Ignorant Anti-Encryption Law Enforcement Groups Made A Logo And A Hashtag... And It All Backfired
from the do-you-even-social-media? dept
Yesterday morning, things kicked off with a ridiculous tweet from the NY Police Department, announcing that it "stood with" the Manhattan DA in calling for "encryption" legislation. Of course, that's inaccurate. What it was really calling for was anti-encryption legislation.Today, 11am at City Hall we stand with @ManhattanDA & advocates to call for encryption legislation. #UnlockJustice pic.twitter.com/hqjRxtAzYO
— NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) April 18, 2016
DA Vance: Crime victims are entitled to stronger protections than criminals #UnlockJustice pic.twitter.com/003FmSGwYn
— Cyrus Vance, Jr. (@ManhattanDA) April 18, 2016
Meanwhile, as is often the case, an attempt by law enforcement to co-opt whatever "the kids these days" are doing by setting up a hashtag failed spectacularly. First off, Vance's office just happened to pick a hashtag that was already in use. Even worse, it was in use by the Quakers to push for criminal justice reform that would "start to reverse the failed 40-year 'war on drugs.' Ooops.
Then, of course, the folks who actually understand technology took the hashtag and ran with it, explaining why Vance's campaign was idiotic.
Remember: encryption protects the families of police too. If you break it, you put them at risk. #unlockJustice
— Keeper of Lore (@munin) April 18, 2016
Strong crypto prevents serious crimes like identity theft, stalking, sabotage and espionage. #UnlockJustice with strong security and crypto.
— matt blaze (@mattblaze) April 18, 2016
People deserve stronger protection than criminals. Default strong encryption protects civilians against muggers and thieves. #UnlockJustice
— the grugq (@thegrugq) April 18, 2016
iPhone encryption helps prevent theft, freeing up NYPD to investigate and solve other crimes. #UnlockJustice
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) April 18, 2016
Encryption protects the safety of those who have been abused by intimate partners or family members, even if the police don't #UnlockJustice
— Riana Pfefferkorn (@Riana_Crypto) April 18, 2016
And you're genuinely arguing that encryption wouldn't help protect victims of cybercrime? #unlockjustice pic.twitter.com/LhOzwh5zzk
— Jenna McLaughlin (@JennaMC_Laugh) April 18, 2016
Encryption protects me and my family from criminals who may steal our portable devices. #UnlockJustice
— Chris Wysopal (@WeldPond) April 18, 2016
Weakening everyone's security for the vague possibility of catching a few crooks is insanity. #UnlockJustice
— Bill Budington (@legind) April 18, 2016
In its quest for total surveillance over our lives, law enforcement is willing to empower criminals by weakening encryption #unlockjustice
— Daniel Nazer (@danielnazer) April 18, 2016
I don't trust people who still use fax machines with my sensitive data. #UnlockJustice
— Cathy Reisenwitz (@CathyReisenwitz) April 18, 2016
NYPD: We want New Yorkers to be more vulnerable to phone & identity theft, robbery, and data breaches #UnlockJustice https://t.co/KRkUZNobMb
— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) April 18, 2016
Giving government authority over every intimate aspect of your private life is a wide gate to enslavement #UnlockJustice
— Jonathan Zdziarski (@JZdziarski) April 19, 2016
Legislate weak encryption and do a big favor for swindlers, identity thieves and nefarious foreign regimes. #UnlockJustice
— michael petricone (@mpetricone) April 19, 2016
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: cyrus vance, encryption, going dark, nypd, unlock justice, unlockjustice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
#ICanSeeYou
#PrivacyIsSoLastCentury
#UnicornGate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourced!
#LeetHakzorsOpenDoorPolicy
#WeKnowBetterThanTheExperts
#ThisIsAReallyLongHashTagButIn TheEndYouCanUseTh1sAsYourPasswordBecauseI+Ha$EverythingYouNeedWhereAreMySocksIAmLate4WorkOhCrapIsThi sThingStillOn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
Cleaning out my browser cache/history..
defraging/cleaning out unused applications...
Replacing old applications with newer versions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
#ClapYourHandsToSaveTinkerbell
#WeAssumeYouAreAPedo
#IdentityTheftOnlyHappensToBadPeople
#LetMeIn YourBackdoor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced! There's a Tear
That is golden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
#EverythingWillBeUsedAgainstYou
#EncryptionAdmitsGuilt
#TheOnePercentAreScared
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When voyeuristic desires are given more importance than privacy and security
Short answer: Not the public.
Slightly longer answer: The ability for the police to access anything and everything they want, without the 'burden' of having to get a warrant and present it to the owner of a device, with the potential of said owner refusing the 'request'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When voyeuristic desires are given more importance than privacy and security
#LegalizeAnySearchAndSeizure
#YourDigitalPapersPlease
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When voyeuristic desires are given more importance than privacy and security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When voyeuristic desires are given more importance than privacy and security
This is what we're calling "fascist" here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Whatever on Apr 19th, 2016 @ 9:07am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How precisely does expecting people to obey they law make the site anti-law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, we all like to sit behind our keyboards and bitch and whine. But what are we going to do about it? Short answer is not a god damn thing. No marches on our local Police stations. No marches to Washington. No letters to our Congresscritters. Nothing. These fukers lie under "Oath," get caught in the lie, and still get to walk away free. If it were you or me though it would be jail time.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160227/20133433735/court-shoots-down-cops-attempting-to-pro p-up-two-warrantless-searches-with-stack-lies.shtml
Where's the outrage, the anger? The average sheep is like meh. It should be:
#NobodyCaresAnymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: I.T. Guy on Apr 19th, 2016 @ 9:10am
As for us, everything is so sensational these days that we've lost the ability to care. Or, at least, many of us have. Or we feel that there's nothing we can do anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, we are doing the worst thing possible in their eyes. We sit at home and secretly (SECRETLY) whine about them. It drives them crazy. Public demonstrations are easily foiled. True freedom is inside our heads and they'll have to take drastic measures to take that away from us.
'You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power - he's free again.' (Solzhenitsyn)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oblig...
#DooDooDooLookinInYourBackdoor
#OmnipresentAuthorityFigureFTW
#NYPDEyeofSauro nProgram
No guarantees these are unused though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cough
Basic encryption (in it's simplest forms) is better than none. It's similar to having a cheap lock on a door rather than no lock at all.
The question is at what point is the lock on the door overkill? Does every door have to be like a bank vault before everyone feels secure? Does everyone have to have super duper mega encryption on everything all the time in order to feel safe?
There is a point perhaps where the level of encryption goes past doing the job and gets on to being legally obstructionist. Just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
No, but I like having the option.
This is about people being able to make that choice for themselves with their own communications and data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
The simple fact is that if everyone knew about this, everyone would want it. Everyone want bad guys to keep their hands off their stuff. What's more attractive than free security. I think we've seen in these fine pages just how for the cops are willing to go to keep our hands off of their private stuff. Why shouldn't we return the complement? The arguments against backdoors are just spooling up. Why not get on the right side of the argument for once, unless you're just here to stir the the pot. Just saying...
[ reply to this |
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
For software security, the answer is "when it requires so much processor power that it significantly slows down other functionality". The issue doesn't really arise for the modern generation of smartphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
That's an easy question: the lock on my door is overkill when when it exceeds the amount of security that I am satisfied with.
What is "strong enough" is a call that only I can make. Nobody else has any business telling me what's too strong. Just as I have no business telling anyone else what their maximum security level should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
After that, I get arrested and dragged to a court, for "destruction of government property", and the judge explains me that the intrusion is not a violation of privacy, since it's a robot and not a human being, and also that what the robot did does not require a warrant, since no human will be looking at the contents of the phone, or use the PIN, and that I will only have any standing when some human eventually decides to have a look at the material. That fact will also be classified.
Maybe I should write a book about something like this. Would be a bit close to that one, though: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
Just because a strong door or strong encryption might slow down a police search warrant execution does not mean it can only be used for evil ends. For every SWAY raid, there are hundreds or thousands of crimes from home invasion to sneaky burglaries -- if there weren't, the police would be out of a job.
Outlawing encryption is no different than outlawing locking your front door when you leave the house. And who gets to decide that your front door is too strong to be legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
Yokels? Yahoos? Yakuza? The list goes on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
If you want to have a good analogy of it: the guys wanting to break your door got, apart from having nukes, a teleport that would allow them to plant themselves in front of your door without anyone being able to stop them.
That being the situation, I wouldn't feel secure if my home wasn't an anti-nuke bunker able to stop Russia and US' combined nuclear arsenals.
If I'm going to be targeted by government level weapons, I'd want government level stuff to protect myself.
Even if that makes the police unable to catch criminals using communications. They still got the odd legwork, that has always worked wonders.
Also: don't forget that the criminals we want to catch would still use that "legally obstructionist" encryption to secure themselves.
So you're telling me that I should be less safe than someone willing to blow my brains in the name of their religion? Not a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
And that other someone, as I've said, has a teleport beacon straight to my door...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
The fact that you choose not to use your real credentials on your device is in itself obstructionist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
That can actually be more dangerous, not less. If the person with the lock doesn't realise it's cheap piece of crap that's easily broken, they may be lulled into a false sense of security compared to if they know it's not locked. Burglars and other attackers will happily take advantage, especially if the only reason the cheap lock is used is because it's legally mandated that it not be stronger.
"The question is at what point is the lock on the door overkill?"
No, the question is who should get to make that choice. If you do not consider a decent lock overkill, and you know you need a better one, should you be forced to use one that you know is easily picked? Or, should you just accept that you feel that your family and property be jeopardised because the police want to break in as easily as the criminals?
"Just saying..."
Yes, we know what you're saying. It's a shame that you can't address the opinions and questions raised in favour of inane contrarian rambling just because you have to try and deflect from the real discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
That's up to the person installing the lock to decide?
There is a point perhaps where the level of encryption goes past doing the job and gets on to being legally obstructionist. Just saying...
No such thing. Security measures are never enough to keep attackers at bay. We re seeing more and more robust encryption being deployed because attacks are becoming more and more sophisticated. And you can blame the Governments (including the US) for that. When Google found out the NSA was tapping into their intra-server communications just because they could they sped up the deployment of strong crypto on these pipes. So, as to answer you, when you have people like China (and the US) meddling everywhere, no lock is overkill enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
Well-placed application of sufficient force can bust open such a door. The police know it, and they have a heavy metal battering ram for quick entry.
Unfortunately, burglars know it too. So, people now generally install uPVC doors incorporating a more comprehensive locking mechanism which latches at multiple points. The nature of the material - it flexes much more than wood - also means that the force of an impact is dispersed somewhat. So the modern door is much more resistant to a literal brute force attack.
So it's a lot harder for burglars to get in - they tend to seek out other methods of entry (it's possibly also why organised criminals lean towards cybercrime these days).
But it's also harder for police to get in. Said doors have been known to withstand more than twenty strikes of the battering ram.
This can cause them problems in (for example) a drugs bust; occupants of the house will likely be woken by the repeated banging, and they may have a chance to flush some of the gear down the toilet.
(But in all likelihood, there will be plenty of other evidence to secure a conviction)
So, I guess it depends what you want. Do you want easy access for everyone - good and bad - or do you want better protection from criminals?
Those are your choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cough
All that does is give criminals and the police a good reason to shoot you first and ask questions afterwards.
Protecting yourself with it is pure fantasy - you wouldn't get the chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
That is an analogy that doesn't work.
In the digital world it is a boolean. You have a secure lock or no lock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cough
Not really, you have a lock that's secure enough against the attacks you're anticipating, or not. For example, some forms of encryption were adequate for most purposes 20 years ago, but would not be sufficient now due to advances in computing power. Similarly, something that's good enough to protect your connection to your bank's web site might not be good enough to protect stored files against a powerful national government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cough
Are you suggesting it would be better to just pretend encryption is there, like instead of a real functional lock on the door... we should have a door with a picture of a lock on it, that doesn't actually work? Do you mean that we shouldnt have a "level of encryption" to the point where the encryption actually works? That services transmitting our personal information, bank information and health information, should pretend its encrypted but should not actually encrypt it?
Maybe you don't understand the technology... I've re-read your comment a few times and not sure what you are even trying to communicate here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the dog and pony show, uuh, press conference
"The lifeblood of the criminal justice system has always been witness testimony. Now however, with witness intimidation, the cell phone data mine from these phones of victims, witnesses, and criminals, the cellphone now, and its data, have become our lifeblood."
So, Mike, it is unfair of you to say that the police fail to do their jobs when, as DA Moore explain, witness intimidation has become so rampant that cellphone data must now take its place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the dog and pony show, uuh, press conference
And who intimidates the witnesses into staying silent lest they get shot?
Why the police, who have decided that everybody else is their enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ignorant Anti-Encryption Law Enforcement Groups..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punctuation
This is missing some important punctuation. It should be "I couldn't find any -- outside of those from the DA's office and various law enforcement people -- that were actually supportive of the campaign." Without it, "that were actually supportive of the campaign" could apply to either the tweets or the "various law enforcement people", and if it were the latter the sentence wouldn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizens are fed up... Time to Fire the Lot of em.
e.g.
From Sascha Meinrath Director of X-Lab and the Palmer Chair in Telecommunication at Penn State University.
"the draft bill, leaked two weeks ago and now officially released, is compelling evidence that Senate leadership should strip – or at least not reappoint – Senators Burr and Feinstein of their positions on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/0419/Opinion-Burr-Feinste in-antiencryption-bill-a-firing-offense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It depends. If it actually works and is effective enough to keep you secure, yes. If it is easily hacked then it's worse than nothing because it makes you think you're secure when you're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Post
Such a great post to know different useful information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]