FBI Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'

raghu8912

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2016
290
141
San Jose
Meanwhile Facebook gets unlimited access to your phone... with an army of other apps collecting data.
People who sign up for FB & Google are agreeing to the Terms & Conditions, they are willingly providing personal data to get services for free, people doting want to share personal data can keep away from these services and stop buying Android phones, there are options.
If a phone is not encrypted then people down have an option to choose.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,176
14,213
“Our total worldwide surveillance program will be insignificantly hampered if encryption becomes the norm! We’ll have to rely on weakening encryption standards from our table at the Standards Bodies like we’ve already been doing for decades instead” - basically the argument.

This is all a farce, if the US wants your data they already have other ways to get it. This is complaining about a single traffic light on an already unrestricted superhighway.
 

Saturnine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2005
969
751
Manchester, UK
This again.

See, the thing is that there have always been limits to what law enforcement agencies can access. Whether it’s privacy law like client-attorney confidentiality or the American concept of habeus corpus, citizens have always had certain rights to due process.

The whole argument that law enforcement agencies should be able to access encrypted communications is flawed. Strong encryption algorithms are already out there. If you weaken the encryption used in consumer products then criminals will simply adopt or create products which provide strong encryption. Suddenly you have a system where only the privacy of law-abiding citizens is being infringed upon.

Ultimately, law enforcement agencies know that what they’re asking for is simply not feasible but it’s a political game. They all want to be able to apportion blame for their failings on their inability to intercept communications. It’s a useful get-out clause. At the same time they want to be seen to be making an effort to protecting their charges.

For now, US citizens should be glad that they do have the fourth and fifth amendments which provide, at least some, protection. The latter prevents citizens from having to incriminate themselves. In the UK we have no such protection and can be forced under threat of contempt of court to provide decryption mechanisms upon lawful request.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
The problem with the FORMER FBI director's POV, is it disregards the reality of totalitarian governments not complying, with same adding back doors in their routers and modified OS's, and other routes of invasion of privacy above any USA visibility.

Furthermore the advent of 5G will allow the existence of several sidecar internets with gated entrances and exits for whitelisted data from either white hat users or black hat users.

Anybody who thinks the solution to an open internet is surveillance, is mistaken and dillusional. We have a rudimentary internet now and folks still don't know who posts child porn, political interruptions, and stolen ID's. Imagine when it gets smarter, faster, and more deeply encrypted.

Apple refusing to be yet another source of leak is good for any group that likes privacy including revolutionaries against socialism and totalitatarianism, and a domestic over-bearing police state firmly accessing selective enforcement and extortion (plea bargains) and running folks out of money over lawyers. Just look at the recent US House investigations just started that are targeting 81 people not with access to white house counsel.

It might be time to stop talking welfare for foreigners, guaranteed income for folks who refuse to work, and provide free lawyers to anyone involved in a dispute raised by any layer of government, on the basis the government has relatively unlimited funds. It has been time for decades.
 

Someyoungguy

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2012
257
285
Yeah you can **** right off with that ******** Wray.

You either abide by this or not at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I’m not sure why I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here because I always tend to fall on the side of privacy, but the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. I can see the concern of law enforcement needing access to something held by an uncooperative witness or target. With a warrant they can already see your mail and listen to your phone conversations and audit your bank transactions. But, since I cannot think of a way into iThings that isn’t a back door or a secret key, which can be easily stolen and abused, I’m still for the supremacy of privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naraxus

kemal

macrumors 68000
Dec 21, 2001
1,543
1,630
Nebraska
Yes we can and will have encryption. We'll use open source methods and just make the keys longer (and longer) as the NSA gets faster computers for their pointless attempts.
 

Seoras

macrumors 6502
Oct 25, 2007
381
554
Scotsman in New Zealand
Pandora's box was opened a long time ago. Criminals can use open source encryption to avoid mainstream services. The question the FBI and others haven't answered is how is this any benefit to crime control when all it does is relocate the dark users to their own platforms?
Why therefore break it for the vast majority of law abiding citizens thus exposing us to not just bad actors in government but the criminals too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrumpyMom

Heineken

Suspended
Jan 27, 2018
1,167
2,141
I’m not sure why I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here because I always tend to fall on the side of privacy, but the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. I can see the concern of law enforcement needing access to something held by an uncooperative witness or target. With a warrant they can already see your mail and listen to your phone conversations and audit your bank transactions. But, since I cannot think of a way into iThings that isn’t a back door or a secret key, which can be easily stolen and abused, I’m still for the supremacy of privacy.
Encryption backdoor is an unreasonable search because they can do it whenever they want it. If there is a case get a search warrant. Simple. Do you want some dumb **** to collect your dick picks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naaaaak

78Bandit

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2009
656
1,159
Why yes, yes we can. The government has absolutely no business essentially telling me that any record I keep of conversations must be done in such a way that guarantees them access at some point in the future if they decide they need it. Its an old argument, but it is like requiring everyone to give the authorities the keys to your house or the combination to your safe just in case you may commit a crime in the future.

As a citizen in the United States I have an expectation that any level of privacy I'm willing to either develop or pay someone to develop for me should be available to keep my information from getting into the hands of whoever I don't want it to, even if that is the government. If the government has a valid warrant for the information then let them break it, it should never be my obligation to build them a back door into a system. I am Apple's customer for the instance of iOS on my iPhone, not the U.S. government.

Besides the principles, does anyone really think this would not be abused? Edward Snowden showed the government can't be trusted with private information. The temptation would simply be too great for agencies like the NSA to go ahead and use the weakened backdoor system to illegally decrypt data, ostensibly on foreign nationals, but inevitably sweeping up U.S. citizens too.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,340
7,853
Boston
Only governments can have encrypted information :rolleyes:

How did law enforcement work prior to the internet. The most successful way to communicate clandestinely is still using old school non-electronic secret communication methods and verbal communication in person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrumpyMom

eltoslightfoot

macrumors 6502a
Feb 25, 2011
650
792
I’m not sure why I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here because I always tend to fall on the side of privacy, but the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. I can see the concern of law enforcement needing access to something held by an uncooperative witness or target. With a warrant they can already see your mail and listen to your phone conversations and audit your bank transactions. But, since I cannot think of a way into iThings that isn’t a back door or a secret key, which can be easily stolen and abused, I’m still for the supremacy of privacy.
I would argue that your interpretation of 4th amendment is incorrect. A proper interpretation would be that I am allowed to have encryption because some searches would be by definition unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heineken

ggibson913

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2006
836
290
How on earth do any crimes get solved today without it? Sorry there is no such thing as a 'backdoor' that just the government can use. Someone will figure it out and exploit it.
 

wayneholbrook

macrumors regular
Mar 30, 2010
243
13
Miami Florida
Just waiting for the FBI to say they have the need and right to scan my brain to get my private internal thoughts. [Guess what I am thinking now. See? You didn't need to weaken encryption.]

The idea that privacy is dangerous is lunacy, and there are other ways of collecting information than cracking encryption or using backdoors. Weakening encryption just allows governments to collect information indiscriminately on an industrial scale. I use the word 'governments', plural, advisedly. Anything the US government can crack other governments can crack as well.

and there are other ways of collecting information than cracking encryption or using backdoors?

Really? What? Failed to mention one