FBI Director: Ban Encryption to Counter Domestic Extremism

[KLB]

For Apple, they were probably using the method that was just patched to get into phones.

Beyond that, if there is a .gov agency that has some abilities in that area, it would be the NSA. I doubt they are sharing with the other alphabet agencies though.

Why would they would hesitate to use it if they had it? With a warrant, they can break into a vault. Why wouldn't they be able to break into your phone if they could?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Except for that time they were pressuring apple into giving them a back door, claiming they couldn't get into a phone.

Apple denied them, then once the story went silent, they got into that phone.
Almost like they're just lazy assholes who were wanting a faster and easier way to spy on every citizen.

Your alternate history didn't happen.

The story was far from silent, the fight was in SCOTUS, and a 3rd party (Azimuth Security from Australia) developed a method to defeat the encryption.

Apple vs FBI: All you need to know

The legal tussle between Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over access to the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino attacks is now over after authorities announced they had accessed the device.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Keith_Indy]

Yep. As per my post, there is no doubt they can already do it. Its whether they will admit on the record they can in order to obtain legal status. (warrants, present evidence in court, etc)

So currently they can do it, and can see anything they want... but in a HARD only 'off the record' context, and only for the consumption of the intelligence community internally. This push is only to dot the i's and cross the t's so they can use the evidence against us in court.

And leak to fellow travelers in the press and government against anyone not in their club.

 

[kiddchaos]

If you feel like your life has become a Jason Bourne movie, then just keep buying Jason Bourne burner phones.

 

[jsx1043]

If you feel like your life has become a Jason Bourne movie, then just keep buying Jason Bourne burner phones.

For true privacy and security, this is the first step. Beyond that? Get rid of your phone.

Just remember, there’s a reason why the fight about crypto and vaccine passports is happening at the same time.

 

[Leadeye]

Reading all this stuff makes me glad I just have a phone. It's not smart and it doesn't text.

 

[Tombs]

Your alternate history didn't happen.

The story was far from silent, the fight was in SCOTUS, and a 3rd party (Azimuth Security from Australia) developed a method to defeat the encryption.

Apple vs FBI: All you need to know

The legal tussle between Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over access to the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino attacks is now over after authorities announced they had accessed the device.

www.cnbc.com

Clearly it did happen, you just spelled out how it happened.

 

[jkaetz]

I guess I always assumed companies developing encryption technology retained the ability or "keys" to unencrypt data on their systems. I didn't think that was the definition of a backdoor.

Only the algorithm/app is developed by a third party. The keys are generated by you on your device and plugged in. So long as the app or another bad actor doesn't steal them they are not available to anyone else. In most cases the keys can also be changed at will.

A backdoor would be the equivalent of a master key that would always work and couldn't be changed. This would of course make the encryption useless after the key was discovered/leaked/stolen.

 

[foszoe]

When my son's were deployed they were told to use Signal for the encryption and security the app provides. My niece is currently deployed to Africa and she is now using Signal app.

The encryption works. However, if there is a way for the feds to get in than anyone with the proper skills will be.


If the feds can get in they wouldn't be asking for congress to regulate the technology.

Signal...it's not just a mouthwash anymore

 

[Tombs]

Only the algorithm/app is developed by a third party. The keys are generated by you on your device and plugged in. So long as the app or another bad actor doesn't steal them they are not available to anyone else. In most cases the keys can also be changed at will.

A backdoor would be the equivalent of a master key that would always work and couldn't be changed. This would of course make the encryption useless after the key was discovered/leaked/stolen.

The presence of a back door makes the encryption worthless from inception.

 

[AtTheMurph]

The presence of a back door makes the encryption worthless from inception.

We must ban privacy to keep you safe.
We must confiscate weapons to keep you safe.
We must steal your money to give back to you later to keep you safe.
You must do this or that to keep you safe.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Clearly it did happen, you just spelled out how it happened.

The event happened. Your account of it is not what happened. The story did not "go silent", the media covered it blow by blow. They could not get into the phone when they went to court. They were still fighting with Apple when someone else stood up and said they'd figured it out. They then used that someone else and stopped trying to get Apple to help since it was then moot.

 

[jsx1043]

We must ban privacy to keep you safe.
We must confiscate weapons to keep you safe.
We must steal your money to give back to you later to keep you safe.
You must do this or that to keep you safe.

 

[thompal]

Feds can already "backdoor". There is no doubt of this. The issue is Feds presenting the evidence obtained via backdoor in court and trying to explain where/ how the evidence was obtained. It's stunning really. Personal papers offered protection when in locked briefcase. Personal papers locked in phone? Sh***********t. *=i

There's a Supreme Court case from the 80's or 90's which may cloud that issue. Look up Acevedo. I think the spelling is right.

 

[thompal]

Except for that time they were pressuring apple into giving them a back door, claiming they couldn't get into a phone.

Apple denied them, then once the story went silent, they got into that phone.
Almost like they're just lazy assholes who were wanting a faster and easier way to spy on every citizen.

It's possible that the feds cracked it on their own. Way back in the early 90s, it was estimated that the NSA could crack a 1024 bit PGP encrypted message in a couple of months if they dedicated enough CPU power to it. The thought on Fidonet was that if everyone encrypted enough messages constantly, the feds would get so backlogged that they would never be able to do anything in close to real time.

I'm pretty sure that the computing power of the NSA has increased by orders of magnitude since then, so true "privacy" of any particular message may be only a matter of days. And if the feds have cracked whatever backdoors have been put in (or the companies handed them over voluntarily), then they will have near instant access to any message they want. After all, you don't need to spend time picking an individual lock if you have the master key to all of the locks.

 

[Cameramonkey]

There's a Supreme Court case from the 80's or 90's which may cloud that issue. Look up Acevedo. I think the spelling is right.

And it gets even more murky in more recent rulings.

Biometric protections (something you have): You can be compelled to unlock the device.
Password protected (something you may or may not remember) : you cannot be compelled to unlock the device.

 

[BugI02]

yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements

Was there anything in Wray's statements that overtly lead you to believe that those are the people they wish to target?

Banning all guns is manifestly not the solution to their misuse

Banning all privacy from government surveillance is not the solution to any form of terrorism, it is itself a form of terrorism applied to its own citizens

Name one increase in government authority/power that was ultimately never abused

 

[BugI02]

It's possible that the feds cracked it on their own. Way back in the early 90s, it was estimated that the NSA could crack a 1024 bit PGP encrypted message in a couple of months if they dedicated enough CPU power to it. The thought on Fidonet was that if everyone encrypted enough messages constantly, the feds would get so backlogged that they would never be able to do anything in close to real time.

I'm pretty sure that the computing power of the NSA has increased by orders of magnitude since then, so true "privacy" of any particular message may be only a matter of days. And if the feds have cracked whatever backdoors have been put in (or the companies handed them over voluntarily), then they will have near instant access to any message they want. After all, you don't need to spend time picking an individual lock if you have the master key to all of the locks.

Why bother to go this route or brute force decrypt when you can just surreptitiously install spyware that can screenshot the decrypted message on the recipient device and pass it along

See: Pegasus/NSO group

 

[BugI02]

Then he just made the case against "backdoors"

But currently, NSA would have no plausible deniability

Make backdooring no more difficult than unmasking a name in FISA surveillance, where any government official seemingly can do so, and when needed you can push responsibility as far down the chain of command as possible and hang that minor player out to dry

 

[BugI02]

The question is, do the situations where it might be needed outweigh the situations where would be used inappropriately?

Agreed, in the specific case as well as pointing out this test should be used in SO many situations

How many 80 year old people of color who don't drive and have no secure ID or ability to get to the polls actually exist? Are the voting changes instituted to prevent 'voter suppression' used appropriately more than inappropriately

Essentially cost/benefit analysis. Should be done on everything .gov wants to do