So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
from the 'terrorism'-no-longer-'motivational'-enough dept
The discussion over cellphone encryption continues, with much of the "discussion" being FBI director James Comey's insistence that Apple and Google simply can't do the very thing they're doing... and offering zero legal reasons why they can't. There have been a lot of horribles paraded around during the past few weeks, mainly of the terrorist or pedophile variety. None of it has been very persuasive to anyone not wearing a badge. The converts continue to love the preaching while those on the outside look on in bemusement.
It's not just Apple and Google at this point. Whatsapp, the messaging app Facebook recently purchased, will be providing end-to-end encryption. Twitter is fighting National Security Letter gag orders in court.
The Wall Street Journal's recent article provides a closer look at the reactions of the upper echelon of law enforcement (DOJ and FBI) but only finds more of the same.
The No. 2 official at the Justice Department delivered a blunt message last month to Apple Inc. executives: New encryption technology that renders locked iPhones impervious to law enforcement would lead to tragedy. A child would die, he said, because police wouldn’t be able to scour a suspect’s phone, according to people who attended the meeting."A child would die." That's the argument. That's almost the only argument.
I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well how come you can't save this kid,' 'how come you can't do this thing.'" (Sept. 25)
Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal.' [Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier] (Sept. 30)
Eric Holder: 'When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child...' (Oct 1st)
As a result, child predators, terrorists, and other criminals could go free, he [James Comey] warned. (Oct. 30)Unsurprisingly, when the subject was first broached in this fashion, Apple reacted as any company would when faced with the insinuation that its latest feature would kill children.
The meeting last month ended in a standoff. Apple executives thought the dead-child scenario was inflammatory. They told the government officials law enforcement could obtain the same kind of information elsewhere, including from operators of telecommunications networks and from backup computers and other phones, according to the people who attended.There are other options, but the FBI and DOJ only want the easiest route. To get it, the same argument is presented again and again. The FBI, along with other law enforcement officials, have accused Apple and Google of marketing to criminals. The companies have reasonably responded by presenting the alternatives the FBI and others are willfully ignoring. Files stored on phones are often stored elsewhere. Talk to service providers. Demand the information from the suspects themselves.
James Comey says he wants to have a "discussion," but plugs his ears and shouts about pedophiles and dead children when options other than a law enforcement-only "back door/front door" are brought up. Apple and Google have told the FBI to change the law if it doesn't like the new reality. James Comey and the DOJ's second-in-command, James Cole, know this is the route they have to take if they want to force Apple and Google to drop encryption. They also know the current backlash against government surveillance makes this pursuit anything but a foregone conclusion.
And, so, Comey and Cole exhume the corpses of child victims and give them lead roles in their pathetic, ghoulish puppet show -- something they perform for any halfway-sympathetic audience. Comey and others in law enforcement know what it will take to pass legislation or amendments in their favor.
[Deputy Attorney General James] Cole predicted that [law change] would happen, after the death of a child or similar event.So, it would appear that both sides of the argument are waiting for a watershed event to prove their respective points. Apple's Tim Cook believes "something major" will happen that will prove to customers that his company's decision to provide encryption by default was the right one. The DOJ and FBI, on the other hand, are apparently waiting for something much more tragic: the severe abuse and/or death of a child at the hand of criminal in possession of an encrypted phone.
One side is waiting for a horrible event their customers are shielded from. The other side is waiting for a horrible event to convert into legislative currency. If the side looking to exploit a tragedy strikes first, the second watershed event -- the one Tim Cook posits -- will have no positive outcome. The FBI isn't just willing to use dead children to achieve its aims. It's also willing to sacrifice the public's privacy and security at the same time.
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: children, doj, encryption, fbi, fud, james comey, legislation, mobile encryption
Companies: apple, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A child will die...
Maybe police will say it, but will it be the truth? Or did Mr Cole just threaten to kill a child and then lie about it to make a political point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A child will die...
They will either die by an "illegal" thug, being tracked and/or raped and/or murdered and/or dumped.
OR
They will die by a "legal" thug, being tracked and/or raped and/or murdered and/or dumped.
The problem is that the person with legal authority to be a thug gets far more protections than a criminal!
And the biggest problem is that just because they are from the Government that they claim they CAN be trusted any more than a CRIMINAL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who will benefit
They are all honorable men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will benefit
The Florida State University shooter was a former prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who will benefit
And the point we should possibly make at this place is that "due to the FBI & NSA's reliance on the dead child argument, any future situation that backs this up should be heavily investigated." Since we know there are alternative means of investigation, encountering a situation where a device is encrypted and they just throw up their hands instead of using alternate avenues just proves the point that they should never be tied to one method of investigation, as that breeds incompetence. And we don't want incompetent federal agents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will benefit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you come up with this stuff?
You certainly have a way of bringing things into focus Mr. Cushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More doom and gloom and doomsday scenarios coming from a Democratic administration? So, Democrats are practicing the same BS that they accuse Republicans of doing? LOLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
James & James aren't elected politicians. They were appointed to their positions of FBI PR Flack numbers one and two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the feds care so much about dead children...
But no. Instead the FBI spends its resources spying on OWS, targeting peaceful protestors, painting environmentalists as dangerous radical terrorists ZOMG!
So please. The feds have plenty of tools at their disposal to work a lot of already-pending cases involving children. They could be doing it right now, legally, above board, using known, tested, Constitutionally-viable legal tools. But they're not. And they won't. Because missing and dead children are not important to them. They're not a priority.
So who is it, exactly, that's not protecting children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the feds care so much about dead children...
Priorities are priorities. Besides, dead children are useful pawns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the feds care so much about dead children...
Especially when you'd rather be busting drug dealers and confiscating their assets. Dead children don't have any assets to speak of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was wondering the same thing.
It's a category of crime that despairs for attention by the FBI, or any agency to give a shit, and (heh, karma) might have actually lent them cases that they solved by tracking a phone.
The FBI doesn't care about solving crime or saving lives. It cares only about its own perseverance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Encryption doesn't kill people. People kill people.
To de-encrypt the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
To conquer a nation, first de-encrypt its citizens.
Encryption in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.
[...and there's plenty of more by just adding "encryption" to pro-gun slogans.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree.
Er, what are you saying exactly, please? Psychos and mentally ill people are allowed to own guns in the USA? Since when?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psychos and mentally ill
Very few of us who are diagnosed with a mental illness are dangerous. And of those who can be a danger to themselves or others, many are dangerous because of behaviors that have nothing to do with the gun.
Yes, I know, in the movies psychopaths are easy to spot and wear hockey masks and frequent wildnerness cabins. Here in the real world, they have rights like everyone else, though.
Still those places that like extra helpings of gun regulation like to refuse those of us missing a few marbles of our second-amendment rights. A friend of mine here in California was committed once, so she can't be near a firearm because they're afraid she'll go all Addam Lanza and shoot up a school. Or something.
Serial killers and spree killers are extremely rare. But we freak out over them, when most gun incidents are accidents and suicides, and that's including gang-on-gang homicide.
There's one exception: we just don't know how many innocent people are murdered every year by law enforcement because they keep those numbers under wraps despite legal mandates to report them. When an officer plugs a kid in the line of duty, it's up to the officer to report the death. And as the Ferguson situation demonstrated, he might not get around to it for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psychos and mentally ill
I beg to differ. While I have no issue with the idea of mentally ill people owning firearms (thus getting a pass from me), psychos shouldn't be allowed them because of the high likelihood they'll use them on other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, please specify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, please specify.
So what is your definition of a psycho? I thought a psycho was a somewhat disparaging term for someone who is mentally ill.
Are you referring to a psychopath? That's a subcategory of someone who's already committed a crime and is invoking an insanity plea. In that case, I agree with you, but given they've already committed a crime so severe that they're invoking an insanity plea, they already don't have access to guns on the account that they're criminal.
Are you referring to someone with a psychoeffective disorder? Most of these folks by far are harmless and should not have their rights limited due to a diagnosis.
Are you referring to someone with a psychosis? Most of these folks by far are harmless and should not have their rights limited due to a diagnosis. Granted some may not have a very good grasp of reality, but considering the responses from the public to the Wilson Grand-Jury verdict, this seems to be a very common problem.
Psychos are not obvious and visible as they are in the movies. They look, act, and should hold the same rights as you or I.
In fact, by one of the definitions above, I'm a psycho and have the right to bear firearms, but many in my state would rather that wasn't the case. I choose not own a gun because they're expensive and loud and I have adequate alternatives for my circumstances, but should ever have need to pick up a weapon, I'd still want that right to be available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, please specify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality is much more ambiguous.
Say you were to decide anyone diagnosed by a doctor with APD was to be disarmed: Then doctors would suddenly have that power. People would avoid getting examined for fear of being determined to be a threat. Psychiatrists would then tend to avoid using the APS diagnosis in order to prevent accidentally outing them and causing their rights to be denied. Much like HIV+ diagnoses in the 80s, they'd end up omitted from records or enciphered so as no-one outside the hospital would recognize it.
Say you were to decide anyone who was a threat to themselves of others was to be disarmed. Well, that's an awful lot of domestic abusers. Human beings are a pugilistic species, and we're often looking for cause to throw a punch. Many of us cannot control our tempers and look for targets on which to exercise our aggression (Personally, I don't get it at all, and would happily see them all put away, but it's a lot of people. It seems to be a condition that humans cannot control themselves, not just a case of a few ill-behaved exceptions.)
Yes, this means that someone does have to commit a crime before we deny them rights, but to do otherwise presents a vector for power abuse. Everyone, no matter how crazy deserves due process. Just as they deserve it no matter how religious, ideological, terror-minded, racist, or degenerate they are, they still deserve due process before their rights are infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reality is much more ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reality is much more ambiguous.
Though to be fair, in today's justice system, due process works very poorly as well, incriminating far more people than are actually guilty of crime or wrongdoing. But to say the system is broken is to say we should fix it. To say we should create other systems is to say we don't have faith in the system we have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Casting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Casting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Casting
Then again maybe the screenwriters will write intelligent solutions that the government seems to be lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Casting
I'll volunteer James & James. They're acting like children and they don't appear to be doing anything useful at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are implicitly encouraging people to go buy phones by threatening that one day they (the phones) will be banned and that folks should stock up (like people did with firearms when the current President was elected and rumors flew that 'they're going to take maa guns').
Now why would they want to encourage that? Heads they win (ban is passed, Apple & Google need to invent new models) and tails they win (more sales of phones offering encryption).
Do these people (using the world losely) have to disclose their investments to the public? Thought not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law enforcement is just getting bitter that their favorite way of going fishing is being removed, or rather requires them to do a little more work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how that future will play out.
"Yes, your honor. We tracked the cellphone of the defendant, which we then accessed via a back door to discover evidence he raped and killed the child."
"So, how did the law enforcement track the cell phone?"
"We can't disclose that information, your honor."
"Why not?"
"We have an NDA on the methodology with the FBI."
"What? That's nonsense. May I see this NDA?"
"No, your honor. There's an NDA on the NDA."
"Fine. Let's start with that one, and make note I'm getting tired of this game." [gets handed NDA] "There's nothing here but a date. The entire thing has been redacted."
"Yes, your honor. We're sorry, but that's the law."
"Good grief. Okay, here's what we're going to do. I want the methodology on my bench by tomorrow. Do you understand this? Tomorrow."
"Your honor, I've been instructed to remove the prosecution's methodology from the case."
"You do realize this means the rest of the information is no longer permissible."
"Yes, your honor."
"This means there's no case."
"Yes, your honor."
"Very well. Young man, you're free to go. Our apologies the court has wasted your time."
The following day, a small snippet in the local paper details the accidental death of an accused child sex offender who was hit and killed by a Bearcat driven by an intoxicated officer who was sending naked images of those he incarcerated to other members of the police force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manufacturing the perfect justification
The distinction between the truth, government manufactured truth and a government lie which for purpose of the law can be treated as truth is therefore illusory.
Suppose that the FBI suspects someone of something serious whether it's tax fraud, child pornography or knowing noncompliance with a regulatory regime which may also be a crime, and wants access to his phone.
They can't get in but sets him up for perjury.
First, law enforcement sends him a message with a link to something advertised as CP or it initiates an undercover conversation between the suspect and a government agent.
It does not have to be anythin
If he reads the message and opens the link or participates in the conversation, the government can argue that his phone has accessed illegal content,
and it can now get a warrant to seize the phone as evidence.
But it gets even better due to the law making it a crime to make false statements to the government.
If the suspect slips up and talk to law enforcement without a lawyer and attempts to deny a easily disprovable fact he may both be subject to prosecution for knowingly accessing CP and lying to the government.
In that case, I am sure that the government will argue that even if the 'child' and all other facts are government manufactured, the information is vital to saving a child.
So the government does not have to kill a real child, it can manufacture any crime by setting up anyone whom it suspects will take the bait.
Note that the government may lie to you, and legally use a lie as a bait in a sting operation, but you can't lie back even if you suspect everything is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe not a child...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe not a child...
But if a or your child dies (becaue "a child" could always be "your child") then you don't just go "meh, let's make another one". Using "a child" in the example just adds more personal pain to it so that you might think "that guy is right!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
But if a child dies now or did die before that then I guess it is the police's fault? Or still Apple and Google for producing smartphones in the first place? Samsung maybe? Nokia?
I'm confused...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to crack a an encrypted Device
since we already have a torture infrastructure in place, we can simply use that to extract the iphone password from the terrorist and criminals!!(including suspected child killers).
It's like just one more question!
Easy Peasy problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to crack a an encrypted Device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FBI is waiting for a case involving a child that required warrantless phone decryption to solve. That hasn't happened yet. Apple doesn't have to wait, because they've already found people hacking phone data and using it to fake evidence in criminal trials. The whole reason Apple's changing its policies to encrypt by default is because it found out how the system was being abused. If the NSA leaks don't count as a watershed event, what would?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to crack a an encrypted Device
Apart from torture being a sure way to have the evidence excluded from the prosecution's case (hint Fifth Amendment) , torture is simply not reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to crack a an encrypted Device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to crack a an encrypted Device
... and you're an idiot for even trying to believe you're smarter than me. I'll hand over my password in record time. Toot suite! It's the burn/trash/brick the device password, and thanks for allowing me to do that. You lose, sucker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been curious how many encryption kits allow for auxillary passwords
...whether the bricking password or the false-bottom password (the latter of which is more useful in a court that's willing to jail you for contempt...eternally.
But I expect that in a torture-for-password brick-the-phone situation, the police would then operate as the classic mobs of old. First going after your loved ones, and then just leaving you in a scalding shower for two hours. Oops. Didn't know the door was locked. They've given the scalding shower treatment for far, far less than a ticking-bomb / dying-child scenario.
In the case of the very-rare instance of a sexual killer (what we call a serial killer here in the states), neither will do very much to save the kid, but only the FBI is interested in preserving these guys for study. All the other law-enforcement agencies are eager to make sure they die horribly. Too eager, sometimes. And the kid is a casualty, but at least no one else will die.
As a hobbyist, I've dabbled in reading about the more macabre aspects of the Sicilian Mafia and the Third Reich, and the thing is that today's US law enforcement agencies are adopting very parallel methods of both (specifically the Gestapo and the SS). I figure that we just so very much like to take advantage of having absolute power without personal consequences.
I think we should have strong encryption. I think bricking and false-bottom auxiliaries should be standard. But I also think that our law enforcement has become so cuddly with the Surveillance state that they're going to get very ugly about this before giving it up and re-learning old-fashioned detective work.
Now that I think about it, was there ever a time when old-fashioned detective work was standard protocol for real-world law enforcement? Or is that just a thing of Agatha Christie whodunnits and hard-boiled film noir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been curious how many encryption kits allow for auxillary passwords
Klaus Barbie had an "interesting" hobby. He'd lead his victim du jour to the top of a set of stairs, then fire a bullet into the back of his head, attempting to make the body collapse and roll all the way down the stairs onto the landing below. He got pretty good at it after a while.
Yes, post-WWII Israeli Nazi hunting efforts were quite effective and successful. Even the non-government "amateurs" who were in it were pretty good even when backed up with hardly anything in the way of financing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stair rolls in the SS and Law Enforcement
Interestingly that was a Chicago PD favorite since prohibition, where the suspect would trip down the stairs until he got it right... that is, either fess up or break his neck. I expect the length of the stairwell was chosen based on the desired outcome.
Granted, prohibition was an exciting time for Chicago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stair rolls in the SS and Law Enforcement
Hollywood stuntmen have since turned this into a fine art. There is a safe way to do it and not kill yourself/break something/get paid while not laid up in hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope I'm just inferring
Yes, post-WWII Israeli Nazi hunting efforts were quite effective and successful.
I truly hope that is not to imply we have to look as far as under-financed Nazi-Hunters before we find an instance of an organization where detective work is a norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I really hope I'm just inferring
Well, Mike Hammer was known to go after bad guys just for having pissed him off! They were lucky he let them die as fast as he did.
Remember that Schwarzenegger film, "The Commando"? Rae Dawn Chong asks Arnold "What happened to Skully?" "I let him go."
He was holding Skully by his feet over a bridge. Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would love to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct me if I am wrong but ...
It would seem that there is a lot of pressure that can be mounted that way without violating public privacy on a whole.. Even with a material witness order the person can be compelled to show that information because doing so, in the eyes of the court anyway, is not self incriminating.
Or have the LEOs just gotten lazy?
People who use technology to commit crimes will find another way, rather rapidly. Even if the device does not have it by default does not mean it cannot be added through some other app.
I only know of once case where there was information that LEOs could not get that had to do with a child being killed. That child was already killed an another brutalized. (Joseph E Duncan III). I would love to know if there are actual cases like the ones Comey is using to attempt to force his rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya know....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ya know....
Agreed, except in this case they aren't. Apple (thank you) and Google (and thank you) appear to be just as determined to implement this, and the full court press of LEOs whining Chicken Little stories haven't appeared to produce any pushback from the public on this, nor does Congress appear to be the least bit interested in tweaking any laws in the LEOs favor.
I guess we have to accept the fact that James Comey sucks as the designated FBI PR flack. Maybe he can get a job with Save The Children, perhaps as a PR spokesman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cnet.com/news/police-accused-of-erasing-cell-phone-footage-of-fatal-beating/
Alas, they'll just end up resorting to either breaking or losing cell phones containing criminal activity of police...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I am wrong but ...
But generally you can't be compelled to testify against yourself unless the information is a foregone conclusion.
You can't be compelled to divulge any incriminating information unless the government either already knows it, or it can authenticate same from an independent source.
In earlier cases where the government was successfull, the suspect had already disclosed knowledge of the password, and the foregone conclusion was therefore met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. They're hoping *someone else* sacrifices a child so they can get what they want.
Totally different thing. Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm... Aren't we missing something...
If you've got the guy in custody... Ask him where the kids is...
I've testified in a murder case with a child victim. Access to the phone would have done nothing. The tower information that showed where the phone went - provided under warrant - was very useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm... Aren't we missing something...
They may be imagining a scenario where a suspected kidnapper gets away but leaves his phone behind and so they have the phone but not the suspect. And of course they know that he must have put the entire plot for the crime neatly detailed on his phone. As every kidnapper would, of course, just in case he forgot what he was doing. And since people can be stupid and alleged criminals are no exception to this rule, maybe there is some credence in the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummmm... Aren't we missing something...
In which case they get the phone company to identify the account holder, and/or a trace of where it has been in the last several days. Actually a trace of where it has been may be more useful that its contents if it include a deserted build, isolated wood etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummmm... Aren't we missing something...
Or, that's all just a smokescreen and all he really wants is to find drug dealers and their suitcases full of cash waiting to be confiscated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm... Aren't we missing something...
If you've got the guy in custody... Ask him where the kids is...
You can only ask, and if he knows his rights he can't be compelled to answer.
Even if I was innocent I would never answer any question but only lawyer up and plead the Fifth.
Think of the implications -- if an innocent person answers Yes, the child is there, he incriminates himself, but if he answers I don't know, and the denial can be disproven, he is on the hook for perjury.
And this is the reason why any law enforcement panic over encryption is actually a stalking horse for permitting coerced confessions and torture.
Encryption is no different from pleading the Fifth.
You have a right not to testify against yourself, and strong unbreakable encryption in a criminal case does therefore not bar the government from any information to which it is otherwise entitled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how many?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how many?
Should we assume moral behavior on the gov't's part? I've seen no reason to assume so so far. It appears to be little more than ongoing rape of citizens' freedom. Perhaps that word's too flamboyant, or sumfin.
Perhaps I'm over-thinking it, and we should offer them more latitude; as they herd us into our boxcar on our way to our designated final destination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I know the real problem.
Voters
We can't have THOSE CRIMINALS running around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justifications based on 'what ifs'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justifications based on 'what ifs'
I'm warning you, don't even think of !@## (whatever that fits) with Charlize. I'm serious. Don't go there. I will hunt you down and make your children watch you die a horrible death. There are some places civilized people won't go. Damnit. She owned Hancock, ffs!
I do hope you're seeing the satire in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law enforcement-only "back door/front door"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, SURE they want to save children...
...unless those children are brown or black or some other non-white color.
...unless those children grown up a bit and decide to oppose the current economic/political/social order. (In that case, the FBI is prepared to frame them.)
...unless those children are shot by racist police, in which case the FBI will defend the racist police.
As always, the cry of "FOR THE CHILDREN!" is a reliable signal that the speaker is a cynical, lying sack of dogshit who is trying to grab power over the bodies of abused, missing and dead children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
Subject has to be known and in hand
The phone ostensibly to be searched is almost always in the possession of the bad guy (the "subject"). To get the phone, you have to be able to capture, arrest, hold, or even just talk with the subject. If you don't know who the subject is, then the whole line of argument is moot: you can't get the phone from an unknown subject.
Phone must be in hand
Not only that, but you have to be able to get the phone from the subject, which needs an excuse, warrant, or force. The problem with this is that the subject may destroy the phone, or may kill the kid immediately on your confiscation of the phone.
Even assuming best case, taking the phone certainly alerts the subject to the investigation.
Required proof is on the phone
You have to be able to get the needed information from the phone. Just because you have the phone doesn't mean it will help you find the kid. Encryption is beside the point; even assuming an unencrypted phone, what if the subject turned the GPS off? Or didn't take a picture of the kid? Or turned the phone off when visiting the kid?
It is reaching to assume any subject will have incriminating data on the phone.
No other path to proof
It's idiotic to assert an attempt to overcome the above difficulties will be made if there is an easier path to the data. Assuming a kid kidnapping, exigent circumstances would apply. If you're looking for back proof, a warrant would apply. Either exigent circumstance or a warrant would get all the cloud data from the phone provider which, it might be pointed out, doesn't require you to have the subject and his phone and evidence on the phone, in hand.
But who cares?!
They'll make the argument anyway because, frankly, like a baby throwing a tantrum over lost candy. They can't see data without wanting it. They don't care if it's a phone, personal computer, cloud, private Facebook account, or your scientific calculator: if it holds data they want it! want it! want it! and will throw a tantrum to get it.
It doesn't have to make sense: so what if your calculator can't contain incriminating evidence? If it contains data, "Want it!!!"
Because: The world will end if we (royal "we") don't have access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because your incompetent
Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal.' [Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier] (Sept. 30)
As well as law abiding citezens
Eric Holder: 'When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child...' (Oct 1st)
Legaly entitlement to lawfully violate rights
As a result, child predators, terrorists, and other criminals could go free, he [James Comey] warned. (Oct. 30)
Oh okay, so when should i expect a 24/7 copper in my house, a camera on every corner, a mike on every desk, a police escort everywhere i go, taking notes on EVERYTHING i do, just incase........oh, you've incorporated all that into this small device here, and you say it does a much better job at violating my right......oh well then, thats, thats, thats just .....dandy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've gotta laugh at criminals calling others criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to use every method possible to extract information from detainee's in order to prevent new terrorist attacks or American's will die.
Personally i don't think that turned out very well and it doesn't really fit in with my understanding of the principles expressed by our founding fathers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would somebody please THINK of the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot calling kettle black there methinks, except the FBI controls most of the drug trade in the US (via confiscation and re-selling)...............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]