View Full Version : FBI director: iPhones shields pedophiles from cops



kelroy55
10-13-2014, 01:30 PM
In an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Comey said Apple's encryption standards for iPhones and iPads "put people beyond the law."

Apple (AAPL, Tech30) recently took measures to enhance user privacy. Now, only users have the key to unlock text messages, photos and emails on their device. As such, iOS 8 will shield your data from anyone -- including police.

Here's how it works: You send a text message that's encrypted on your device. It passes through Apple servers as jumbled code nobody can crack. And it can only get decrypted by your friend's iPhone passcode.

Google (GOOG) has announced it's doing the same for its Android devices.

The FBI director isn't pleased.

The notion that people have devices... that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone? My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there," Comey told CBS.

FBI director: iPhones shields pedophiles from cops - Oct. 13, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/13/technology/security/fbi-apple/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

My sense is the FBI has gone too far if it's complaining it doesn't have full access to our private lives.

Pete
10-13-2014, 01:37 PM
I watched that interview and what he's saying is that they only want access with court orders.

No different than have a legal search warrant for a house but having some sort of lock on it that can't be broken.

BBatesokc
10-13-2014, 01:57 PM
I watched that interview and what he's saying is that they only want access with court orders.

No different than have a legal search warrant for a house but having some sort of lock on it that can't be broken.

And what Apple is saying is "Too bad." And I agree.

Apple should have no obligation to leave a key under the mat for law enforcement.

My fear is that legislation will now be passed requiring companies like Apple to not only give LE the key, but also must store and archive all that data for years - "just in case big brother wants to take a peek."

I hope Apple and the others hold their ground.

Of Sound Mind
10-13-2014, 02:03 PM
I might be more sympathetic to the cries of the FBI director, U.S. Attorney General and other law enforcement agencies if there hasn't been a track record over the last decade of egregious government surveillance overreach and unchecked power of intrusion into the lives of everyday citizens under the guise of the enigmatic pretense of "national security.

Pete
10-13-2014, 03:00 PM
It is true that these various security agencies have violated the public trust and therefore aren't going to get a lot of support on this issue.

Mel
10-13-2014, 03:03 PM
Wonder how this fact will effect I-Phones sales?

Chadanth
10-13-2014, 03:25 PM
I think you're missing the point, probably by confusing the particulars. What the guy was talking about is the ability to decrypt a phone that was lawfully acquired and if apple is served with a warrant. If you're talking about the NSA snooping on your emails, calls and texts, that's completely different, and would occur through the provider. The encryption on the device is irrelevant to them. It's only relevant to law enforcement when it's needed and legally authorized.

The debate about privacy from metadata collection is a separate issue (but still very important).

BBatesokc
10-13-2014, 03:50 PM
I think you're missing the point, probably by confusing the particulars. What the guy was talking about is the ability to decrypt a phone that was lawfully acquired and if apple is served with a warrant. If you're talking about the NSA snooping on your emails, calls and texts, that's completely different, and would occur through the provider. The encryption on the device is irrelevant to them. It's only relevant to law enforcement when it's needed and legally authorized.

The debate about privacy from metadata collection is a separate issue (but still very important).

I'm not missing the point at all. I simply do not support the idea that Apple has to use an encryption that law enforcement (or even Apple) can break.

I don't care if law enforcement does have a warrant for my phone - Apple, nor I have an obligation to to provide access to that information.

I've seen far too many warrants simply rubber stamped by Oklahoma County judges and too many law officers willing to lie to get a warrant.

Does this mean a few criminals will not be caught? Probably. Am I concerned? Not at all when it certainly means the rights of millions of law abiding citizens are more protected because of it.

Jersey Boss
10-13-2014, 04:02 PM
How to encrypt your Android phone or tablet (http://www.greenbot.com/article/2145380/why-and-how-to-encrypt-your-android-device.html)

Chadanth
10-13-2014, 04:03 PM
I'm not missing the point at all. I simply do not support the idea that Apple has to use an encryption that law enforcement (or even Apple) can break.

I don't care if law enforcement does have a warrant for my phone - Apple, nor I have an obligation to to provide access to that information.

I've seen far too many warrants simply rubber stamped by Oklahoma County judges and too many law officers willing to lie to get a warrant.

Does this mean a few criminals will not be caught? Probably. Am I concerned? Not at all when it certainly means the rights of millions of law abiding citizens are more protected because of it.

I fail to see how the rights of law abiding citizens will be protected. Again, the device encryption doesn't protect from the NSA or a title III wiretap. It doesn't protect from law enforcement snooping on your iCloud account. It doesn't stop creepers on reddit from hacking your cloud. It stops law enforcement with a lawful warrant from decrypting your device. That's pretty much it.

Plutonic Panda
10-13-2014, 04:14 PM
I like that Apple has done this and hope other companies follow suite.

Of Sound Mind
10-13-2014, 04:16 PM
I fail to see how the rights of law abiding citizens will be protected. Again, the device encryption doesn't protect from the NSA or a title III wiretap. It doesn't protect from law enforcement snooping on your iCloud account. It doesn't stop creepers on reddit from hacking your cloud. It stops law enforcement with a lawful warrant from decrypting your device. That's pretty much it.
And that suits me just fine. FBI has not been above overstepping its bounds... not by a long shot.

Plutonic Panda
10-13-2014, 04:16 PM
Wonder how this fact will effect I-Phones sales?When I found out about this, I seriously considered getting the 6plus. I am still going with the Note Edge, but that would be a nice feature to have.

BBatesokc
10-13-2014, 04:16 PM
I fail to see how the rights of law abiding citizens will be protected. Again, the device encryption doesn't protect from the NSA or a title III wiretap. It doesn't protect from law enforcement snooping on your iCloud account. It doesn't stop creepers on reddit from hacking your cloud. It stops law enforcement with a lawful warrant from decrypting your device. That's pretty much it.

You can cheerlead your 'lawful warrant' all you want. I see 'lawful warrants' rubber-stamped by Oklahoma County judges on a regular basis by law enforcement all too willing to exaggerate or outright lie to get that warrant justified.

Anytime you put more distance between law abiding citizens and law enforcement personnel you are protecting the rights of the citizenry IMO.

Warrants are too often a tool to try and find an actual crime to support a presumption of guilt that up to that point has no evidence.

I've seen homes torn upside down and cars disassembled on literally no viable evidence whatsoever - leaving the owners to deal with the mess, the grief and the cost.

I know exactly what it stops and I'm very glad for it.

Plutonic Panda
10-13-2014, 04:19 PM
I've seen homes torn upside down and cars disassembled on literally no viable evidence whatsoever
Make sure you don't leave out toddlers getting their face disfigured by explosive tear gas grenades and then the county not paying a dime or even issuing so much as an apology

Chadanth
10-13-2014, 04:24 PM
You can cheerlead your 'lawful warrant' all you want. I see 'lawful warrants' rubber-stamped by Oklahoma County judges on a regular basis by law enforcement all too willing to exaggerate or outright lie to get that warrant justified.

Anytime you put more distance between law abiding citizens and law enforcement personnel you are protecting the rights of the citizenry IMO.

Warrants are too often a tool to try and find an actual crime to support a presumption of guilt that up to that point has no evidence.

I've seen homes torn upside down and cars disassembled on literally no viable evidence whatsoever - leaving the owners to deal with the mess, the grief and the cost.

I know exactly what it stops and I'm very glad for it.

If that's the case, you should be helping those victims with lawsuits. Damages and recorders are the best chance you have of bringing better accountability, but device level encryption doesn't protect you from the privacy concerns most people are expressing, ala Snowden, etc.

BBatesokc
10-13-2014, 04:34 PM
If that's the case, you should be helping those victims with lawsuits. Damages and recorders are the best chance you have of bringing better accountability, but device level encryption doesn't protect you from the privacy concerns most people are expressing, ala Snowden, etc.

This (IMO) just shows how out of touch with this you are..... 'help those victims with lawsuits.' What basis for those lawsuits? Remember...... they have one of those precious 'Lawful Warrants ' - which gives them the right to toss your house or car and rummage through your things in hopes of actually finding something, anything.

Device encryption absolutely protects me and any other law-abiding citizen (and yes, even some less than 100% law abiding citizens). It reminds law enforcement that the entirety of the herd is not going to simply roll over because they say so.

I'm guessing you're all for allowing police officers to search you or your car if they ask nicely and legally - because... "innocent people should have nothing to hide."

I for one won't be bullied into relinquishing a single right or protection if I can avoid it and I certainly support corporations of the same mindset.

I don't fear the mass collection of data like is done by the NSA nearly as much as I fear the specific and deliberate collection of data from individuals.

Chadanth
10-13-2014, 04:41 PM
This (IMO) just shows how out of touch with this you are..... 'help those victims with lawsuits.' What basis for those lawsuits? Remember...... they have one of those precious 'Lawful Warrants ' - which gives them the right to toss your house or car and rummage through your things in hopes of actually finding something, anything.

Device encryption absolutely protects me and any other law-abiding citizen (and yes, even some less than 100% law abiding citizens). It reminds law enforcement that the entirety of the herd is not going to simply roll over because they say so.

I'm guessing you're all for allowing police officers to search you or your car if they ask nicely and legally - because... "innocent people should have nothing to hide."

I for one won't be bullied into relinquishing a single right or protection if I can avoid it and I certainly support corporations of the same mindset.

I don't fear the mass collection of data like is done by the NSA nearly as much as I fear the specific and deliberate collection of data from individuals.

Perhaps I attributed the mass outrage with metadata collection with your more specific concerns about the Oklahoma county court system. Regardless, you said that you've seen warrants issued on outright lies, and that would be a basis for a lawsuit.

And no, I don't permit any searches without a warrant or one of the normal exceptions. I wouldn't suggest that anyone does.

As advice, I'd suggest you not use the cloud or backup to your computer if your concerns are sincere, those are weak points in the security process.

BBatesokc
10-14-2014, 07:23 AM
Perhaps I attributed the mass outrage with metadata collection with your more specific concerns about the Oklahoma county court system. Regardless, you said that you've seen warrants issued on outright lies, and that would be a basis for a lawsuit.

And no, I don't permit any searches without a warrant or one of the normal exceptions. I wouldn't suggest that anyone does.

As advice, I'd suggest you not use the cloud or backup to your computer if your concerns are sincere, those are weak points in the security process.

Knowing the foundation of an arrest warrant is a lie and proving it - let alone showing actual malice and damages - are two totally different realities.

People are acquitted all the time because of lies and overreaching police and prosecutors. Every acquitted (non-incarcerated) defendant thinks they can sue - most likely based on your flawed logic that (paraphrasing) "lies/exaggerations equate to winnable lawsuits."

A simple line in a police report or request for warrant such as "we've received information that....." is often enough to get a lazy judge to sign off. No different than when judges sign off on plea deals that seem outrageous (because they assume there are facts not in evidence that justifies the actions of law enforcement).

People throw the word 'sue' around without a smidgen of understanding of the reality of lawsuits - they are expensive, they drag out for years and often when going up against a governmental agency there are so many obstacles and limitations in place as to be completely futile.