoid psychosis is a mystery. He's going to hurt himself with all that weird hand-waving he's prone to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry. It's hard to keep all these loonies' deeds straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encryption
Gone are the days of using a scanner to listen to them lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legalize torture
"Tell us where your brother is and maybe we won't charge you with murder."
"Testify against this other person, and we won't pile on enough charges to get you locked up for the next 50 years at your trial." "
The first one is very borderline, and if directed to an inmate incarcerated with dangerous criminals, it may well be illegal because such a threat may be unconstitutional compulsion.
However, threatening an individual with more severe charges is not necessarily unconstitutional *if* the promise or threat is made as part of a plea bargain negotiation.
There are limits to what the police may threaten or promise a suspect.
Very often the difference is not so much about what is meant as much about how it is said.
My point is that if you lawyer up, refuse to talk to the police and plead the fifth and jump through all the hoops required by the Supreme Court's gloss on invoking the Fifth and Sixth Amendment you may often win.
All your examples won't become dangerous provided the suspect knows his rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xkcd.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bearin mind of course
So what is being complained about here isn't being unable to gain lawful access to a device, its about being unable to gain access to a device without filing the paperwork first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tipping point
I think this encryption issue is starting to show that the government has become so unrepresentative of the people that it no longer can understand how the public thinks, and as a result, can no longer sway us with their ridiculous rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bearin mind of course
All the encryption cases under RIPA resulting in criminal convictions have concerned easily proven encryption schemes and scenarios where the ownership and access was not in doubt.
Compare UK law to the Fifth Amendment, and there is in fact little difference.
(1) Under RIPA, if the government can prove you own a computer, is able to decrypt data you must comply or risk criminal prosecution.
(2) Under the Fifth Amendment, you can also be compelled to decrypt data if the government can prove your ability to do so and you can also be convicted of criminal contempt if your willful refusal can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But under neither law are you going to jail if the government is unable to prove that there is encrypted data, and that you has the ability to decrypt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bearin mind of course
Decryption keys would certainly qualify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bearin mind of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Child Abuse" and "Terrorism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]